| Author |
Message |
MightyZug |
|
Post subject: Mandate for a player controlled Rules Committee
 Posted: Jun 16, 2005 - 06:16 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 39
Status: Offline
|
|
Is there a mandate for a player controlled Blood Bowl Rules Committee?
separate from the NAF, thus allowing the NAF to continue to develop as the tournament organizing and player ranking body of Blood Bowl and remain neutral |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 16, 2005 - 07:17 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 2321
Location: United States of America
|
|
| Ummm...what makes you think Tom, Chet, etc aren't players? |
_________________
aka Rob (NAF #248)
President of the Lord Borak Fan Club
Founder of the GCLU
Commissioner, TO, Goblin King, NEBBN TSO
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 16, 2005 - 09:01 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
| TBH I don't think the NAF should touch that idea with a bargepole. Losing GW's good will wouldn't help and any law suit would end the organisation because the NAF doesn't have the resources to fight a case. Since GW are working on producing a new boxed set I don't think they'd look kindly on a competing BB rule set. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Emberbreeze |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 17, 2005 - 03:05 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 19, 2004
Posts: 323
Status: Offline
|
|
| I voted No 1 but I also think No 3 is perfectly valid. it is a GW game and Jervis makes the rules. Anyone can feel free to play any rule set they like but the offical rules must come from GW |
_________________
Hag Graef Dragons Tournament Record 22:9:14 NAF Record 18:7:11
Silvania Suckers Tournament Record 8:2:11 NAF Record 5:2:11
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Graf_Arnhelm |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 17, 2005 - 09:26 AM
|
|
Joined: May 13, 2004
Posts: 215
Status: Offline
|
|
I voted no3.
ATM, I'd rather NOT have any rules review and keep the LRB the way it is, even though we all know the Vault WILL become official, and the BBRC won't change anything about it. |
_________________
All well considered, Camelot's a silly place
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
absent |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 17, 2005 - 11:49 AM
|
|
Joined: Nov 08, 2004
Posts: 119
Status: Offline
|
|
graf, you voted completly backwards if you like the lrb, because jervis is the primary reason the lrb is gonna die, allong with the bbrc and the rules reveiw. :0
poll seems fairly biased and underexplained though |
_________________
absents tournament history
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Graf_Arnhelm |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 18, 2005 - 01:04 AM
|
|
Joined: May 13, 2004
Posts: 215
Status: Offline
|
|
That's precisely my point: BBRC or not, it won't change anything!
AND, the fact I like the LRB more doesn't mean I'm against the Vault (but I'll still try to convince the other guys around here to play LRB)!
AND it's still Jervis' game! |
_________________
All well considered, Camelot's a silly place
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 18, 2005 - 02:35 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
absent wrote: jervis is the primary reason the lrb is gonna die, allong with the bbrc and the rules reveiw.
 Jervis set up the BBRC and LRB in the first place. If it weren't for him then they would not exisit. How many people would be rightfully angry if the BBRC made their brand spanking new printed rule book that they paid for obselete 12 months later? That's why the review is being more restrictive in the future.
On top of which every tournament a go to one or more people (and these are small Australian tournaments too) bends my ear about how they don't like the rules changing. Its not even that they particularly dislike the change - the fact of change itself upsets people. I mean look at the morons who complain that the PBBL rules change when its still in development.  So even were there no new printed rulebook then the BBRC would be much slower in making changes too. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
VBZ |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 20, 2005 - 04:32 AM
|
|
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 97
Status: Offline
|
|
Doubleskulls wrote: absent wrote: jervis is the primary reason the lrb is gonna die, allong with the bbrc and the rules reveiw.
:
. I mean look at the morons who complain that the PBBL rules change when its still in development. .
Damn it! The wife was right! I am a moron!
After all only a moron could be so stupid as to assume that something which is still in the developmental stages could possibly be flawed.
When Vince MacMahon thought it would a good idea to combine quasi lap-dancing cheerleaders with sub-par athletes, with such creative names as "He Hates Me", into some bizarro world football/ wrassling hybrid -- yes, you guessed it, the there-is-god-afterall-and-he's-a-sportsfan-too defunct XFL- it was moronic of me to assume that it would suck ( which it did with great aplomb I might add) before it actully hit the screen, because,after all, it was still in development.
Or how about, for those of you who are old enought to remember, the sad fate of Cop Rock? WTF is Cop Rock you may ask? Cop Rock was an experimental police drama which made it's debut Wed ,Dec 26th, 1991. Experimental how? Easy-- IT WAS A MUSICAL SERIES!! That's right boys and girls the men in blue prancing around in uniform singing heart wrenching ditties about walking a beat in the big city. Ahhh, if only the network execs weren't so moronicly shortsighted as to pull the plug on that gem ON ITS NETWORK TV DEBUT we could have enjoyed gut wrenching comed---err that is drama for at least a few more episodes.
It's all this developmental crap--it's bloody confusing I tell ya. To think that there are people out there bold enough to express an opinion on something that just isn't done yet... ba$tards!!!
Anywho, I've gotta go. I have some steaks going on the BBQ and it's been smelling like smoke for the past minute or so-- but they still should taste just fine right?
P.S: I'm just dicking around Ian, don't blow a gasket. I saw some fallacious logic and it some how turned into this post. Don't worry, I'll make an arse* of myself somewhere online ( I promise) and you can get me back then 
* Hell, I think I just did!!!ROTFLMHO!!!
--Billy.[/i] |
_________________
Whaddya mean I got a @#$*ing potty mouth!!??
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mordredd |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 20, 2005 - 04:57 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
VBZ wrote: I have some steaks going on the BBQ and it's been smelling like smoke for the past minute or so-- but they still should taste just fine right?
There is also a dish that is for the most part raw beef mince held together by raw egg. Yummy.
Just a little FYI.  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 20, 2005 - 10:04 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 408
|
|
| The BBRC was only marginally effective. Letting you guys do something with it would be like running with scissors. Rules changes are bad. Leave it be. |
_________________
Snew
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Hoshi_Komi |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 20, 2005 - 10:17 AM
|
|
Joined: Nov 23, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 550
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
| who cares...play with whatever rules makes you happy....i don't need the BBRC, Jervis or who ever to tell me how to play MY Boardgame. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
VBZ |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 20, 2005 - 12:10 PM
|
|
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 97
Status: Offline
|
|
gken1 wrote: who cares...play with whatever rules makes you happy....i don't need the BBRC, Jervis or who ever to tell me how to play MY Boardgame.
Couldn't agree with you more Ken. |
_________________
Whaddya mean I got a @#$*ing potty mouth!!??
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
MightyZug |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 20, 2005 - 03:02 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 39
Status: Offline
|
|
gken1 wrote: i don't need the BBRC, Jervis or who ever to tell me how to play MY Boardgame.
That is exactly the point.
Wasn't the creation of the BBRC a response to a bit of revolution the last time around that Jervis really mucked with the rules?
Jervis felt that his baby wasn't finding the acceptance in the gaming community that he (and we) felt it should. His ill fated experiment with the one skill per turn nonsense was all an attempt to decrease the time it takes to play the games.
It's been said before and I'll say it again. The worst thing that ever happened to Blood Bowl was getting that huge CabalVision contract. Ever since then the game has been under constant pressure to fit into the CabalVision timeslots.
Seriously...
GW and Jervis have at times very different agendas regarding Blood Bowl. We've seen GW consistently marginalize the game because Blood Bowl almost acts as a predatory product toward the 40k and Fantasy lines. If I've got a couple of teams of Blood Bowl and enjoy playing a game with great rules, why on earth would I need to constantly need to throw more money at my 40k or Fantasy Army to play a game with inferior rules? I've never seen planned obsolescence work to the degree that it works in the GW ever changin' codex model. Blood Bowl is exempt from this and a much superior game in my mind. I'd also like to qualify all of that by the fact that I have thousands of points of Armies for other GW games.
Just like with Space Hulk, Blood Bowl has been recognized as being a product that restricts revenue relative to having the customer get into Fantasy or 40k. GW feels that it is the 800 pound gorilla, it doesn't feel that they are significantly threatened by any other miniatures game in most gaming communities. GW therefore makes decisions regarding product lines, and specialist games and Blood Bowl in particular, to maximize profitability.
Jervis' past mistakes with rules changes were attempts to make Blood Bowl more marketable not just to gamers, but to the GW business model. Jervis was making changes in hoping to save the game.
It doesn't need to be saved
I've been very lucky to play Blood Bowl in some of the bigger and better leagues in the United States. In every community that had a healthy and stable Blood Bowl league the game was the game of choice by a significant number of the gaming community.
However, a healthy Blood Bowl league isn't always going to be a asset to a gaming store. Most gaming store managers will tell you that a game like Blood Bowl actually costs them money to host, dependent on store space, relative to other games. Blood Bowl players don't buy oodles of boosters with frequent expansions, they don't play in draft events pumping money in the store, they just play what they already have week after week and month after month, taking up space and generating no revenue for the store.
The Blood Bowl community faces hard challenges in attempts to either grow our core group of players, or in just standardizing and facilitating tournaments.
We don't need the rules set to be poisoned in an attempt to improve the game to satisfy some arbitrary and capricious agenda, whatever it may be.
The league of Blood Bowl coaches, the core of players that love the game, should without question have influence on the the rules set that governs the game.
To me that proposition is moot.
The question is, how should that representation be structured:
NAF Rules representatives that are either electable/appointable to member constituencies.
A seperate organization of Blood Bowl coaches than the NAF, designed to truly represent the coaches and NOT just to maintain a list of tournament player rankings.
These are serious and compelling issues. This is a great game. We need a clear vision, with a significant mandate, to preserve and promote this great game.
Heck, I set the mark this weekend in the Golden Skull for TDs, but had the skills knocked out of my players by Gierch led Gobbo team. I was stomped on, outcoached, and outplayed in every aspect of the game and by gobbos nonetheless. If Blood Bowl 's not a well balanced and great game to play, nothing is.
A great game and one that needs to be protected from the well mannered tyrants.
The easiest way to ensure that is simple.
GW and Jervis obviously have the authority to alter the rules set to their game however they wish.
However, the NAF certainly has the means and right to require that all games played under an NAF tournament reflects an NAF approved living rulebook.
...or not, I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter.
[Mod - from the double post]
Babs wrote: But it's only my opinion. It's Jervis's opinion whose matters.
Jervis' opinion actually doesn't matter. That is the whole point. We are the body of Blood Bowl players. Without us the game, quite simply doesn't exist.
The official rules as published in the latest and greatest release not yet deemed unsupported or out of print have no relevance to the NAF or the tournament playing group of coaches. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Babs |
|
|
Post subject: Quoting in context
Posted: Jun 21, 2005 - 08:03 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Australia
Posts: 742
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
|
|
I am very impressed with the intelligent discussion going on here. Simply put, this topic would have dug it's hole a long time ago on other forums.
MightyZug wrote:
Quote: [Mod - from the double post]
Babs wrote:
But it's only my opinion. It's Jervis's opinion whose matters.
Mighty Zug - you quote me out of context a little. Jervis's opinion that matters about what? The quote is not actually from this thread at all.
I'm not spewing. It's OK. But be careful how you quote others, not to take them entirely out of context.
~~~
To add to the debate, I agree to a certain extent with what MightyZug and Ken say, however without an agreed ruleset and organisation to act as a point of reference, we lose any significance. We become fragmented and seperated. How do you defeat an army? By doing exactly that to it.
It is worth working with the authority (in this case Jervis and to a lesser extent GW) while we can. After all, GW releasing a new edition of the game in 2007 can potentially bring thousands of new players into the fold. This is a good thing. GW Australia are finally, after years of turning their backs on Blood Bowl, running an official Blood Bowl tournament. Positives are happening that make me think that it's not all bad.
Sure we might not like all the rules going into the new edition. Playtest and comment constructively. If you can't get heard through the channels, PM Galak or Doubleskulls. They'll listen, and now head up the vault.
I think that the alternative is not good at all. Each going our own way, some back to Vanilla 3rd Ed, others to vault, others to LRB all has some value. But a point of reference and a common ruleset is better. Houseruling can then begin? It is what the LRB was so good for. It was also a way to channel collective wisdom into constructive rules changes. Which resulted in us using our energies positively to make the game a better thing. I don't know too many people who claim the LRB is inferior to WD182's version of vanilla 3rd edition. That positive change can only work if we work as a team. That team can benefit from working with Jervis and GW. But we don't have to agree with everything he does. Welcome to any workplace, You work for a boss to further the business, but you don't agree with all the decisions that they make.
...comments? Not intended to be a complete rebuttal - as MightyZug has some good, intelligent thoughts that I completely agree with. |
_________________
=-) Babs
Washed up old has been.
Ex-official GW Blood Bowl Rules Committee member
Ex-NAF Tournament Organiser, Australasia
Co-Author of the Feudball first novel.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
