selfy_74
Joined: Sep 03, 2010
|
 Posted:
Jan 12, 2013 - 16:01 |
 
|
|
krysskroz
Joined: Dec 05, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2013 - 16:07 |
|
I guess that was my major beef. If they simply said 'We will accept it when GW accepts it" then that would have been clear and easy. Instead they added a whole bunch of stuff about balance and the process of designing the team, and made it sound like they could accept it without GW if these other things were fixed.
Since there is no BBRC anymore, what will be the process for adding new accepted teams, or will any be added ever, unless they reform? I know GW will only be interested in it if they can (rightfully) make some money off of new minis, so who does it fall to if they simply ignore BB? |
_________________
"Most of us regard good luck as our right, and bad luck as a betrayal of that right."
William Feather |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2013 - 16:10 |
|
@krysskroz, a few points.
Firstly you are confusing balance and a level playing field. The rosters aren't meant to be equal, but fall into a % area, and each roster has another roster that to some extent is a bogey roster. So everything has chinks, however some rosters are meant to be much stronger than others.
Also, (and I can understand this) they don't believe balance with this roster is a problem. It was designed very carefully not be over/underpowered, coming in at a conservative below average. AFAIK they don't believe it would upset the balance as such, you've misread their intent.
Obviously it hasn't had extensive playtesting (for NAFs liking) but I doubt there are any hidden surprises we can't see. NAFs concerns (and this bit was pretty wishy washy as you hinted) was that allowing this roster, may mean in future that an unbalanced Cyanide roster would have to be added as well (I think they'd have been better off without that bit, as it's nonsense) and there were a few rough edges that they didn't like, Star Players for example.
I think there is also a lot of reading between the lines to be done here. And also with their first statement on the Khorne roster. There were a couple of meandering paragraphs that weren't really needed (you only really need half the reasons they gave). So in short, here's the crux of it.
1. GW aren't adding it to CRP (this made the option to opt out very easy).
2. They aren't overly happy with where it came from, and what that could mean to future development.
3. They believe there are a few rough edges, and would prefer that rosters are designed in the conventional and proven way.
4. They have some problems with the design process. Which I highlighted in my previous post. |
|
|
spubbbba
Joined: Jul 31, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2013 - 16:30 |
|
| Kondor wrote: | The decision was the right one.
To me, the team design is fine, and it is not over powered. However, just because Cyanide starts puts a team in their version of the game should not make it automatically accepted by the rest of the community. |
I agree, who's to say how long Cyanide will show an interest in Bloodbowl.
Online gaming has a critical mass of players and should it fall below a certain level of they pull the plug then it won't last long. I'd hate for us to get stuck with an ill thought out team design. |
_________________
British or British based and looking to join a League?
Then check out theWhite Isle Fringe |
|
selfy_74
Joined: Sep 03, 2010
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2013 - 21:23 |
|
| krysskroz wrote: | | "We will accept it when GW accepts it" |
GW may not want anything to do with the Khorne roster now, but they did originally give Cyanide permission to go ahead with it in the first place. Furthermore they could have vetoed it at any point if they felt the roster was overpowered. They didn't. They gave the green light to the work that the design team did. |
_________________
Selfy_74: Verified Stunty Leeg Master
 |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2013 - 21:44 |
|
| selfy_74 wrote: | | krysskroz wrote: | | "We will accept it when GW accepts it" |
GW may not want anything to do with the Khorne roster now, but they did originally give Cyanide permission to go ahead with it in the first place. Furthermore they could have vetoed it at any point if they felt the roster was overpowered. They didn't. They gave the green light to the work that the design team did. |
Yes but when did they ever say they'd add it to CRP? At no point did they say that or give any inclination that would happen.
GW giving the 'green light' was something along the lines of 'Yes you can go ahead with the project, however with the following stipulations.'
It makes good money sense for this roster to be on the TT circuit (you wouldn't need to adapt warhammer figures much to make them BB figs) however it probably doesn't make sense to rewrite the rules pack, just to add the roster, which isn't the most popular roster or has followed the previous design template. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2013 - 21:59 |
|
The sequence of those events depends on who you listen to. One group say that GW said "no Slann, but do Khorne instead", another says that GW vetoed Slann and Cyanide suggested Khorne as an alternative. The fact that there are parts of both Pact and Slann in the CE database suggests that Cyanide were interested in doing those teams, but it's hardly conclusive. Either way, the two companies agreed that the new team would be Khorne. |
|
|
selfy_74
Joined: Sep 03, 2010
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2013 - 22:00 |
|
You're right, they never actually came out and said it. Then again, GW never said anything through out the whole process. There was talk of it, but that was before everyone started getting their knickers in a twist about the Bloodletter's stat line.
Personally, I feel that Cyanide picked the wrong roster in the first place and then made a pig's ear of the entire process. Hats off to the design team though, who made as good a job as could reasonably be expected, given the situation they were put in. |
_________________
Selfy_74: Verified Stunty Leeg Master
|
|
neoliminal
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2013 - 22:07 |
|
Not that this was authoritative, but Khorne breaks many of the common mistakes of creating a new race/player that I laid out years ago.
http://www.midgardbb.com/Tactics/BuildingNewPlayerGuide.html |
_________________
*
<BBRC>retired</BBRC><NAF>founder, 1st, 2nd Presidents</NAF><BB-Developers>retired</BB-Developers><Game-Developer>active</Game-Developer> |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2013 - 22:12 |
|
I seem to remember you were pretty supportive of the whole project, but I maybe wrong.
I think Khorne is an ok theme........but not as a 25th roster. Maybe if there were 50 or more, you could hide it in there, but as central billing, the project was doomed (from the outside of Cyanide sense).
I don't think GW would ever deny giving the project the ok, but adding it to CRP is another thing. It probably made sense for them to wait until it was done, then make a decision on it or........they never intended to add it at all. Who knows! |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2013 - 22:15 |
|
I wish people would take more note of section 3.5 |
|
|
neoliminal
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2013 - 22:16 |
|
I never thought Khorne was a good idea. Andy at GW was in love with idea, for reasons I didn't understand. The idea came up several times and was always put back for more urgent matters.
Yes, 3.5 is the most important part of that document.
I'm also not a big fan of 0-1 positions players... but that's just an old habit from early days. |
_________________
*
<BBRC>retired</BBRC><NAF>founder, 1st, 2nd Presidents</NAF><BB-Developers>retired</BB-Developers><Game-Developer>active</Game-Developer> |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2013 - 22:23 |
|
| neoliminal wrote: | I never thought Khorne was a good idea. Andy at GW was in love with idea, for reasons I didn't understand. The idea came up several times and was always put back for more urgent matters.
Yes, 3.5 is the most important part of that document. |
Sorry, I was replying to Selfy_74 |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2013 - 22:25 |
|
|
Roland
Joined: May 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2013 - 22:27 |
|
isn't it also -2 pts for negative traits? |
|
|
|
|
Chaos Draft League R...
Search
