Talk Fantasy Football

Heff wrote:What has the Committee done with this, pretty much guaranteed that whatever they do is going to piss off some set of people. You don't now allow them after "the people have spoken" and you will annoy them cos "The NAF does not listen". You do put them in and then another set of people will be annoyed because you are going beyond the GW Cannon.

I think there's a middle ground of adding support for the new races to the database without making them mandatory for NAF Sanctioning. Let them remain as optional for a couple of years and see what the response is. TOs can allow them if they want and everyone's matches will still be recorded.

Vanguard wrote:

Heff wrote:What has the Committee done with this, pretty much guaranteed that whatever they do is going to piss off some set of people. You don't now allow them after "the people have spoken" and you will annoy them cos "The NAF does not listen". You do put them in and then another set of people will be annoyed because you are going beyond the GW Cannon.

I think there's a middle ground of adding support for the new races to the database without making them mandatory for NAF Sanctioning. Let them remain as optional for a couple of years and see what the response is. TOs can allow them if they want and everyone's matches will still be recorded.

That would be the worst option for TOs who would then have all the responsibility and potential arguments to carry. Might even be reason for coaches not to attend who would have.

I'd prefere it if the NAF made a decision yes or no. Then move on.

What reason would i have not to include them if they were optional? It would all be on me (at my tournement). This is the reason i think its best to follow GWs lead. No one wants to make the decision anyway.

frogboy wrote:

Vanguard wrote:

Heff wrote:What has the Committee done with this, pretty much guaranteed that whatever they do is going to piss off some set of people. You don't now allow them after "the people have spoken" and you will annoy them cos "The NAF does not listen". You do put them in and then another set of people will be annoyed because you are going beyond the GW Cannon.

I think there's a middle ground of adding support for the new races to the database without making them mandatory for NAF Sanctioning. Let them remain as optional for a couple of years and see what the response is. TOs can allow them if they want and everyone's matches will still be recorded.

That would be the worst option for TOs who would then have all the responsibility and potential arguments to carry. Might even be reason for coaches not to attend who would have.

I'd prefere it if the NAF made a decision yes or no. Then move on.

What reason would i have not to include them if they were optional? It would all be on me (at my tournement). This is the reason i think its best to follow GWs lead. No one wants to make the decision anyway.

Also what if GW released their own Khorne Team, then there would be two

But the NAF would look silly now if they dont go a ahead with it, them "2 dozen" new members might want a refund

If its optional though that may as well just be in because why would anyone not allow them, other than personal taste or stubborness.

frogboy wrote:Also what if GW released their own Khorne Team, then there would be two

But the NAF would look silly now if they dont go a ahead with it, them "2 dozen" new members might want a refund

If its optional though that may as well just be in because why would anyone not allow them, other than personal taste or stubborness.

No, there would only be one. A couple of different teams (Khemri, Norse) look substantially different now than they did originally. A trickier issue is if BB2 eventually contains Khorne (as many suspect it will), but it's a different Khorne roster.

(I did float the idea of keeping both "Classic Goblins" and "Neo Goblins" in the database, but that was before the new positionals had been revealed and we thought they would be more interesting/substantial.)

frogboy wrote:

Vanguard wrote:

Heff wrote:What has the Committee done with this, pretty much guaranteed that whatever they do is going to piss off some set of people. You don't now allow them after "the people have spoken" and you will annoy them cos "The NAF does not listen". You do put them in and then another set of people will be annoyed because you are going beyond the GW Cannon.

I think there's a middle ground of adding support for the new races to the database without making them mandatory for NAF Sanctioning. Let them remain as optional for a couple of years and see what the response is. TOs can allow them if they want and everyone's matches will still be recorded.

That would be the worst option for TOs who would then have all the responsibility and potential arguments to carry. Might even be reason for coaches not to attend who would have.

I'd prefere it if the NAF made a decision yes or no. Then move on.

What reason would i have not to include them if they were optional? It would all be on me (at my tournement). This is the reason i think its best to follow GWs lead. No one wants to make the decision anyway.

I disagree that this would be the worst option. I think it is the most sensible option at this time. TO are like the league commissioners. There word is final. You already make decisions about which inducements, tiers etc etc to have in your tournament which will have an impact on if people attend them or not. This is just another factor. As a TO I would be quite happy to make that decision. And if coaches do not attend because of this then so be it. It could well be that more coaches may attend as they want to try out their Khorne team. If you got feedback that you lost x number of coaches then that is feedback which if shared in the community may make other TO's think.

frogboy wrote:

Vanguard wrote: I think there's a middle ground of adding support for the new races to the database without making them mandatory for NAF Sanctioning. Let them remain as optional for a couple of years and see what the response is. TOs can allow them if they want and everyone's matches will still be recorded.

That would be the worst option for TOs who would then have all the responsibility and potential arguments to carry. Might even be reason for coaches not to attend who would have.

I'd prefere it if the NAF made a decision yes or no. Then move on.

What reason would i have not to include them if they were optional? It would all be on me (at my tournement). This is the reason i think its best to follow GWs lead. No one wants to make the decision anyway.

Reasons for not including them:
- You're running a tournament at a GW venue
- The additional races are not used where you're based

I think not making them mandatory for sanctioning but allowing them at the TO's discretion is the way to go. I also think Slann should get the same status as Khorne and Bretts if those are included.

I, for one, would be extremely unhappy for Slann to be optional, and would strongly oppose any attempt to change their status. (Hands off my froggies.)

For the majority of that roster's existence, they've been exactly as official as Underworld and Pact. It's only the last year where the latter two have been elevated. That covers most of the rules or "official GW" based arguments. (Any that are based on "rules currently in print" will have to explain Brets and Khorne, and any that are "now in print or in a computer game" will have to explain why Fumbbl isn't as important as Blood Bowl 1 and 2).

From a fluff perspective, if you're going to argue that Slann don't belong in Blood Bowl, you're going to have to explain Khemri to me first. Slann have been around since the first edition of the game, so are approximately as "Blood Bowl" as Nurgle's Rotters.

Domfluff wrote:(Any that are based on "rules currently in print" will have to explain Brets and Khorne, and any that are "now in print or in a computer game" will have to explain why Fumbbl isn't as important as Blood Bowl 1 and 2)..

"Rules currently in print or in an officially licensed by GW computer game."

You'll run into issues with this then:



Especially some of the odd star players they had in the game.

I'm sure it's possible to define terms to suit, but you'll have to keep applying caveats.

spubbbba wrote:Well I guess the next question is should the variant human, orc, etc teams that GW have published also be allowed?

Yes please, they are fun to play with.

spubbbba wrote:Well I guess the next question is should the variant human, orc, etc teams that GW have published also be allowed?

Better question, are they not allowed currently? As far as I can tell, NAF sanctioning requires the inclusion of the 24 standard races. There's nothing specifically prohibiting a TO from adding more that I'm aware of. In fact, the sanctioning guidelines state:

NAF_Tournament_Approval_Document_2017 wrote:Although you may want to include unofficial races in your tournament rules, coaches who pick one of these races will not gain any NAF points as the NAF rankings only include the 24 races listed above.

Which seems to confirm that Tournaments with unofficial races can still be NAF sanctioned, although at the discretion of the Tournament Director as always. Not sure if there's tournaments that have used (or asked to use) rosters outside of the 24+2 that would give an indication of current attitudes.

The two (or three) real questions that have to be answered are:

1. Should Khorne and Brettonians be mandatory for NAF Sanctioning?
2. Should Khorne and Brettonian matches be recorded for NAF ranking?
3. Should Khorne and Brettonian matches be included in NAF Ranking calculations?

Those questions can then be applied to any other unofficial roster you care to name. I'd argue that any NAF event should guarantee the recording of your match result, regardless of races involved or your opponents membership (which is a different argument for a different time). Whether they should be included in the ranking calculations is less cut and dried for me, but I can't see these two races skewing the standings in any way.
As for other races, I'd say its a simple cost to benefit argument. Are there enough TOs and coaches wanting to include a specific roster for it to justify the use of NAF funds to support?

Without knowing the specifics of the NAF database, in theory it should be feasible to record all matches. Rankings can be calculated using some or all of the matches as preferred, or even give the option to the user. I'd have agreed with Gaixo in separating CRP and BB2016 rosters where they differ for recording purposes. They can be combined for rankings use if desired but also tracked separately when required.

Why are we going backwards with Slann?

Get the data base changed to include a "spare player/new team" slot. So people can still get ranked games in against X.

The NAF can then sit down a write a document on how to get a new team approved.

Also covers us against any new wacky teams GW come out with.

Then TOs are free to run INDY tournements or FUMBBL Secrte League NAF ranked tournements.

It might drive interest up in the game too. Discussions on new teams, they could be trailed at tournements all over.

Or have two leagues on the data base with different sanctioning rules:
The premieship (the 24 teams)
And devision 1 (the 24 plus anything else)

Why are we going backwards with Slann?

Taking a small step back with Slann would allow the NAF to also sanction GW events. For the current scene I don't think it will make a difference if Slann are required or optional.

mepmuff wrote:

Why are we going backwards with Slann?

Taking a small step back with Slann would allow the NAF to also sanction GW events. For the current scene I don't think it will make a difference if Slann are required or optional.

Oh ok that makes sence.

Slann will not be affected, just to nip this one in the bud, nor are there plans to add any more teams.

I see your logic mepmuff, but people like Slann a lot, and the NAF committee have always been very clear that they would not be affected.