Talk Fantasy Football

We are looking for adhesions from all the NAF members that share the view about the points below listed. This is an initiative as NAF members to make the NAF change the policy is following lately. We encourage both individual players as tournament organizers that want to adhere, to do it by listing their nick, NAF number and the tournaments organized.

In the light of the recent events and specially in NAF’s response to Games Workshops different releases, the undersigning members, as coaches and tournament organizers, want to state the following points:

1) The rulebooks changes should have planned duration.The rules affecting tournaments can’t vary on a four month basis, or depending on an unclear release planning.

2) The NAF should offer tournament organizers the option to choose between different sets of rules, not forbidding the use of a particular set of rules in favor to other. In addition to this, the two months notice should not apply if the tournament was already NAF sanctioned.

3) The NAF should offer an alternative and stable tournament version of the rules to be applied in its tournaments. This tournament rules should be translated to the main NAF members languages, since the rules releases are not translated anymore.

4) The undersigning members do not comprehend the relationship between the NAF and rule testers and wish to know the level of synergy, if any, during the process of rule testing.

5) The changes to the rules to be applied in NAF tournaments should be decided in a more transparent and democratic way. For instance, by using the NAF TO to pulse the NAF community in each country.

Thank you very much

PLAYERS

- Thibault (8601)



ORGANIZERS

- Thibault (8601): Bilbali Cup (2008-2015). Bilbali Teams Cup (2016-2017)

Thanks Thibault. This has been posted to the NAF forum, and it would be good to keep the majority of the posts there if possible: https://member.thenaf.net/zikula/index. ... 117#100117

Always happy to hear feedback - engagement is good!

sann0638 wrote:Thanks Thibault. This has been posted to the NAF forum, and it would be good to keep the majority of the posts there if possible: https://member.thenaf.net/zikula/index. ... 117#100117

Always happy to hear feedback - engagement is good!

I wan't to say that even if I think is proper to keep the related NAF discussion in NAF forum, there are some issues with that: There are other themes being discussed openly here. i.e. Brets and Khorne teams and, the NAF forum is under used by some Blood Bowl communities as the Spanish one.

To be fair, Mike tried to steer the "extra races" thread there as well.

Canada is probably the only nation that maintains a presence on the NAF forum. The lack of traffic isn't really news at this point. But if you want to deliver this sort of petition to the NAF, it's probably the best place to do it.

I think that is better for this kind of initiatives to have the greatest difussion possible. I understand that the main discussion should be in the NAF forum, but in order to reach as many players as we can, I will post this same topic in different forums. First adhesions have reached in the spanish forum and in the near future I hope I can post it in the german, french and italian forums in their on languages. Unfortunately, the NAF forum doesn´t reach as many players as it should and I think presenting ideas to the people in their own language is important (for example, I have been quite reluctant to writing in this very forum or in the NAF forum, as I don`t feel confortable doing it in english, and at the same time, I`ve been really active for many years in the spanish forum)

NAF has a forum?

Thibault wrote:I think that is better for this kind of initiatives to have the greatest difussion possible. I understand that the main discussion should be in the NAF forum, but in order to reach as many players as we can, I will post this same topic in different forums. First adhesions have reached in the spanish forum and in the near future I hope I can post it in the german, french and italian forums in their on languages. Unfortunately, the NAF forum doesn´t reach as many players as it should and I think presenting ideas to the people in their own language is important (for example, I have been quite reluctant to writing in this very forum or in the NAF forum, as I don`t feel confortable doing it in english, and at the same time, I`ve been really active for many years in the spanish forum)

I wasn't suggesting that you only post in the NAF forum and then call it finished. You could have just posted a link here, on the BBforo, and in those other regional forums.

As things stand, we have people "signing" in the Spanish forum without encountering the opinions expressed here or on the NAF site. Similarly, no one outside of the Spanish forum is hearing their arguments.

There's no rule against posting to the NAF forum in Spanish, you know. Google Translate would guide us through it.

I partially agree with point 4.

I disagree with points 1 to 3.

I very strongly disagree with point 5.

Easy to sort. There is no relationship between the NAF as an organisation and the GW rules makers.

sann0638 wrote:Easy to sort. There is relationship between the NAF as an organisation and the GW rules makers.

I think you missed the word "no" before relationship... otherwise it is contradictory to you statement on the NAF site.

Yep. Ta.

Thibault wrote:1) The rulebooks changes should have planned duration.The rules affecting tournaments can’t vary on a four month basis, or depending on an unclear release planning.

The rulebooks are published on GW's timescale and I'm fairly sure they will not share that schedule with the NAF or anyone outside of GW. That makes it very difficult for the NAF to set
fixed durations. What's worse, the rules changed at short notice (about two months under current guidelines) or new rules being forbidden until the previous fixed duration ends?

Thibault wrote:2) The NAF should offer tournament organizers the option to choose between different sets of rules, not forbidding the use of a particular set of rules in favor to other. In addition to this, the two months notice should not apply if the tournament was already NAF sanctioned.

3) The NAF should offer an alternative and stable tournament version of the rules to be applied in its tournaments. This tournament rules should be translated to the main NAF members languages, since the rules releases are not translated anymore.

Can you clarify these two please, they read as contradictory to me? Point 2 asks for the NAF to allow TOs greater flexibility in the rules while point 3 asks the NAF to define a stable ruleset. You can't have both, unless I'm missing a detail here.

Rumour has it the none other than the NAF Prez is in attendance at Foul Bowl this weekend. So if you buy a ticket you could have a chance to talk to him in person, just saying, these discussions are quite often better over a nice game of Blood Bowl

Vanguard wrote:

Thibault wrote:1) The rulebooks changes should have planned duration.The rules affecting tournaments can’t vary on a four month basis, or depending on an unclear release planning.

The rulebooks are published on GW's timescale and I'm fairly sure they will not share that schedule with the NAF or anyone outside of GW. That makes it very difficult for the NAF to set
fixed durations. What's worse, the rules changed at short notice (about two months under current guidelines) or new rules being forbidden until the previous fixed duration ends?

GW releasing schedule isn't really a problem. NAF could, for example, update the rules to be applied in their tournaments every January by taking all the published material in that year, making a proposal and after consulting the NAF members, deciding which rules to include.

Vanguard wrote:

Thibault wrote:2) The NAF should offer tournament organizers the option to choose between different sets of rules, not forbidding the use of a particular set of rules in favor to other. In addition to this, the two months notice should not apply if the tournament was already NAF sanctioned.

3) The NAF should offer an alternative and stable tournament version of the rules to be applied in its tournaments. This tournament rules should be translated to the main NAF members languages, since the rules releases are not translated anymore.

Can you clarify these two please, they read as contradictory to me? Point 2 asks for the NAF to allow TOs greater flexibility in the rules while point 3 asks the NAF to define a stable ruleset. You can't have both, unless I'm missing a detail here.

I think that the idea behind this is: give flexibility and serve as reference.

Point 2 talks about giving flexibility for TO to organize their tourneys instead of forcing them to apply a particular set. IE. CRP (last Spanish translated manual BTW), CRP + DZ1 Star Players, etc.

Point 3 states that the NAF should maintain a stable version of the rules as base for NAF sanctioned tournaments. This standard ruleset could be an option among others, but should serve as reference. (This rules could be the ones updated annually.)