New TD - AMA!

[rolo]

These ARE still Halflings we're talking about.

[deeferdan]

Just a couple of quick ones from me...

What are the plans for stars that plainly aren't going to be in future GW publications... Such as Zara or maybe Glart. In fact it is probably only Zara for sure.

Are they going to be phased out or similar?

I only ask for the sake of clarity (particularly for new players who may have never come across the rules for her before) and I recognise it isn't straight forward, as you could/will start taking teams under 6 available stars.

Anyway, is there any future planning on that front?

Additionally, is there a plan for making a call now on all the new stars that will be arriving soon? Such as a statement on their accepted involvement within a prescribed timescale between the release of publication and the tournament.

Thanks mate.

[Purplegoo]

Hi Dan,

To answer the second question first (at slightly greater length than I have on FB): People may have picked up on some of this in the committee minutes over the last few months, but we have a new strategy when it comes to the ongoing GW releases. The NAF will be considering and reviewing rules as they show up, and then each November 1st, we'll release a document containing the rules we'll be using for NAF tournaments during the following year. Then, it'll go live on Jan. 1, and all tournaments in those 12 months will be expected to follow that rules document. This (we hope) will lead to a greater level of clarity compared to our previous strategy and some soothing routine in a time of churn, rules-wise. New stars that appear will be treated in the same way as we treat house ruled star players currently submitted in tournament rulespacks; if you as a TO want to use them, just ask. They're pretty likely to be approved if they're in an official book and they're not crazy! Then, come the next review, they'll be formally included, NAF-wise. In the same vein; if something arrives on Jan. 2 and you're desperate to include it in your tournament even though it missed the annual review cut, ask, and it'll be subject to the same process other fluffy additions are now. Expect some more formal comms on this new, annual review strategy at some point soon-ish.

On the first point, there have been conversations, but at present, the feeling is that we don't want to take choice away from TOs and members while we only have a partial new ruleset. It might be that when we have a full new ruleset we still won't take the choice away (see also: Slann), but we're not close to forming a formalised opinion either way, yet. With the annual review thing going on, if we were to take stars that don't appear in BB2016 away, you'll know in plenty of time, but I can't see that happening in the short to medium term.

[deeferdan]

Thanks for the comprehensive answer Phil - I think a sensible approach in slightly confusing/uncertain times.

A couple of follow up questions - and I promise I'm not trying to be controversial but...

You mention not taking choice away from TO's regarding not removing some of the older star players. Does this mean that TO's will have the choice to not allow them and still be NAF approved? I realise that is a pretty niche issue and I certainly wouldn't plan to design tournament, then somewhat arbitrarily declare that I don't want to also Zara, but I'm just trying to understand how far the choice goes, is it a two way thing?
The same goes for Slaan/Khorne and Bretts along with riles such as Piling On. Is their enforced inclusion for NAF sanctioning set in stone for the long term or is it being reviewed anually?

thanks

D

[Purplegoo]

Don’t worry, I don’t think you’re being controversial! I’d be happy to answer even if you were. To a point.

Currently, if you as a TO are allowing a race to hire Stars, you must allow all of them or none. The handy tournament team list that dropped today should guide you as to what the whole list of CRP + present BB2016 entails (typos accepted. I know you've seen this, but trying to give a more general answer!). So that means no banning Zara for ‘Flings but allowing Karla, etc. I guess you were right to probe my use of the word ‘choice’, as this doesn’t cover a TO having the option to do pick whoever they like from that list and omit those they don't. Good catch.

We're keeping a constant eye on all of it, I assure you. I’m forever talking to TOs and discussing what they want and like, we're across the BB internet and I’m planning a sanction document review with the global staff at the back end of the year to get a rounded view of a few things (more to come on this in my blog nearer the time). To be clear, I don't foresee any changes to current NAF policy in the near future, but if we do make a change, the annual review will very likely be the time when it happens. I am super-keen for us to do our best to be as clear and as transparent as we can be during these confusing times, so if and when we have something to say on any of the topics you raised, we'll / I'll be super loud.

[J_Bone]

After a bit of reflection I think the best way to deal with the Karla / Zara issue might be to not limit the tournament but perhaps limit the prizes. That combo has proved to be a ridiculous buff to Halflings over other stunty races so perhaps TOs could rule that roster out of running for the Stunty Cup?

[Purplegoo]

TOs are certainly welcome to define prizes however they like. However, I’m not yet nearly as convinced as you that the Zara / Karla tandem pushes ‘Flings so far past the other Stunties. I’m yet to pick that up through results, and I certainly haven’t had an army of TOs beating my door down to complain that the Stunty Cup has been ruined. I’d recommend sucking it and seeing for a while before changing prizes.

[J_Bone]

No worries mate. I've just heard an awful lot of "I'm really good at Flings now!" from the south-west and put two and two together.

I'm pretty sure I made four.

[lunchmoney]

I've just heard an awful lot of "I'm really good at Flings now!" from the south-west and put two and two together.

Yes, we have been playing Halflings with the ladies. But I wouldn't say they are kicking it Queensberry style :lol they still get beat by other stunties. At SAWBBL, for eg, Goblins won, over my Halflings & Ladies team.

[J_Bone]

I've just heard an awful lot of "I'm really good at Flings now!" from the south-west and put two and two together.

Yes, we have been playing Halflings with the ladies. But I wouldn't say they are kicking it Queensberry style :lol they still get beat by other stunties. At SAWBBL, for eg, Goblins won, over my Halflings & Ladies team.

Git gud n008

[lunchmoney]

I knew I was doing something wrong

[Purplegoo]

Sort of on this theme, my April TD blog is now up as is my Monkeybowl report. Enjoy, if it's your sort of thing!

[Pipey]

Great report, Phil. Thanks for posting!

Monkeybowl will return next April. Watch this space...

[Purplegoo]

Hi gang! My May NAF TD blogs are up. Find NAF thoughts here and a tournament report from PalinkaBowl in Hungary here. Cheers!

[rolo]

Playing Purplegoo and appearing in the NAF TD Blog has to be the greatest honor of my Blood Bowl career. Well, one of the greatest honors. Definitely top 10. Percent.

I'd just gotten unambiguously destroyed by Itzla's Undead in game 5, and was consoling myself that I'd have a nice relaxing game 6 in the middle tables to end the tournament. Which ended up being Purplegoo's Dwarves. So much for that.

I'm sure there's all kinds of clever things I could have done differently, but I think this is where my tournament inexperience with Skaven showed. (I've played them in a league, this was my first tournament). On defense, I wanted to play aggressively, try to make my opponent panic, and hope for a break. Phil, irritatingly, refused to panic, kept the ball safe, and set about dismantling my team. Oh well. Fun game anyway, thanks!

Love the blog. Hope to see you and everyone else around!

Best,
-- Roland aka "Kevin"