Annual Review 2018

[Purplegoo]

Dear members,

The time has come to begin the NAF Annual Review 2018!

What is it?

The Annual Review is the new method by which the NAF will set rules and guidelines for tournaments held over the next calendar year. It is our aim to reduce confusion, increase stability and make sure that our tournament rules and guidelines are fit for purpose in an exciting time for Blood Bowl.

Each year, the NAF will discuss all Games Workshop rules releases since the prior review (for this, our first review, this document will serve as the starting point). We will also bianually review the NAF tournament sanctioning procedure during this process. Then, on November 1, we will release the NAF tournament rules for the coming year for feedback, becoming mandatory on January 1. These rules will remain static for a calendar year, increasing stability and reducing confusion for tournament organizers and attendees.

Why are you doing this?

Throughout GW’s gradual release of Blood Bowl’s latest edition (BB2016), the NAF had been reacting and updating tournament rules shortly after each new Deathzone supplement was published. While this approach allowed tournament organizers to quickly incorporate new game elements, it did have its drawbacks. It can take some time for new rules to be translated into different languages, leaving some members unclear on the mechanics of the new rules they are expected to play with. Members that don’t follow GW’s release cycle can be confused as to which rules have been mandated. As a main objective of the NAF’s sanctioning procedure is help its members feel secure in the consistency of the rules they’ll encounter at any tournament they choose to attend, such issues are problematic. The speed with which we have attempted to deliver updates has also provided little time for the NAF to consider community reaction to new rules before choosing whether to include them. With this in mind and considering community feedback, we felt a change of approach was necessary.

What is going to happen?

A forum has been set-up to facilitate discussion between the global staff and the approval team. This year, we’ll debate examples from tournament rulespacks we’ve seen of late and how they impact the NAF sanctioning document, as well as exploring feedback on the ongoing GW rules releases. All global NCs and some RCs from bigger nations have been invited, so wherever you are in the NAF world, you can feedback via your staff member and have your say on the topics mentioned. The outputs of this discussion will be considered by the committee, and then the 2019 tournament documents released on Nov. 1.

The three documents you can expect to see published on Nov. 1 are the NAF tournament rules for the following year, an update to the NAF tournament team list and the NAF tournament sanctioning document, which is subject to biannual review.

FAQ

Q: If some rules arrive between Annual Reviews and I want to use them, can I?

A: While the NAF rules will remain static for a calendar year, GW will continue to release new rules and new material. The NAF has always allowed tournament organizers leeway to include house-ruled star players or custom / thematic rules, and any new material from GW will be handled similarly. If you would like to include a new star or inducement yet to make it to the NAF rules, please ask.

Q: Why not just incorporate rules as they arrive?

A: As noted above, there has been membership feeback that this approach added to, rather than reduced, confusion in the tournament community. Therefore, the Annual Review is a community idea we’ve adopted to try and reduce this confusion. We have undertaken similar processes before when reviewing the sanction document, it’s just not been as advertised this widely previously. With BB2016 so far, the NAF has only omitted one rule (Piling On) from NAF tournaments, and that followed community feedback that in the niche NAF tournament world, the CRP rule is superior. Like any other BB league or group, the NAF is a ‘commissioner’ of sorts, and has a view on what works for our very specific purposes. Everything else so far has been included in the mandatory NAF tournament rules.

Q: Can I expect much to change, should I be worried about a number of new NAF tournament conventions I will need to understand?

A: No, not really. While we’re examining the sanction document, we feel like we should take a holistic approach and debate a wide number of topics, but life is pretty good in Blood Bowl right now! If something is not broken, we are unlikely to go fixing it. Think of this as a review and an update, rather than a ground-up re-write.

[lunchmoney]

[Saebelsultan]

[Purplegoo]

Dear members,

The NAF Annual Review 2018 is now complete.

I’d like to thank everyone who showed interest in the process or was involved. You will find all 2019 NAF tournament documentation on this revised Tournament Documents page on thenaf.net, and tournaments will be expected to use these rules throughout 2019. If you have already had a tournament approved for 2019, we ask you to check these documents and update your rules pack accordingly. If you have any questions / concerns, please contact Purplegoo.

There now follows a summary list of changes from the previous version of the NAF rules and guidelines. There is also a FAQ section, but please feel free to ask any further questions below.

Many thanks,

Phil / Purplegoo.


2019 Changes / Updates:

– All inducements, including Star Players published in the Chaos Chosen, Dark Elf and Nurgle Spike! Journals have been considered appropriately balanced and are now included in the Tournament Team List

– Jeremiah Kool represents a new category of Star Player – a Golden Era Star. In future, where races have access to Star Players in rulespacks, Golden Era Stars can also be included optionally at the discretion of the Tournament Organiser (TO)

– There are now 23 races mandatory for inclusion at a NAF sanctioned tournament; those published by Games Worksop and listed in the Teams of Legend document on BloodBowl.com. Bretonnians, Daemons of Khorne and Slann are NAF Recommended races that we encourage all to also include

– The Star Player access of the three NAF Recommended races has been reviewed and increased in light of BB2016 releases

– TOs may now choose between the Competition Rules Pack (CRP) and BB2016 versions of the Piling On skill. TOs should note that PO is considered ‘optional’ in BB2016, and as such may now be excluded. In the event a rulespack does not explicitly state which version of the rule is to be used, the CRP wording is considered default

– House rule mechanics where re-rolls can be re-rolled, a roll can automatically pass or an opponent can be forced to re-roll a successful roll will no longer be sanctioned

– Tournaments where teams only play within discrete groups (e.g. Stunties only playing other Stunties) will no longer be sanctioned

– Invitational events may now be considered for sanction, providing they meet stringent criteria, at the discretion of the Tournament Director. Refer to the NAF Tournament Guidelines (also known as the Sanctioning Document) for more information

– An Appendix has been added to the NAF Tournament Guidelines document that details common tournament conventions, recommendations and tools / clarification advice

– The criteria for ‘completing the 24 / 26’ when claiming a NAF patch has been slightly tweaked going forward, refer to the to the NAF Tournament Guidelines for more detail. These changes are not retroactive; previous progress toward a patch is unaffected


FAQ

Q: I love CRP Piling On and I love my Slann! Can I still use these items?

A: Absolutely. The NAF rules have been changed to reflect the changing will of a portion of the membership, but we are not taking anything away. Many TOs have asked to use BB2016 Piling On, and in a very limited number of cases, a new to NAF BB2016-inspired group have asked to only include teams from the official rules. We would like to include all of these coaches / groups while allowing others to use CRP PO / Slann as they see fit. Bretonnians, Daemons of Khorne and Slann are NAF Recommended and we encourage all tournaments to use these races. The inclusion rate of Bretonnians and Daemons of Khorne has been higher than anyone could have anticipated (near universal) through 2018, and we hope / expect this to continue with both these races and Slann.

Q: Who reviewed the recent BB2016 additions and by what process have they been deemed balanced?

A: See the original Annual Review announcement for clarification. All of the items listed (and more!) we put to a panel of global NAF tournament staff and then debated and ratified by the NAF Committee. We feel this wide consultation has generated the best rules for 2019.

Q: Why make these changes to the sanctioning document and outlaw the house rules you mention?

A: These two items (re-rolling of re-rolls and tournaments where teams play in discrete groups) were considered large departures from core Blood Bowl rules and departures from the spirit of NAF tournaments, respectively. We believe that ‘no roll should be made three times’ and that the pool of possible opponents should be all of the 23 / 26 teams welcomed at a tournament.

Q: Why change a long standing NAF rule and allow invitational tournaments?

A: We have had a number of requests from NAF Tournament Series to hold a ‘finals’ weekend where the top 16 (for example) coaches from across the series meet to decide a winner. We have also had interest in qualification for a ‘National Championship’ tournament. We have decided to sanction these events if certain conditions are met (including an open to all side-event being scheduled in the same manner as the Eurobowl / Eur Open) and the Tournament Director is satisfied all is above board. See the NAF Tournament Guidelines for more detail, and contact Purplegoo if interested. This is a trial initiative, and we will be monitoring requests very closely indeed.

Q: If some rules arrive between Annual Reviews and I want to use them, can I?

A: While the NAF rules will remain static for a calendar year, GW will continue to release new rules and new material. The NAF has always allowed tournament organizers leeway to include house-ruled star players or custom / thematic rules, and any new material from GW will be handled similarly. If you would like to include a new star or inducement yet to make it to the NAF rules, please ask. This also applies to ‘optional’ rules (e.g. special pitch rules) published by GW. Any optional rules that were published prior to 1 Nov. 2018 can be considered pre-approved for use.

Q: Just to be super-clear, can I still use Slann and CRP Piling On?

A: 100 %, absolutely yes. We’re just allowing TOs more choice.

[lunchmoney]

I really wish I could update this forum software and add in simple like buttons.

[lunchmoney]

Q -
It's good to see the issue over variants awarding a NAF shield is put to bed with the inclusion of a couple of words in the relevant paragraph (I'm not giving mine up ). Is this live from now or 1st Jan '19? Asking for friend (my last tourney until I retire to parenthood for a while is a 7's in a couple of weeks).

[Purplegoo]

Good question.

So far as I know, it has always been NAF policy that variant tournaments not receive a NAF trophy, although this has been 'softly' communicated and not explicitly stated in the sanction doc. That has led to some understandable confusion, especially as variant tournaments have become more and more popular. So, this isn't new policy, it's current policy we've tidied up in our written documents.

We're conducting a variant review early in the new year, and part of this will be looking at variant tournament access to trophies. It may be that the criteria a tournament needs to meet are a little more stringent than 'Blood Bowl' (12 coaches and 4 games, for instance, is a lot simpler in Sevens!) simply because NAF trophies are a finite resource and these are valuable items to many members. It may be we go another way. Don't know yet!

Either way, we're keen to support variants, and I think in principle, everyone is open to rewarding the winners of variant tournaments.

[PeteW]

Great work Phil and team. Reassuring to know that the NAF is in the hands of the sane and sensible! Good luck with the crazies...

[20phoenix]

Q -
It's good to see the issue over variants awarding a NAF shield is put to bed with the inclusion of a couple of words in the relevant paragraph (I'm not giving mine up ). Is this live from now or 1st Jan '19? Asking for friend (my last tourney until I retire to parenthood for a while is a 7's in a couple of weeks).

What did I miss? I can't see anything

[howlinggriffon]

All extremely sensible options. Picture my two thumbs being up in a cheesy "the Fonz" pose.

I guess this means with the Slann being recommended rather than mandatory, there's possibility that the GW Warhammer World events could be NAF registered? Awesome if so.

[Purplegoo]

20pheonix - if you aren't kidding (you never know with a winky smiley!), the words 'Blood Bowl' have been inserted into the NAF trophy passage. Hopefully this makes it clear that currently, variants don't have trophy access.

howlinggriffon - glad you're giving us the double-thumb! Who knows what the future may bring? We've made these decisions because we believe they're right for the membership in 2019. Never say never on the GW stuff, but that wasn't at the forefront of our minds when doing this. All things are theoretically possible!

[20phoenix]

Thanks - was too subtle for me!

[dreamscreator]

I guess that probably is a copyright reason. But any chance that skills and stats of the new Star Players are included in the pdf?

[Purplegoo]

As per the previous version of the Team List, we won't be able to provide this information, I'm afraid. As you infer, there is stuff on sale we cannot / will not provide as part of our documentation.

[Heartsbane]

Great to see this released, thanks to the team who put this together.

Just one query : am I reading correctly that the old version of lewdgrip is mandatory for inclusion on the list of allowed stars, whereas the new lewdgrip from the chassis chosen spike presumably falls under the "any new stats may also be added if the TO desires" clause.