Vote Khorne & Brets NAF?

You could make a pool here too just for fun.
I vote for both in.
I'd like to see the opinion of the veterans regarding this.

Given that BB2 does not use the current GW set Blood Bowl rules and rosters it seems strange that the NAF would consider it at all. They really should be sticking to the tabletop rules and rosters as tightly as they can, and only considering inclusions from environments that are running those same rules.

BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

Like Savage Orcs and Noble Humans? Ugh...

@VoodooMike said in Vote Khorne & Brets NAF?:

Given that BB2 does not use the current GW set Blood Bowl rules and rosters it seems strange that the NAF would consider it at all.

Sometimes when i read your comments i feel you are on your own little planet. I applause their referendum. I m not part of NAF but at the end of the day it is a niche game with at least 3 communities overlapping , Naf/tabletop, Fumble and Cyanide. Everyone has their preference but i beleive NAF is very smart in trying to be open to the new players who discovered the game via their pc/console. At least it is how i see it . They may all be distinctive way of playing BB ( same mechanics but different experience) but i think it is smart to try to consolidate the community with a pool of "standard" race accross the different platform. As for me , the more race we have the better . You can always implement restriction to have or not such or such race in your league/tournament but at least you ll have the choice. I am pro choice !!

@VoodooMike said in Vote Khorne & Brets NAF?:

Given that BB2 does not use the current GW set Blood Bowl rules and rosters it seems strange that the NAF would consider it at all. They really should be sticking to the tabletop rules and rosters as tightly as they can, and only considering inclusions from environments that are running those same rules.

+1.

The time when the NAF could have gone it's own way is gone - now GW is back in charge then it seems stupid to go in a different direction.

As for Dode's strawman argument on Savage Orcs or Noble Humans - you mean the races that even GW don't count as official nor expect to be used?

BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

Strawman? "Only considering inclusions from environments that are running those same rules" is what was said.

@dode74 said in Vote Khorne & Brets NAF?:

Like Savage Orcs and Noble Humans? Ugh...

No, like rosters that are in GW's printed material, not random crap found on the web app. It seems pretty clear that GW doesn't expect either of those rosters to be included in normal play.

They, like Bret and Khorne, should be considered totally unofficial and optional rosters that people can include or exclude from their tabletop tournaments. If the NAF adds bret and khorne to their sanctioned races they become mandatory inclusions for NAF-sanctioned tournaments. That's a big fajita full of donkey poop.

@dragonloup said in Vote Khorne & Brets NAF?:

Sometimes when i read your comments i feel you are on your own little planet.

I named it "Planet Awesome". Nobody with an IQ under 130 allowed.

@dragonloup said in Vote Khorne & Brets NAF?:

You can always implement restriction to have or not such or such race in your league/tournament but at least you ll have the choice. I am pro choice !!

Also because on my planet people actually have to read the crap they're commenting on. People can already include those rosters in their tournaments... what this referendum is on is whether to REQUIRE tournaments to include those rosters in order to be NAF-sanctioned. Thus, you're applauding the idea of removing choice from tournament organizers who are involved in the NAF.

@dragonloup said in Vote Khorne & Brets NAF?:

You can always implement restriction to have or not such or such race in your league/tournament but at least you ll have the choice. I am pro choice !!

To follow up what Mike said, this isn't what the vote is on (though to be fair, it seems those running the vote don't seem to know what it's on either!).

But you can't run a NAF event and "implement your own restrictions" - for example, you can't run a NAF event if you don't allow Slann, which means the GW official events can't be sanctioned (not that they've asked them to be). I couldn't say "no dwarfs" or "no wood elves" either.

So if this goes through I'll be forced (as a tournament organiser for 10 years), either immediately or in the foreseeable future, to allow Khorne/Bret or not have the event sanctioned (which is pretty much a death sentence for an event).

Hardly "pro choice".

last edited by Darkson

My question is what do you have against these two races? 45% success rate is hardly overpowered. Let people have fun. I m part of a TT league. I play open so not seriously but i have about 15+ team/race. Seeing brets and khorne accepted would mean i could play with them and enter their match sheet in the league client. Atm if i want to play them even in open there is no team progression possible as there is no track record in the system. Anyway everyone see their own interest. I love khorne and enjoy brets. They are fun to play with. More races more fun. I would like to knowthe process for you guys to decide, create and validate new races in bb? Is it going to stuck at 24 just because ? Or do you have a real plan for expanding the universe?

last edited by dragonloup

@Darkson said in Vote Khorne & Brets NAF?:

So if this goes through I'll be forced (as a tournament organiser for 10 years), either immediately or in the foreseeable future, to allow Khorne/Bret or not have the event sanctioned (which is pretty much a death sentence for an event).
Hardly "pro choice".

It is, just not for you. It gives more choices to coaches participating in your tournaments. And as I believe the whole event is about coaches, not organizers, I would say their experience is more important as well.

last edited by Mori-Mori

@dragonloup said in Vote Khorne & Brets NAF?:

I would like to knowthe process for you guys to decide, create and validate new races in bb? Is it going to stuck at 24 just because ? Or do you have a real plan for expanding the universe?

Which "guys"? GW are the ones that decide whether to expand the game beyond 24 races or not. The NAF have always followed GW lead, either directly or via the GW-mandated BBRC.

Now they're looking at adding two races that have minimal GW input, are not under consideration for "official" TT inclusion (from what the guy in charge has said), one of which doesn't even exist in it's "home" format.

However, my concern is why are we adding two "fan" rosters now, when GW are back in charge of the game and have long-term plans for the game. The NAF missed the boat here - if they wanted to add them they should have done it years ago (and the Bret roster has been around longer than BB2 in case you weren't aware).

last edited by Darkson

@Mori-Mori said in Vote Khorne & Brets NAF?:

It gives more choices to coaches participating in your tournaments.

It won't, because I won't be allowing them, meaning an established tournament goes to the wall.

@Darkson said in Vote Khorne & Brets NAF?:

@Mori-Mori said in Vote Khorne & Brets NAF?:

It gives more choices to coaches participating in your tournaments.

It won't, because I won't be allowing them, meaning an established tournament goes to the wall.

You seem like a wise enough person to not let down your fellow coaches over trivial matter like this, so I don't believe you 🙂 Even if you'll do, most of others won't. Somebody will step into your place, sooner or later, if there will be demand. Don't you think it's a bit too much drama, over a couple of races, which are not even OP or something?

last edited by Mori-Mori

@dragonloup said in Vote Khorne & Brets NAF?:

My question is what do you have against these two races? 45% success rate is hardly overpowered.

Who mentioned "overpowered"? I certainly didn't.

Khorne: Not representative of the Khorne fluff at all, a stupid team to include. If anything, this team is closer to a "savage orc" team than the poor version on the GW BB app, but is still a poor roster.

Bret: An unnecessary addition, when a Bret roster is perfectly covered by the human roster. It's also poorly made up, though it is better than the Khorne roster.

@Mori-Mori said in Vote Khorne & Brets NAF?:

You seem like a wise enough person to not let down your fellow coaches over trivial matter like this, so I don't believe you 🙂

I have to give up one of my few weekends off to run the event (not to mention the money I have to spend upfront, that I'll lose when I lose sanctioning if they make it immediate [my event was booked for March next year back in April/May]), along with all the stress beforehand, so no, I won't run an event I won't enjoy. And many years I have to play as well as "odd man out", so I won't want to play in an event like that either.

last edited by Darkson

@Darkson

As an organizeer what does really changes so dramatically if these two races are allowed ?

Chances are no player play them ==> All this noise for Nothing

But if some player enjoys them and play them : what is hurting You ? For A Successfull even isn't an event where player have fun and wants to go back the next year ?

I really do not understand your position, seems very dogmatic and i can't see a valid argument other than "I don't like that roster". Means you love all the other rosters ?

Pretty dogmatic, pointless and very hard to understand.

@JRCO said in Vote Khorne & Brets NAF?:

Chances are no player play them ==> All this noise for Nothing

Then you've obviously no idea on TT tournament players. The last time races were added (Pact, Underworld and Slann) there was a rush of players using them at events, even though they're not "top tier", then they fell back to normal levels (my event was the first after the decision, and we had 5 new races out of a 20-odd field).
The same will happen here.

"Chances are no player play them"=0

last edited by Darkson

OK but obviously you did dodge the other questions.

Even if some player play them, and have fun doing it, where is the problem for the organizer ?

last edited by JRCO

@JRCO said in Vote Khorne & Brets NAF?:

As an organizeer what does really changes so dramatically if these two races are allowed ?

The races were always allowed just as any roster an organizer wants to include is allowed... what this is about is whether those races should be required to be included in every NAF tournament. Until now it has been at the discretion of the organizer (commissioner) whether to use those races as they were not part of the official set of rosters. This vote is about changing that optional inclusion to being mandatory inclusion.

@JRCO said in Vote Khorne & Brets NAF?:

I really do not understand your position, seems very dogmatic and i can't see a valid argument other than "I don't like that roster". Means you love all the other rosters ?

It means he wants the option to exclude the unofficial rosters without having to break with the NAF to do so.

@JRCO said in Vote Khorne & Brets NAF?:

Even if some player play them, and have fun doing it, where is the problem for the organizer ?

..or hey, what if I don't want to play with interceptions.. should I be allowed to exclude them from the games I play in your tournament? One of the basic premises of game playing is that the players all agree to play by the same rules even if some of them would like extra rules, or fewer rules, etc. This vote is about changing NAF policy to limit the options of tournament organizers - people who already have the option to include these rosters if they want to, or other rosters that aren't official if they want to. It is the organizer's role to decide how a tournament is going to be played and to read his crowd and make decisions... this vote is about removing some of those decisions or forcing people to break with the NAF.

It's a very unwise move on their part to even entertain this idea, much less actually do it (the vote is not binding, so they can still wise up even if the vote is to include them). If, as the president of the NAF says their membership is divided, they should NOT implement the rule... it should require more than a simple majority to make such a contentious set of rosters mandatory at NAF events... at best, the rosters can be provided and declared to be tested enough that they won't break tournaments whose organizers feel like including them.

Darn - couldn't get my old account to transition, so here I am with a new one.
Mike said: what this is about is whether those races should be required to be included in every NAF tournament.

Actually not. One of the NAF guys has said that that might be the outcome if the result is spectacularly one-sided. In the NAF minutes, the vote was described as "The vote about including these races in the database". As Mike said, Khorne, Brets and any house rule roster can be allowed in a NAF sanctioned tournament. However, since they are not in the results database, then they can not earn NAF ranking points, and more importantly their opponents can not earn any NAF ranking points against them either. Including them into the database would not make them mandatory, it would just mean that their NAF-stats could be tracked.

Cheers
Martin

Hmm.. It does seem from the current vote description that we're voting on something else. Or not...

At the start of the description of the vote, it says that we're voting on whether they should be NAF sanctioned (...which all teams are, so that probably means eventually becoming mandatory..?).
But at the end of the descriptio it still says: You will be able to say whether you want Khorne, Brets, both, or neither added to the database.
Rather unclear that.

Cheers
Martin

last edited by Plasmoid

@Plasmoid said in Vote Khorne & Brets NAF?:

Actually not. One of the NAF guys has said that that might be the outcome if the result is spectacularly one-sided.

According to the page itself:

"The effect of this could be that eventually to be a NAF-sanctioned tournament these races would need to be allowed to be included, although as with the BB2016 rules a period of flexibility will be available, and they are likely to be optional for a good amount of time, but will be able to be added to the database."

@Plasmoid said in Vote Khorne & Brets NAF?:

But at the end of the descriptio it still says: You will be able to say whether you want Khorne, Brets, both, or neither added to the database.

Meaning that the vote they're having on the topic is not a simple "Yes" or "No" vote, it includes "No", "Yes to both", "Yes to Knorne but no to Bret" and "Yes to Bret but no to Khorne".

I'm fine with leaving organizers the option to include any roster they want... but not with mandatory inclusion of unofficial rosters. The BB2016 team is pretty clearly opposed to Khorne and Bret rosters if only on kislev-style fluff grounds given that they floated clear replacement rosters themselves in Savage Orcs (a frenzy-heavy team) and Noble Humans (humans with fend). Obviously I'd like to see those rosters revamped before anyone seriously uses them, but I think breaking with GW on teams is an ill-advised move for NAF.

Hi Mike and all,
reposting what I wrote on the NAF forum:

The title of the NAF discussion thread (created in June) is "New Races in the Database".
The title of the TFF discussion thread (also created in June) is "Proposal to vote on adding Khorne and Brets to NAF database".
The NAF Minutes from July says "The vote about including these races in the database"
So at that point no indication about this being about mandatory inclusion at all.
The recent description of the vote also ends with: "You will be able to say whether you want Khorne, Brets, both, or neither added to the database."

However, the recent description of the vote begins with "in the next few days we will open up a vote as to whether Khorne and Bretonnians should be added as NAF-sanctioned races.
The effect of this could be that eventually to be a NAF-sanctioned tournament these races would need to be allowed to be included, although as with the BB2016 rules a period of flexibility will be available, and they are likely to be optional for a good amount of time, but will be able to be added to the database."
...which kind of seems not to be the same thing as we had been discussing prior to the vote opening.
Did someone overstep when they wrote the description?

Cheers
Martin

@Plasmoid said in Vote Khorne & Brets NAF?:

Did someone overstep when they wrote the description?

Included in the NAF database is the same thing as required for NAF sanctioning. Officially sanctioned races (which, at the moment, are only the 24 from the BBRC) are the races tracked in the database - meaning games played by those teams can be recorded in the NAF databases and they contribute points toward each team's NAF rankings.

Per the NAF tournament sanctioning requirements, all the officially sanctioned races MUST be allowed into any tournament anyone runs that wants to be NAF sanctioned itself. You can include unofficial/unsanctioned races (it used to be the same thing, but this proposes to change that) in your tournaments, but neither coach gets NAF ranking points from such a game.

It's become obvious that the committee hadn't even agreed on what they were asking the membership to vote on, we've had two committee members posting thinking they thought the question meant two different things, and as you (Plasmoid) said, the muddy nature of the question could lead to people voting for an option they didn't actually mean - I'm a firm "no" if it's mandatory (a la Sann0638), more of a "undecided" if it was "in but optional" (a la Gaxio).

Then they say it's only advisory, so it doesn't matter, and then in the next sentence say it will steer them.

I realise it would be embarrassing, but they should cancel the current vote, get their heads together and come up with a definitive and clear proposal, then ask for the memberships feedback. But we know that won't happen.

Blood Bowl Moderator

Ok so please vote on the subject at hand and we're done.

Thanks all.

Locked.

last edited by gcoleman76

Looks like your connection to Focus Home Interactive - Official Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.