Team changes and the NAF discussion

[DinoTitanedition]

Well, I'm not spanish nor do I have a lot of contact to the spanish community, but I partly agree with viyullas here. At the moment the game is well nursed by the owner and producer. With the ranking system the NAF actively drives the games playing aspect into focus and into a competitive state, while at the same time implicating, that all other aspects of the hobby (converting, painting, narrative) is less important. Though this is probably not done on purpose, it's just not being noticed. But my general opinion on the NAF is known here, like me believing it's not the community, but actually seperates from the community.

Anyway, I think that's a different topic. To the roster change isn't a big deal. Yeah, I've spent some time converting and painting up a nice Underworld team, but in the end it's just two minis I have to add - a gutter runner and a linerat. Even for a slow player like me that's done quickly. And I could simply go on playing the former roster too. At least I've never met a player in person who I could not talk with and figure out how we like to play the game best - after all, the face to face matches beat any digital experience at any time regarding this game, as I believe the personal interaction adds a lot to BB.

[viyullas]

I'm half-worried, viyullas.

By that, I mean that there is a vocal and persistent sub-set of the Spanish community that is dissatisfied with the NAF, with how the NAF (if I may summarise what I read on the internet crudely) kowtows to every GW whim (as you see it), how our service is nothing but a ranking, how we don't represent you, etc. I am 'worried' enough to continually challenge these views and debate around this subject with you; here, as I have at length on the Spanish forum, anywhere you like*, because I believe quite passionately that it isn't true, and if you run through the news items on thenaf.net or the social media feeds, the ongoing engagement project (more on this soon - see recent minutes for details!) and everything else, I believe an even-handed reviewer would find that while we aren't perfect, we're certainly more than a rankings service.

However, there are limits to my worrying. I know that we cannot make everybody happy, because that's life. I also strongly suspect that there are some members and / or former members that have views so entrenched that even when we do exactly the thing(s) they loudly campaign for, citing them as examples of how the NAF is incompetent or not representing them, they will quickly forget or ignore the progress made and complain about something else. If we were to issue a statement that we're never including another new GW rule and we'll play CRP for evermore, I suspect those that say they want that will be happy for all of about five minutes, and the noise from the rest of the membership will split our eardrums.

So. I'm worried enough to debate how we do things with you, viyullas, because I think a fair bit of the criticism is unwarranted and it is worth an amount of my time attempting to convince you of that. But I'm not so worried so that I'll go on forever or that if you don't renew your membership I'll lose any sleep. I hope you do, but we'll never please every Blood Bowler. Again, if representation is your problem, use your democratic right to get some representation. There are a lot of Spanish members and only a handful of them seem to turn out to vote. Perhaps your lack of representation is on you?

*I say 'anywhere you like', knowing of course that a section of the membership would be disgusted with us for having this debate here, and not in a Facebook thread linked to spicy Reddit memes, Tik Tok videos and You Tube! There is another section of members I'm never going to please. I'm collecting them up.

I don't know what do you mean with "we're never including another new GW rule and we'll play CRP for evermore", I think you included GW where anybody did. What I asked for a lot of time ago (before BB2016 for sure) was not to be closed to modify some rules. But modify rules (or teams, or whatever) whith the head, with the community, with a path in mind... I am sure I didn't ask to include every single piece of shit GW thinks it is a good idea, as changing the teams roster to fit their sprues or sell a giant....
I agree with you, we should vote more. But I know I've made my part... the rest is not in my hands.
You should not be worry about me, as you say I am just a person, and if don't renew it is not a big loss for the NAF. Well... if this is just how the NAF thinks, I think I'm doing the right thing. And don't get me wrong, I think YOU are making a great job getting in touch with the non-english communities, but you are just one person, and you can do what they let you do.

[MacHurto]

I don't know what do you mean with "we're never including another new GW rule and we'll play CRP for evermore", I think you included GW where anybody did.

I think he was just making a hypothetical scenario. The claim is that, even if NAF did the above, players/members that are by now too disillusioned with how NAF does things, would not bury the hatchet.

[Purplegoo]

Quite so. Text communications are hard, especially via a language barrier. Sorry if some nuance wasn't super-clear.

DinoTitanedition - I think your comments around 'hobby aspects' are interesting. Rhetorically - is it chicken and egg? The NAF's USP could be defined as 'tools with which to play and track structured Blood Bowl for a global membership'. So - perhaps we naturally cover that stuff in more depth, meaning that content focused on those areas is reflected back at us (rather than 'hobby stuff', which I guess is everywhere else). I suspect this stuff is tangential to the current tangent the thread has taken (and thanks for trying to correct it; I'll step out after this post), but no less worthy of thinking about.

viyullas - If you want to (for instance) have a community-wide debate as to how to change the Orc roster (all the rosters!) for the better and then have the NAF adopt the results optionally or formally, the way we would do that is via the Annual Review process. GW changes obviously are high on the agenda, but theoretically, the process by which you get what you want exists. I think you'll have an uphill struggle to convince me that the NAF (via the community) should be forging it's own, independent path regarding rosters and rules (and I am not of a mind to push that policy or advocate that we lead such a process), but it is a democracy, ultimately. Democracies do mean that not everyone wins, which I suspect is really the crux of any forum discussion we have on this topic - not everyone can get what they want by definition. I wasn't so much saying 'you are but one member, so why should I care?' as 'I would like to retain your membership, but I can only do so much to achieve that, and I recognise this.' All I can do is point out that if enough people agree with you, it will be so. If they do not and we do not retain your membership because of that, that's sad, but life.

Anyway. I suspect we've gone too far off topic for too long. I'm sure another thread can be opened to discuss this NAF stuff, but I suggest you wait for the AR thread to open, which is a week away or so.

[fromherashes]

On the flipside if the NAF deviate from the GW game as it continues it’s support I’ll likely stop attending and running NAF tournaments. I don’t see why the tournament scene should actively look to alienate a current system and a potential new player base.

It’s GWs game, their IP. The NAF is not the rules maker, it should support and facilitate the tournament scene/community and any tournament based rules that foster a competitive element but ultimately core rules should be adhered to in my opinion. Supplementary deviations should not be the norm. Even the use of Brets, Khorne and Slann teeters on the edge of that remit (regardless of how much I like those teams), as does maintaining out of print/scope star players.

Ultimately I think the NAF do quite a good job of maintaining balance but acquiescing to the vocal minority shouldn’t even be close to the agenda. The majority are happy with the way things are going.

There’s far too much reticence to change in this community. It’s in great danger of stagnating in the current meta so supporting change is a great way to keep it fresh.

[Wagz]

It’s GWs game, their IP. The NAF is not the rules maker, it should support and facilitate the tournament scene/community and any tournament based rules that foster a competitive element but ultimately core rules should be adhered to in my opinion. Supplementary deviations should not be the norm. Even the use of Brets, Khorne and Slann teeters on the edge of that remit (regardless of how much I like those teams), as does maintaining out of print/scope star players.

Ultimately I think the NAF do quite a good job of maintaining balance but acquiescing to the vocal minority shouldn’t even be close to the agenda. The majority are happy with the way things are going.

I agree, broadly, I think. The NAF should seek to make GW's game run well in tournaments - someone who has bought the GW box should be able to turn up to a NAF event and play without surprises. That means that the fundamental rules should match, but also that any teams which are legal but not "GW official" should not be overpowered, among the strongest options available, or too weird. I think that description fits the current situation. For me, though, if GW change the rules then the NAF should move with them.

[ugrosh]

On the flipside if the NAF deviate from the GW game as it continues it’s support I’ll likely stop attending and running NAF tournaments. I don’t see why the tournament scene should actively look to alienate a current system and a potential new player base.

It’s GWs game, their IP. The NAF is not the rules maker, it should support and facilitate the tournament scene/community and any tournament based rules that foster a competitive element but ultimately core rules should be adhered to in my opinion. Supplementary deviations should not be the norm. Even the use of Brets, Khorne and Slann teeters on the edge of that remit (regardless of how much I like those teams), as does maintaining out of print/scope star players.

Ultimately I think the NAF do quite a good job of maintaining balance but acquiescing to the vocal minority shouldn’t even be close to the agenda. The majority are happy with the way things are going.

There’s far too much reticence to change in this community. It’s in great danger of stagnating in the current meta so supporting change is a great way to keep it fresh.

Are very vocals, i dont know exactly how minority are in spanish comunity, but nevertheless very, very vocal.
Ther´s something to aknowledge is that spanish comunity is not a lesser comunity, at least has one of the largest fan base. Inside that fan base i dont know how are the proportions, are years ago that i´ve read the forum where those vocals express ( they dont like me, and i dont like them). What says the vocal about NAF is adopting rules that nobody else take, uff, would be in her circle, but current rules are acepted widely. Not necesary is a good thing but state the contrary is being disconected from reality.

[fromherashes]

Are very vocals, i dont know exactly how minority are in spanish comunity, but nevertheless very, very vocal.
Ther´s something to aknowledge is that spanish comunity is not a lesser comunity, at least has one of the largest fan base. Inside that fan base i dont know how are the proportions, are years ago that i´ve read the forum where those vocals express ( they dont like me, and i dont like them). What says the vocal about NAF is adopting rules that nobody else take, uff, would be in her circle, but current rules are acepted widely. Not necesary is a good thing but state the contrary is being disconected from reality.

I'm not sure I get this but I'll try:

I think that while the tournament playing element of the Spanish community probably makes up a non-ignorable sized chunk of NAF tournament player numbers across the whole organisation the dissenting faction within that community is small in comparison and even smaller so when looked at in the context of the larger Blood Bowl playing community (inclusive of those that don't attend NAF tournaments - which is proportionally a much larger player pool than the NAF tournament player base).

We should be looking to encourage more new tournament attendees from the non tournament attending player base to grow/sustain and add variance to the game. Deviating greatly from the current published and maintained rule set by the manufacturer of the game only causes confusion and reduces the likelihood of inclusivity.

As with anything on the internet, the moaners and complainers tend to be more visible as people are more likely to complain than praise (especially in a largely anonymous arena, where they can hide behind screen names etc). They also tend to put off people from engaging with them because they shout everyone down with their resolute stance on things which ultimately ends up with those not agreeing with them not bothering to disagree. This is not limited to the Spanish BB Community, we have those sorts of people in the UK community and it's definitely present within the US community as well.

I'm not sure what you're meaning with the bit I've highlighted in red?

[MacHurto]

It’s GWs game, their IP. The NAF is not the rules maker, it should support and facilitate the tournament scene/community and any tournament based rules that foster a competitive element but ultimately core rules should be adhered to in my opinion. Supplementary deviations should not be the norm. Even the use of Brets, Khorne and Slann teeters on the edge of that remit (regardless of how much I like those teams), as does maintaining out of print/scope star players.

Agree, except regarding the extra teams being on the edge of not being ok. NAF should be/do what its members want to be/do. Those teams were voted and therefore they must be in. If NAF members voted a committee that publicly and loudly wanted to keep Blood Bowl at CRP forever, add simians and Stunty Leeg teams and post huge banners in every event telling Games Workshop to piss off, then that would be ok, too. Not something that would perhaps be very productive, but this is just a game, after all.

At the end of the day, everyone knows more or less what the current committee thinks/will do regarding GW or any other subject. They were voted again, even with that silly coingate. Every member can run for the presidency and people will vote what they think it is best. Or, likely, most will not vote because, I suspect, for the large majority a NAF that helps track performance, gives away dices for a small membership fee and helps create large, awesome events like the World Cup is enough. They don't really care about GW changing rosters following sprues or whatever. They just want to play their game and meet people that find a thrown goblin killing a tomb guardian something hilarious. We aren't that many in general terms, after all.

If BB2020 brings huge changes to the mechanics, it will be interesting to see whether that changes and the community wants to deviate from the new rules.

[fromherashes]

Agree, except regarding the extra teams being on the edge of not being ok. NAF should be/do what its members want to be/do. Those teams were voted and therefore they must be in. If NAF members voted a committee that publicly and loudly wanted to keep Blood Bowl at CRP forever, add simians and Stunty Leeg teams and post huge banners in every event telling Games Workshop to piss off, then that would be ok, too. Not something that would perhaps be very productive, but this is just a game, after all.

I don't agree with that. I think it's got to be taken with careful consideration. If GW were not supporting the game at present I'd agree, but they are and we want to keep confusion as a community for new players at a minimum surely.

I like the 3 teams that we're talking about here, don't get me wrong, I just think it's a tough one for maintenance of balance with a living rule system as it sets precedence of deviation. That's why I think it's on the edge.

The NAF is no more a democracy than anything else, we have to assume that the people at the helm are doing things with the best interests of the majority in place during their tenure. It's also a voluntary role with no strict criteria as to what qualifies someone to be in those positions making decisions at a granular level. It's largely a popularity contest with a limited reach of visibility. I'd like to say that I have no issue with the way the current group of NAF volunteers represent the community as a whole, but we may well have lucked out on that front, who knows, there's definitely been some issues (WC support/involvement etc. but that was a difficult situation to deal with and as stated before, most of the people volunteering aren't qualified project managers, accountants etc so you've got to piss with the male chicken you've got...).

[MacHurto]

Agree, except regarding the extra teams being on the edge of not being ok. NAF should be/do what its members want to be/do. Those teams were voted and therefore they must be in. If NAF members voted a committee that publicly and loudly wanted to keep Blood Bowl at CRP forever, add simians and Stunty Leeg teams and post huge banners in every event telling Games Workshop to piss off, then that would be ok, too. Not something that would perhaps be very productive, but this is just a game, after all.

I like the 3 teams that we're talking about here, don't get me wrong, I just think it's a tough one for maintenance of balance with a living rule system as it sets precedence of deviation. That's why I think it's on the edge.

I don't agree with that. I think it's got to be taken with careful consideration. If GW were not supporting the game at present I'd agree, but they are and we want to keep confusion as a community for new players at a minimum surely.

We agree on what is the best course of action. However, if most people want something else, then NAF should do that. I understand why you think they are on the edge of being ok. But that is your opinion of what NAF should or not do. NAF made a referendum on those teams and the members overwhelmingly (iirc) voted to include them. As such, it is not an edge case. It is a clear majority of members that want that change, GW willing or not. Thus, they must be included (imho)

The NAF is no more a democracy than anything else, we have to assume that the people at the helm are doing things with the best interests of the majority in place during their tenure. It's also a voluntary role with no strict criteria as to what qualifies someone to be in those positions making decisions at a granular level. It's largely a popularity contest with a limited reach of visibility. I'd like to say that I have no issue with the way the current group of NAF volunteers represent the community as a whole, but we may well have lucked out on that front, who knows, there's definitely been some issues (WC support/involvement etc. but that was a difficult situation to deal with and as stated before, most of the people volunteering aren't qualified project managers, accountants etc so you've got to piss with the male chicken you've got...).

I would say NAF is democratic, in a broad modern sense. There are, as far as I can tell, transparent elections, candidates clearly state what they intend to do and, if elected, they do so to the best of their abilities. No bad faith, manipulation of people's emotions or second agendas. If NAF members voted for someone that wanted to do the things I outlined above, then we could disagree with it, but they would be doing what they have been voted to do and, more importantly, what *we* (NAF members) want.

This is a game we all love but, if you come down to it, stakes of it going one way or another are not that high. My respect for people that dedicate their free time for the benefit of all of us and in order to keep the game and community alive (whether it is NAF, or whatever other initiative) is only second for my respect for educators in nurseries/kindergardens. How they manage to stay sane is beyond me.

[fromherashes]

We agree on what is the best course of action. However, if most people want something else, then NAF should do that. I understand why you think they are on the edge of being ok. But that is your opinion of what NAF should or not do. NAF made a referendum on those teams and the members overwhelmingly (iirc) voted to include them. As such, it is not an edge case. It is a clear majority of members that want that change, GW willing or not. Thus, they must be included (imho).

I would say NAF is democratic, in a broad modern sense. There are, as far as I can tell, transparent elections, candidates clearly state what they intend to do and, if elected, they do so to the best of their abilities. No bad faith, manipulation of people's emotions or second agendas. If NAF members voted for someone that wanted to do the things I outlined above, then we could disagree with it, but they would be doing what they have been voted to do and, more importantly, what *we* (NAF members) want.

This is a game we all love but, if you come down to it, stakes of it going one way or another are not that high. My respect for people that dedicate their free time for the benefit of all of us and in order to keep the game and community alive (whether it is NAF, or whatever other initiative) is only second for my respect for educators in nurseries/kindergardens. How they manage to stay sane is beyond me.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with the outcome of that vote, the point I'm making on that front is that deviations from or supplements to the manufacturers rules have to be carefully considered as to whether those decisions are opened up to public voting for long term impact to the future of the gaming community. I believe that was the case with Brets etc. I'm just saying that's on the edge of what isn't constructive and the margin for error has potential for a negative impact.

The criticism for elections is mostly around the limitations of forum use for it. The turnouts and results are not necessarily representative of the wider group.

I laud them for the time they put in as volunteers, I just think some people have unrealistic expectations of what the NAF can achieve due to the limitations and capacity of the volunteers themselves.

[ugrosh]

Are very vocals, i dont know exactly how minority are in spanish comunity, but nevertheless very, very vocal.
Ther´s something to aknowledge is that spanish comunity is not a lesser comunity, at least has one of the largest fan base. Inside that fan base i dont know how are the proportions, are years ago that i´ve read the forum where those vocals express ( they dont like me, and i dont like them). What says the vocal about NAF is adopting rules that nobody else take, uff, would be in her circle, but current rules are acepted widely. Not necesary is a good thing but state the contrary is being disconected from reality.

I'm not sure I get this but I'll try:

I think that while the tournament playing element of the Spanish community probably makes up a non-ignorable sized chunk of NAF tournament player numbers across the whole organisation the dissenting faction within that community is small in comparison and even smaller so when looked at in the context of the larger Blood Bowl playing community (inclusive of those that don't attend NAF tournaments - which is proportionally a much larger player pool than the NAF tournament player base).

We should be looking to encourage more new tournament attendees from the non tournament attending player base to grow/sustain and add variance to the game. Deviating greatly from the current published and maintained rule set by the manufacturer of the game only causes confusion and reduces the likelihood of inclusivity.

As with anything on the internet, the moaners and complainers tend to be more visible as people are more likely to complain than praise (especially in a largely anonymous arena, where they can hide behind screen names etc). They also tend to put off people from engaging with them because they shout everyone down with their resolute stance on things which ultimately ends up with those not agreeing with them not bothering to disagree. This is not limited to the Spanish BB Community, we have those sorts of people in the UK community and it's definitely present within the US community as well.

I'm not sure what you're meaning with the bit I've highlighted in red?

I undertand because you confused, is because i´ve changed the subject, that you out in red is what i think or believe they think. As i saiid theres years i not read the forum of spanish comunity because the vocals, that wanted all stay at CRP. Maybe is a minority, but man how vocals are.

[fromherashes]

I undertand because you confused, is because i´ve changed the subject, that you out in red is what i think or believe they think. As i saiid theres years i not read the forum of spanish comunity because the vocals, that wanted all stay at CRP. Maybe is a minority, but man how vocals are.

Thanks for explaining, I understand what you mean

[Steam Ball]

I undertand because you confused, is because i´ve changed the subject, that you out in red is what i think or believe they think. As i saiid theres years i not read the forum of spanish comunity because the vocals, that wanted all stay at CRP. Maybe is a minority, but man how vocals are.

Stay at CRP, or evolve from it based in testing? The "9 points to test for next LRB" list was commented, with mixed reception, mostly moderate stance rather than vocal. They even participate in new team ideas, last couple (Tzeentch and Slannesh) were active past month.

OTOH, what seems to get clear opposition is to change core things quickly without wide testing... or "because the frame is this way". The dagger thing wasn't a biggy, but it caused some "facepalms". It seems logical that they fear there could be a future change that trashes the rules as the GW priority is the miniatures, demostrated recently with these two teams and supported by rumors of company's policy (or multiple other examples in all the games they have sold over the years). That some of the miniatures weren't well thought for a game where they get flipped constantly even caused critics here at TFF too.

Of course, a small group goes nowhere is the majority goes, actively or pasively, with whatever gets officially printed. My take is they (and I) see themselves more like as players of a game than as consumers of plastic, with respect to BB.