Annual Review 2019

[Purplegoo]

Dear members,

The time has come to begin the NAF Annual Review 2019!

What is it?

The Annual Review is the method by which the NAF sets rules and guidelines for tournaments held over the next calendar year. It is our aim via this process 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. We will also bianually review the NAF tournament sanctioning procedure. Then, on November 1, we will release the NAF tournament rules and other tournament documents 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. This is our second year of conducting the Annual Review, and as such, we will not be directly reviewing the tournament sanctioning procedure.

Why are you doing this?

Prior to the first Annual Review, 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 addition 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 attempted to deliver updates 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. We felt that the first Annual Review (2018) was successful both in collecting opinion from across the membership and in setting a stable set of rules and guidelines for 2019, so we will continue with the process this year.

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 simply explore feedback on the ongoing GW rules releases and discuss any other business. 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 2020 tournament documents released on Nov. 1.

The documents you can expect to see published on Nov. 1 are updates (if appropriate) to those found on the NAF Tournament Documents page.

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, that's probably fine, but 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. 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 released for BB2016 so far has been included in the mandatory NAF tournament rules via this process with the exception of BB2016 Piling On and Special Play Cards, which are now optional according to tournament organiser discretion.

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. We're not reviewing the sanctioning procedure this year, so change is likely to be minimal. Think of this as a review and an update in light of rules that have arrived in 2018, rather than a ground-up re-write.

[Purplegoo]

Dear members,

The NAF Annual Review 2019 is now complete.

I’d like to thank everyone who was involved or showed interest in the process this year. You will find all 2020 NAF tournament documentation on the revised Tournament Documents page, and tournaments will be expected to use these rules throughout 2020. If you have already had a tournament approved for the remainder of 2019, we ask you to check these documents and update your rules pack accordingly, but this is not mandatory. If you have any questions / concerns, please contact Purplegoo.

Whilst we have updated and streamlined our presentation somewhat since last year, we have made relatively few material changes, and they are summarised below. There is also a FAQ section, but please feel free to ask any further questions.

In approximately two weeks from this post, I will be deleting all previous rules documentation from theNAF.net. Tournament Organisers (TOs), please update links in your rulespacks accordingly. I am taking this measure because we commonly see tournament submissions referencing (e.g.) 2017 NAF documents as TOs copy and paste rulespacks from year to year, and this could be confusing for attending members as things change over time.

Many thanks,

Phil / Purplegoo.


2020 Changes / Updates:

– All new positionals, star players and inducements published in the Shambling Undead, Halfling and Wood Elf Spike! Journals have been considered appropriately balanced and are now available at NAF tournaments. The new Halfling positionals are mandatory, and the star players and inducements are available at TO discretion, as per usual.

– The new material contained in the Lizardman Spike! Journal arrived too late to be considered in this process and has not been included this time.

– Star players from the previous Blood Bowl edition (Competition Rules Pack / CRP) that have not appeared in BB2016 to date have been retired and are no longer mandatory where star players are allowed. We have provided a list of these legacy stars in our 2020 rules document, and if TOs wish to house rule any or all of them into rulespacks, this will be pre-approved for sanction.

- The star player Bo Gallante can now play for Bretonnians, and Zolcath the Zoat can now play for Slann.

– Please refer to the free, Head Coach’s Handbook roster and star player download from Games Workshop (Oct. 2019) for NAF legal tournament rosters and star player access (exception: Chameleon Skinks are not mandatory, as noted above). This document now replaces the previously hosted NAF Team List.

– The Apothecary is now considered a core game mechanic and is specifically mentioned in the NAF Tournament Approval document as something that should not be house ruled.



FAQ

Q: Ack! Humerus Carpal is my favourite star! Why have you removed him?

A: The CRP stars that have not yet appeared in BB2016 (presumed never to appear) have been written out of the game for three years, at this point. Many have been directly replaced, which left odd situations where effectively the same star could be hired twice (e.g. Zara and Karla) at NAF tournaments. Some groups have stated a wish to only include ‘canon’ stars from BB2016, which was not previously allowed. Having considered all of the options, we decided that the best and least confusing route forward was to remove the retired CRP stars. However, as noted above, if you wish to house rule these players into your tournaments, so long as you state it explicitly in your rulespacks, this is pre-approved as sanctioned. We have always welcomed balanced and non-transformative house ruled star players at our tournaments, and this group clearly fit that bill.

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

A: See the original 2019 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 2020.

Q: Why make the Apo change to the Tournament Approval document and outlaw changing this mechanic?

A: There are a couple of regions that commonly change the Apothecary mechanic such that it is automatically successful or requires a 2+ to be successful (in the event of an SI / death). It has become standard practice, to the point where some rulespacks are not mentioning these house rules, and this causes confusion for attendees. During consultation, it was the strong view of the group that the Apo mechanic is a core rule, and as such should be treated in the same way as other core rules in our sanctioning document. If you feel strongly about changing this rule at your tournament, please refer to this passage in the sanctioning document: …The Tournament Director can allow leeway on some of these items if there is a clear thematic reason for it and game balance is preserved. Any such allowances will be at the TD’s discretion and should be discussed and approved prior to any announcement.

Q: Just to check: I can include Glart Smashrip Jr. if I explicitly mention it in my rulespack?

A: Yes.

Q: Why not include Lizardmen?

A: They were simply too late to make the cut this year. No judgement has been made either way on any of the items in the Lizardman Spike!

Q: So, can I use Chameleon Skinks or the other new Lizard material? What about new stuff that arrives, for instance the upcoming Ogres?

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 positional, 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. 2019 can be considered pre-approved for use. So, yes, you can, just make sure you make it clear for attendees.

Q: …and Lottabottl? Can I have him too? Lizards and Slann get the rough end of this timing, afterall.

A: Yes. And Hemlock, and everyone else on the CRP legacy stars list, if you wish.

[Meradanis]

I don't get how 20 days are not enough time to review the new lizardmen content. Now you've created a situation where Slann and Lizardmen have only 2(!) Starplayers for every NAF tournament following the vanilla rules.

I expected better from the NAF. To be honest, I have the feeling this was a choice of convenience. By dropping the lizardmen stuff, you could just link the errata document instead of compiling your own roster and starplayer document.

[Purplegoo]

Hello - I think we're having this conversation in two places now.

Thanks for the feedback. In this case, the Lizards were simply too late for the AR to properly look at them. If TOs feel strongly about it, they can house-rule in now retired CRP stars or include the new ones from the Spike! for Lizards and Slann with our blessing.

I know this isn't the answer you want, but thanks anyway!

[Meradanis]

And if the TO does not care, I won't be able to use the Anki and Dribl&Druul models I converted for any NAF touney until 2021.

And let us be honest here, 95% will use the default rules. The hobbyist in me is sad.

Edit: just curious, how long does a proper look take? When is the deadline for new starplayers and positionals to be considered? It just feels wrong that lizards and slann won't have those starplayers available until 15 months after the release of the spike.

[Purplegoo]

I am sorry to have disappointed you; this is one of those situations where you aren't going to please all of the people, all of the time. The best we can do is lay out our process, try to make the best decisions and then communicate them as best we can.

We have a cut-off when we discuss with the wider staff group so that recommendations can go to the committee, and then final decisions are made and passed to the .pdf team. The final docs and the posts / information that go out around them need producing, proof reading and checking, before everything goes live. Every member of that chain is a volunteer, and turning stuff around takes longer than it would in a professional environment, although we try and make everything as professional as we can. The Lizard Spike! just didn't make the cut. If it had, I'm sure we would just have been butting up against Ogres.

I read more rulesets than anyone (at least I hope I do - otherwise someone has too much time on their hands!), and actually, the majority of TOs include new material as it becomes available from GW with only a little delay. This is actually a good thing, because it builds confidence that the new stuff can be made mandatory without an issue being caused. I suspect you'll be able to field your stars at most tournaments in 2020. I could make up an approximate percentage, but I guess that would be guessing.

[Meradanis]

Ok thanks for detailing the process to me. Sorry for my harsh initial reaction, keep up the good work.

Just a minor thing: In the old NAF star player list, it has been mentioned that the Swift Twins count as both star player slots. Maybe that should be mentioned somewhere, since the GW star player list does not contain this detail. Otherwise someone might argue that the Swift Twins are egilable for a 1 star player tournament like EuroBowl 2020.

Also, it has been hinted by GW social media accounts that the whole "here is the complete team list and star players" might have been an accident. Does the NAF have any plans in case GW deletes that download?

[Purplegoo]

We'll play the link situation by ear. We can always revert to a team list, but I don't think the HCH download is going anywhere fast.

The Swift twins are to be treated as they are in that download. TOs can interpret that as they like, although I'm happy to provide guidance if they'd like it.

[gjnoronh]

Here's how I handle the end of the year SPIKE (and future ones in 2020) in my rules pack.

" If any additional GW release comes out between the NAF official rules update and the actual event the Tournament Organizer will review the release for appropriateness. You can generally assume all new positionals, Star Players and inducements from Spike Magazines will be allowed (however wizards of any kind are not allowed.) "

That way I don't have to keep rewriting and resubmitting my tournament pack for each new SPIKE that comes out between me putting the tournament on the calendar and the actual event.

Each TO will have to decide what's best for them but for me I think it's best that players can assume anything they see in SPIKE is fair play. It's possible someone coming to a tournament has no idea when a new positional is added for SPIKE but I think that would be exceedingly rare in my region of BB players. On the other hand when a new SPIKE comes out and I've got a tournament 5 months later I can imagine a player would reasonably assume the positional or inducement added is automatically something they could use given that it's from official GW.

[Jip]

"If any additional GW release comes out between the NAF official rules update and the actual event the Tournament Organizer will review the release for appropriateness. You can generally assume all new positionals, Star Players and inducements from Spike Magazines will be allowed (however wizards of any kind are not allowed.)"

I’m pinching this, thanks!

[fromherashes]

Here's how I handle the end of the year SPIKE (and future ones in 2020) in my rules pack.

" If any additional GW release comes out between the NAF official rules update and the actual event the Tournament Organizer will review the release for appropriateness. You can generally assume all new positionals, Star Players and inducements from Spike Magazines will be allowed (however wizards of any kind are not allowed.) "

That way I don't have to keep rewriting and resubmitting my tournament pack for each new SPIKE that comes out between me putting the tournament on the calendar and the actual event.

Each TO will have to decide what's best for them but for me I think it's best that players can assume anything they see in SPIKE is fair play. It's possible someone coming to a tournament has no idea when a new positional is added for SPIKE but I think that would be exceedingly rare in my region of BB players. On the other hand when a new SPIKE comes out and I've got a tournament 5 months later I can imagine a player would reasonably assume the positional or inducement added is automatically something they could use given that it's from official GW.

That’s the way I do it as well. Seems the most pragmatic and allows people the opportunity to use their new toys (I.e it doesn’t alienate new players).

[Glamdryn]

We'll play the link situation by ear. We can always revert to a team list, but I don't think the HCH download is going anywhere fast.

The Swift twins are to be treated as they are in that download. TOs can interpret that as they like, although I'm happy to provide guidance if they'd like it.

Don't forget the Swift Twins special rule about Loner. Might want to officially comment on this exception.

[Purplegoo]

I've not forgotten the special rule associated with the Swift twins, but we won't be reproducing it. We show where 'core' rules can be found, where the other stuff (including inducements) lives and we link what star player access teams have via the GW download. I also am always available to help guide TOs, as I say. I'm comfortable with where our documentation is.

As for comment - there is a special rule, be aware of it if you’re going to spend all of that money! I don’t think it needs anything extra adding to our rules over and above what exists now.

[Sizzler]

Great work, guys. Thanks for the effort on this.

In terms of the delayed decision on lizardmen (although I don't think that's the best word to use), I think it's important to remember that the NAF committee that are reviewing this are volunteers who have their own personal and work lives. Lives that, as most people will know, rarely accommodate a complete devotion to one's hobby. Lizardmen were just a little too late to the party on this. I'm not sure it's fair to vilify the committee as a result.

I'd much rather have a rules review that has been thoroughly reviewed and contemplated to ensure complete balance and, as Goo says, eliminates confusion, as opposed to a snap decision that hasn't been given the full attention it needs.

Keep up the good work, chaps!

[Purplegoo]

Cheers Sizzle.