Proposal to vote on adding Khorne and Brets to NAF database

[lunchmoney]

Must have missed it in the last newsletter.

[sann0638]

Must have missed it in the last newsletter.

Yup.

[Waldorf28]

Bump! Only a week left to vote!

https://www.thenaf.net/2017/09/additional-races-vote/

[dode74]

[Waldorf28]

Seems pretty conclusive. Welcome to "The 26" ye unbelievers!

[Darkson]

Crap.

Oh well, 15-odd years of tournaments were good fun.
now to find something else to do.

[spubbbba]

So does this mean all tournaments will be having those 2 teams or is it just a case that organisers can add them if they want and the NAF will track the results?

[Domfluff]

So does this mean all tournaments will be having those 2 teams or is it just a case that organisers can add them if they want and the NAF will track the results?

Among many things, this isn't and wasn't clear.

[Wobert]

The NAF have not specifically said I believe.

However, if they become 'official' then to my mind that would mean that TOs would have to allow them. Still, I guess time will tell.

[Regash]

However, if they become 'official' then to my mind that would mean that TOs would have to allow them.

If I organize my own tournament, I decide what is allowed and what is not.
If I decide I want a Stunty only tournament, who is the NAF to tell me I can't?

Making these two teams "official" just means that if they are used in a tournament, the NAF will now rank them on their website.

[garyt]

Crap.

Oh well, 15-odd years of tournaments were good fun.
now to find something else to do.

They are mediocre, not overpowered or useless, rosters so it wont make a jot of difference to your tournaments. Maybe the occasional game against another so-so team.

[Darkson]

If I organize my own tournament, I decide what is allowed and what is not.
If I decide I want a Stunty only tournament, who is the NAF to tell me I can't?

Making these two teams "official" just means that if they are used in a tournament, the NAF will now rank them on their website.

A Stunty only tournament won't be NAF sanctioned.

It depends on how they word their "officialness" - if they make them official in the same way as Slann or Dwarf (for example) then a TO has to allow them. If they make them "official but optional" then a TO won't (but will have to make it very clear to the players.

[frogboy]

I think i voted for the wrong thing, i thought neither meant, I don't want to vote for either, but thinking about it now it looks like it means that i wanted neither of the new teams, doh!

Also, would be interested to see how many new members we have now compared to before when the vote was announced, i seen at least one post somewhere saying "i'm just signing up to vote in this poll" meaning they don't even play in NAF sanctioned events!!?

Can we have a rule and something in place next time to only allow excisting members to vote on important issues please?

[Moraiwe]

It doesn't mean they don't play in events (you don't have to be a member to do so). In my case, after letting my membership lapse, this vote was a positive enough initiative by the NAF to get me to renew after several years of disillusionment.

[Tojurub]

0.) Great turnout. Thank you membership.
1.) The NAF has not decided anything yet.
2.) There will be a NAF committee meeting soon were we wil discuss this voting


@Darkson: you said someting similar when LRB5 came out

@ Frogboy: with all due respect, but that is one of the dumbest thing I ever heard in combination with elections. So if somebody turns 18 and is allowed to vote for the first time, you will forbid that, because they are "new"? Just for your info, only two dozen people have joined the NAF since September 16

@Regash: The NAF doesn't tell you what you will do in your tournaments, but the NAF tells you what they want to see in their Ranking system, and the NAF are about 10k+ members, which I believe you are not interested in at all.