Proposal to vote on adding Khorne and Brets to NAF database

[Vanguard]

1.) The NAF has not decided anything yet.

I thought the NAF were running the vote as an advisory question rather than a binding decision. However, the statement on the website implies they're going ahead with the addition of the races.

There will be an extraordinary committee meeting in the next few days to decide on the implementation

Not arguing against that, just that it sounded more settled than previously suggested.

[Purplegoo]

Seems the vote shows more people who voted (still less than 50% of the membership) would prefer to make our own path.

Less than a quarter voted, actually, with about a sixth voting for the winning option. With that in mind, it's not in the least bit dumb to ask what signups have looked like over the past couple of months (in the run-up to the poll). Or, if it is dumb, I'm dumb too because it's a question would have asked if you hadn't. However, I wouldn't get too riled by Tojurub, if I were you. Internet forum + English not as a first language is probably at fault. Anyone who has made more than a handful of internet posts over time has looked a 'knob' at some point, mostly accidentally. Mostly.

I don't think there's too much value in continuing the arguments around dead rosters or whatever else. It's not like the committee don't know Khorne aren't a thing anymore. For every member that voted with a problem with that, a bunch that voted didn't or didn't even know (yeah, whatever, the more the merrier!). If you want to argue turnout was too low to carry change, then fine (without pre-defined success criteria, who knows what an OK turnout is / was), but it's a bit late now to shout 'con' arguments into the void, however legitimate they might be.

[Joemanji]

Adding these two would just be ridiculous. The NAF's primary aim when applying top-down rules for tournament legality should be to create a welcoming and familiar environment for new coaches. First impressions count, I've lost count of the number of stories I've heard from now-veterans who almost didn't turn up for their first tournament but ended up playing someone cool first game and feeling at home. Personalities are obviously vital here, but the NAF can only control rules so that is what we should talk about here.

Khorne's inclusion in particular would be bonkers. Who is that appealing to? If a new guy turns up having bought BB2016 and he asks what they are, we have to say they are from computer game. But if someone from Cyanide's BB2 turns up and we say that he'll be like "no they are not". It is ridiculous.

I understand we have made an exception with Slann, but that is slightly different. There is the history and it would also be a decision to remove rather than add. But every single new roster we add loses us new coaches who might have gone on to play many tournaments or contribute to the community. New guys who lose to Khorne or Brets won't understand the reasons, they'll just think "these NAF idiots are using broken homebrew rosters, screw these guys" and never return.

[sann0638]

Apologies for the word "implementation". It seemed more neutral when I wrote it than as it has been interpreted.

[Domfluff]

The exception for Slann is actually the same exception for Underworld and Pact as well, but the latter two are now formally in BB2016. This wasn't true for many years.

I've mentioned elsewhere that I think the pro and con arguments here have been pretty terrible. I'm fine with the rosters in the game (I don't think they'll break anything), but I do not think that this is reason enough to add them formally to NAF sanctioned events.

This would make sense to me if these teams were frequently being used unofficially, and there was therefore a desire to record their matches. How much "frequently" is, is another question.

The question is really: What is the NAF for? Why these teams? Why now? Why not other teams? Tom Anders' Savage Orc roster has about as much "authenticity" as the Khorne roster, for obvious reasons, so why not that team? Or the Simyin? Or any of the Secret League teams?

There are probably satisfactory answers to all of the above, but I haven't see these arguments being made.

Still, I think I'd be happy to see Brets and Khorne at a tournament, so the outcome itself isn't upsetting - I think it mostly comes down to precedent, future decisions and definition of terms, none of which have been spelled out.

[Jip]

I understand we have made an exception with Slann, but that is slightly different. There is the history and it would also be a decision to remove rather than add. But every single new roster we add loses us new coaches who might have gone on to play many tournaments or contribute to the community. New guys who lose to Khorne or Brets won't understand the reasons, they'll just think "these NAF idiots are using broken homebrew rosters, screw these guys" and never return.

Context: I'm one of those new guys, only really picked the game up just before the new (re)release. I play some FUMBBL, haven't played Cyanide.

I voted for both because I don't mind more teams to choose from. I've only used three or four races, so far, so adding a couple more doesn't terrify me. This actually makes me want to play more, because it's something new to play with/against, it certainly doesn't put me off.

New guys who lose to any team they haven't played before won't necessarily understand the reasons, so putting two more teams in isn't going to make a difference; I'd never played Slann until I played Slann and those hoppy bastards gave me a real shock at Gertbowl last year!

As a relatively new coach, people getting ranty (disclaimer: not necessarily yourself, but there's a lot of passive aggression on these posts from quite a few 'veterans') about this issue, and towards the NAF in general, is much more off-putting as a new player than the issue itself. I'm glad I went to my first tournament without spending too much time on this forum because, thankfully, I found the reality much more welcoming than the online representation is, which is a real shame.

I wasn't around for the last NAF election(s), but I presume the next one will have a loooong list of eager candidates, based on the amount of people that criticise the current team so directly.

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!!?

...yet.

[straume]

As a relatively new coach, people getting ranty (disclaimer: not necessarily yourself, but there's a lot of passive aggression on these posts from quite a few 'veterans') about this issue, and towards the NAF in general, is much more off-putting as a new player than the issue itself. I'm glad I went to my first tournament without spending too much time on this forum because, thankfully, I found the reality much more welcoming than the online representation is, which is a real shame.

Agreed.

I, too, am relatively new to this NAF-business, and was genuinly surprised to experience the warm, friendly and fuzzy atmosphere at these tournaments. Smiling, beer-drinking nerds? Who should have thunk? I have friends that have been to other War Games-tournaments, and they tell me BB-scene is different. Which is excellent. This forum tends to be a bit more off-putting, but I am not sure what one can do to change that, this being Internet and all. Deep breaths and more smileys to all!

To Joe: You might be right, of course, but I would be surprised to see any (many) new players being angered to the extend of leaving the game by these two slightly unknown rosters. We have survived Slann, and I am sure this won`t be any worse. Actually I really dislike Slann (bloody leaping frogs? This isn`t BB), but the frogs certainly won`t keep me away from the NAF-scene

[Domfluff]

Actually I really dislike Slann (bloody leaping frogs? This isn`t BB)

Hands off my froggies

Slann are featured in both the 1st and 2nd editions of Blood Bowl - arguably they're a lot more "Blood Bowl" than, say, Khemri.

Obviously that has to do with how Blood Bowl and Warhammer have grown closer and further apart over the years.

Looking at both Blood Bowl and Warhammer with a long view, I always find it funny that people seem fine with lizard-men or rat-men, but apparently frog-men are weird?

[Darkson]

Looking at both Blood Bowl and Warhammer with a long view, I always find it funny that people seem fine with lizard-men or rat-men, but apparently frog-men are weird?

Especially as the lizard-men are "johnny come latelys" and have 10+ years less history than frog-men.

[Joemanji]

As a relatively new coach, people getting ranty (disclaimer: not necessarily yourself, but there's a lot of passive aggression on these posts from quite a few 'veterans') about this issue, and towards the NAF in general, is much more off-putting as a new player than the issue itself. I'm glad I went to my first tournament without spending too much time on this forum because, thankfully, I found the reality much more welcoming than the online representation is, which is a real shame.

Agreed.

I, too, am relatively new to this NAF-business, and was genuinly surprised to experience the warm, friendly and fuzzy atmosphere at these tournaments. Smiling, beer-drinking nerds? Who should have thunk? I have friends that have been to other War Games-tournaments, and they tell me BB-scene is different. Which is excellent. This forum tends to be a bit more off-putting, but I am not sure what one can do to change that, this being Internet and all. Deep breaths and more smileys to all!

I agree with you both on this. I've mostly dropped out of BB politics myself from similar fatigue, and TFF in particular is absolutely toxic and terrible for the NAF's reputation.

It is a frustrating issue for the veterans. I fought the good fight for a while but there is only so many times you can talk someone down off the ledge.

To Joe: You might be right, of course, but I would be surprised to see any (many) new players being angered to the extend of leaving the game by these two slightly unknown rosters. We have survived Slann, and I am sure this won`t be any worse. Actually I really dislike Slann (bloody leaping frogs? This isn`t BB), but the frogs certainly won`t keep me away from the NAF-scene

I don't think it is case of people rage-quitting. I just feel initial interest in NAF tournaments is extremely fragile and even something as simple as being confronted by a roster not in the book is another possible nail in the coffin.

[Pipey]

I would have preferred it if the committee had just made the call on our behalf.

Of course I’m happy to go with the resounding majority decision now it’s been voted on. Now just hoping the changes will be well implemented. I have faith! And I’m not expecting it to be catastrophic like some seem to fear.

Apologies for being lazy - dare say there are committee meeting minutes which answer this question - but what was the process which led to this matter being voted upon by the whole membership?

Particular decisions weren't previously put to membership vote. Why the change? Does the NAF charter make any reference to referendum type votes like these? Will there be others? And if so how do we decide what constitutes grounds for a vote? Was there a split on the committee i.e. could it not be decided by consensus within that group?

Concerns around precedent and source rather than balance led the committee not to adopt Khorne a few years ago (2011 I believe) when I was Tournament Director. This position must have changed then? Or was it felt that the membership should have the chance to decide regardless, after a trial period in league play / on-line?

[Gaixo]

(I don't think Khorne existed in 2011, though I was aware that they'd been considered twice before this. I'm also struggling with dates a bit - see below!)

It wasn't a referendum, but an advisory vote. The committee could ignore it altogether, though I doubt that will be the case.

Without going into the particulars, there wasn't consensus among the committee. The minority voters on the committee suggested a referendum, then dialed that back to the advisory vote we ended up with.

As I've mentioned previously, the addition of Khorne was unanimously voted in by the committee a couple years ago. (I want to say 2015, but wasn't BB2 already out by then?) Let's remember that this group included such well-respected luminaries as Lycos, Geggster, and Beppe. Khorne would have debuted at the following NAFC. But then one of the committee members popped up with a piece of intelligence: Khorne were being retooled. So we became a bit spooked and delayed implementation until the new roster was released. It never was, of course. There will always be some excuse like that, it seems. For whatever it's worth, we currently have fairly strong suggestions that Khorne will resurface in BB2, and adapting to altered rosters is something we've recently become accustomed to.

I don't believe this will be the proverbial straw that breaks a new player's back. We've already been forced to maintain a document with a supplementary roster, star players, inducements, and so on; a couple more team lists aren't going to dramatically alter the learning curve. You can disagree, but your beliefs on the subject are subjective and advised by anecdotal evidence, just as mine are.

[Tojurub]

Help for the lazy

During the time Beppe was president (I personally don't know the exact date) Khorne was voted in by the committee as a sanctioned race. Just before this was announced, information was given to the committee, which put this announcement on hold.

When the update on the website database was started last year, there was now an opportunity to bring this topic on the table again, this time including Brettonians. During several committee meetings we discussed this, but the votes within the committee were very split, some wanted both, some none, some only Brets, even Apes were brought up. But we were unsure about what the best path would be. We heard several opinions from the membership from all over the world which showed a similar split in opinion.

That triggered the idea of doing a poll to get the opinion from the membership. The charter doesn't forbid referendums. The next step was to decide what the referendum will look like and we decided to use a non-binding referendum...

[Tojurub]

However, I wouldn't get too riled by Tojurub, if I were you. Internet forum + English not as a first language is probably at fault.

I don't see why you picked me out about this? I just stated that the NAF has not decided anything yet. And this holds true as of now (Oct. 2, 2017, 15:57 CET)

[Heff]

However, I wouldn't get too riled by Tojurub, if I were you. Internet forum + English not as a first language is probably at fault.

I don't see why you picked me out about this? I just stated that the NAF has not decided anything yet. And this holds true as of now (Oct. 2, 2017, 15:57 CET)

He was defending you.