The future of compendium warscrolls

[mmimzie]

1 hour ago, Jamie Ferguson said:

Totally hear what you're saying but I come to different conclusions.

From a competitive standpoint, competitive games are unlikely to be affected by hobby players bringing Brett's (an example) as they'll be at the bottom tables. That's their choice. Does it hurt anyone, I don't believe so, does it make them happy, probably. If they're not happy they can always pick up a new army. Again, their choice. 

For a new player who likes the Brett models, simply explaining the difficulty in collecting/modelling/playing them will enable them to make their own mind up. Again, their, informed, choice. Does it hurt anyone else if they fall in love with chivalrous knights? I don't think so. If you think being unsupported is an issue, tell them. They decide. 

Your 'it's dead' approach is just really telling everyone else to play your way and making decisions for them, or not allowing them to make decisions. 

If you introduce 20 new players to the game and they all lean towards Brett's (unlikely, they and all compendium forces hardly proliferate) then explaining the issues will probably just cause 19 of them to change their mind and choose stormcast. The 20th player? Probably just wants to push horsies across the table and, informed as they were about their chance of winning, just wants a cool game on the bottom tables with like minded people. 

Sure, dropping compendium makes things simpler for competitive gamers who are aware of the latest meta, but is that enough of a reason?

I mean i think offer points for them is coo. Like i said the "it's dead" approach is good. By giving them points you can play games with them on the side for fun, but i agree with stuff like the SCGT.

As a comeptive player if some one is going to bring an uncompetitive out of dater compendium army. I'm not gonna have fun. You say no one gets hurt, but i do because i paid $XXX for my flight from California to the UK, my hotel room, and my entry ticket. Would i really want to have one of my first games to be against an army who is sure to kind of disappoint me tactically??? Comparatively i don't want to play against an army where i have no chance. I want a game where it's fair and maybe one side has a slight advantage. So yes it does effect this part of my game play and maybes me quite unhappy, and maybe  any other opponent they go against. Imagine narrowly losing your first game and then feeling how far you ahve fallen when your are at a table with a compendium army. That'd be embarrassing. This super effects how much a tournament is worth to me. 

Again for getting new players in if they spent X dollars on brets that's X dollars that wont be going to the army they might want to switch to when they realize the difficult road they have started down. As such they'd be more likely to just up and quit.

This is definitely not something that is only effecting the people who play these armies. it ripps through the whole army. Is it in a way of telling you what toys you can use??? Sure, but your toys are reduce how much i can enjoy mine, and can make it more difficult to get people into playing more toy games with us.

i think thier is a place for the compendium allowing you to still use your models, but including them in tournament and very regular play has hobby wide consequences more than just being abit of a rub to the person trying to play those armies. 

I have nothing against bring TK or Brets back to life and making them full armies. While i think armies are a bit stale and same-y when come compared to some of thier brother factions, if they were to be fully supported i'd be happy with these being in the game. Heck i'd even buy some brets, but being defunct is a none starter for me. 

 

[Dave Fraser]

I don't get your viewpoint, you could equally be drawn against someone running a fireslayer army and run roughshod over them because the army isn't competitive and you're now saying they've ruined your tournament experience? Yet everyone else is saying they're an AoS army, that's all cool. (There are a couple of ok FS builds but the army is generally toss). 

[yarrickson]

Also... Have you played vs Tomb Kings? One of the strongest single factions out there at the moment thanks to snake buffing/settra/models back banners. A very competitive game if you get the chance. 

[mhsellwood]

My 2p (although given inflation maybe my 2 quid?).

I think one thing we all need to keep in mind is that SCGT is an independent tournament run by fellow members of the gaming community. I would love to read an explanation of the decision, but ultimately they have the right to make any decision they like and people can either pony up and play by them or decide not to. Games Workshop has absolutely no say in their decisions, and have never laid claim to defining acceptable ways to play - actually quite the opposite.

So, for the purposes of the discussion it appears we are writing about two similar but separate things:

• What should tournaments allow
• What is GW doing about compendium armies

On the first topic I think the answer is: whatever they think will make for fun (however they choose to define this). In terms of the SCGT I can understand the decision around banning use of the compendium armies. This is because some of them are very good, and as the new releases are made the likelihood of unintended and unforeseeable power builds increases. Additionally for a more tactical and thoughtful game I think you need to be able to reasonably expect and allow people to practice against likely lists - as time goes by your ability to practice against a Bretonnian list for example is going to be a lot less than against FEC or Stormcast or whatever. Finally I think the last thing you want is for someone playing a Death alliance army (for eg) feeling that to be competitive they need to have Settra or whatever and they cannot actually get it. Personally I feel the more variety the better, but as I say I can understand the decision.

The second question is what is GW doing about compendium armies. I think that what we will see is that they will always be available but that as time goes by aspects of them will be picked up and given an AoS going over. This will mean that compendium armies are probably not going to be re-pointed or particularly considered but I see no reason for GW to remove them.

[Bjarni St.]

Personally I'll be okay with the Compendium going once they've sufficiently replaced it, and they haven't. The Grand Alliance books made the old WHFB armies worse, to the point where they're almost unplayable. Certainly noone is enthused to play them, as they have mostly garbage rules. With Compendium they at least have a little bit more (not much, still) going for them.

Yeah, TK are a bit filthy but nerfing them is as easy as editing a few lines of text and publishing new pdfs. It's beyond clear that they don't want to "support" it with (limited) rules updates but IMHO they owe their players as much. Even when it's just nerfs.

That said, TOs can do whatever they want, even the trendsetters, and I wanna be clear I'm not trying to pitchfork Christ T or the SCGT crew.

[Craptrain]

To me there would be nothing more frustrating than having an army that I spent days (or weeks) of my life assembling, basing, and painting barred from competition.  It also sets the precedent of discouraging people from playing the less popular armies because, if in a few years Games Workshop retires them, then those armies face similar prospects of being barred from tournaments.  The end of that slippery slope is a funneling of players into the more popular and more heavily updated forces, with reduces diversity on the table top.  I'm no fan of the Tomb Kings of the Brets, but I know that some people truly do love those factions and want to be able to compete with them and I have no qualms playing against them.

 

That being said, tournament organizers also have a responsibility to create a balanced and competitive environment for everyone involved.  If a tournament organizer feels that compendium models are somehow damaging to the overall balance and competitive spirit of the tournament, it is their prerogative to ban them.  Were I organizing a tournament, I probably wouldn't rely on outright bans as it seems fairly heavy-handed, but SCGT isn't my tournament.

 

And @mmimzie, we really shouldn't be taking the attitude of trying to increase our own fun by diminishing the fun of others.  It's not what we want to promote in this hobby.  I could very easily take a completely noncompetitive new army list to a tournament and get rolled.  Should my list be banned because its badness ruins your fun?  That's a pretty indefensible position.

[daedalus81]

GW is unlikely to remove points for anything though I doubt you'll get updated scrolls.

This is an SCGT issue not a GW issue right now.

[shinros]

2 minutes ago, daedalus81 said:

GW is unlikely to remove points for anything though I doubt you'll get updated scrolls.

This is an SCGT issue not a GW issue right now.

Yup I imagine they will leave them in the back of the GH2 as always until they decide to revamp or leave them as they are. Still don't expect an update of them I think. 

[Jamie Ferguson]

10 minutes ago, daedalus81 said:

GW is unlikely to remove points for anything though I doubt you'll get updated scrolls.

This is an SCGT issue not a GW issue right now.

I doubt anyone really expects an update for compendium warscrolls. That's not the issue. 

Youre right, it is an SCGT issue but as I said in my original post, like it or not, where they go others historically follow. Already two other large tournaments have declared they're doing the same and still no one has given a reason for compendium scrolls being banned. 

These podcasters have the soapbox and they use it. Generally they serve the community well. I really don't get why this call is being made and who is served by not letting people play the way they want to if it hurts no one else. Hopefully they'll justify their decision but I understand they have no obligation to do so. They are aware that what they do has a huge impact on the scene though and is likely to be felt across the gaming world. 

[Tasman]

8 hours ago, Thornshield said:

@Tasman That's the thing, the Compendium scrolls may only be removed for Matched play. Under Open and Narrative play, you're free to include them, and equally change the rules to make it your game or forge a narrative. It's a shame that we live in an age where the Internet opinion is often skewed to the competitive side and we just need to ensure it doesn't become the end-all.

P.S. I don't think most players at tournaments are WAAC though, the scene is full of great people who have a good time and don't take it too seriously. Competitive at times yes, but it is a game/tournament after all.

@Arkiham Lol, I'm not sure if I came across bitter, but just to be clear, I liked the fact that the Lady was always said to be an Elf. My Brets were forest loving hippies worshipping Taal (after the Lady) and idolising the Green Knight, with Athel Loren as their main allies.

Anyway, we're having a discussion on this topic amongst the Narrative Event Organisers and I think the consensus is we would be generally open to Compendium for our events, especially if there's a Narrative plotline/reason that suits. Obviously we may choose to restrict stuff if the story calls for it.

We would like to promote creativity and flexibility in the game, where it's not strictly to the letter. Think this is a mindset more common in more senior gamers, I recall Jervis saying things along those lines in his interview with @Dan Heelan. Not saying it's the only way to play, but one we encourage people to try.

I couldn't have said it better. Cheers.

[MidasKiss]

I was about to start a new thread about this as I'd been thinking a lot about this today, but figured maybe this one is close enough.

In my opinion the benefits of scrapping compendium from matched play are just to polish / clean the game up a lot. For new players especially, if it was my game I wouldn't want them to come up against random warscrolls (often not pointed well) from compendium that can be potentially game changing. You could point them well to save half the problem, but I think pointing things accurately in a game like this is hard enough and I'm not sure I'd spend the resources if it was up to me. The app is currently confusing for new players as well, as the compendium is listed side by side with other armies with no indication that it is compendium. This could be fixed at the app rather than game level though.

If there is stuff in the compendiums that is essential to the game, rather than just variety for varieties sake? There is a lot of warscrolls in this game, and it mainly seems like people take a few key things from compendium to bump up their normal armies. If so, what are those things? 

So, my thread was going to be:

What would you save from the compendium?

Do we really need Skarsnik and the Von Carsteins to still have points? Any whole armies like Tomb Kings I'd rather see brought back / re imagined. If Forgeworld things are wrongly put in compendium just move them out. Worst case, if you stuck Tomb Kings under the death section I think it would be less confusing for new players than having the Compendium section. If there are things that are absolutely essential I'd rather see them incorporated into current armies.

For example, the Vampire on Abyssal Terror is awesome for a Soulblight army as it allows them to really increase their possible threat range, and gives them something to do when they are inevitably forced to go first and run forward. However, this spell could easily be moved onto anything in the army (Coven Throne for example, or a new named vampire hero). If that's the main thing, then VC compendium can be deleted and the game is cleaner for it.

Thoughts? Should I post this in a new thread @Jamie Ferguson?

[mmimzie]

2 hours ago, Craptrain said:

 

 

And @mmimzie, we really shouldn't be taking the attitude of trying to increase our own fun by diminishing the fun of others.  It's not what we want to promote in this hobby.  I could very easily take a completely noncompetitive new army list to a tournament and get rolled.  Should my list be banned because its badness ruins your fun?  That's a pretty indefensible position.

The very nature of swiss/gt tournament style in the game aspect is to be matched against the best games. Simply put if your going to comp peoples abilities to bring really strong list which has happened in the past and is still happening in most major tournament scene, then you can also comp out the not so good list as well. As i see your trying to take the moral high ground, i'll say comping out what i can bring in my list could diminish my fun yes?? but this has been happening for years?? Magics T2 formatting has been a thing for some time now.  Old never updated stuff bound to either be simply broken and limit design space or super weak and none competitive to where these plays might ask for an easier player field. Imagine they come out with a new behemoth for Death rattle that's super good setra and much of TKs now can be super good, right?? which is pretty dangerous. 

As i've said i don't mind a compendium, and i even think such a thing should exist, but it should be classified as dead because of lots of reasons i've already listed. The one i bring back here is it's potential to at random either be depressingly too underpowered to where it cheapens average games at a tournament or to where it can become wildly over powered due to unexpected synergies. 

[Craptrain]

27 minutes ago, mmimzie said:

The very nature of swiss/gt tournament style in the game aspect is to be matched against the best games. Simply put if your going to comp peoples abilities to bring really strong list which has happened in the past and is still happening in most major tournament scene, then you can also comp out the not so good list as well. As i see your trying to take the moral high ground, i'll say comping out what i can bring in my list could diminish my fun yes?? but this has been happening for years?? Magics T2 formatting has been a thing for some time now.  Old never updated stuff bound to either be simply broken and limit design space or super weak and none competitive to where these plays might ask for an easier player field. Imagine they come out with a new behemoth for Death rattle that's super good setra and much of TKs now can be super good, right?? which is pretty dangerous. 

As i've said i don't mind a compendium, and i even think such a thing should exist, but it should be classified as dead because of lots of reasons i've already listed. The one i bring back here is it's potential to at random either be depressingly too underpowered to where it cheapens average games at a tournament or to where it can become wildly over powered due to unexpected synergies. 

It's a question of doing the least harm.  Allowing noncompetitive armies (as you specified in your original post) hurts no one.  You can play what you want.  Others can play what they want.  Everyone has fun.  There's no reason your fun should be diminished by someone playing a fluffy or non-competitive list.

Banning blatantly broken or overpowered combinations that had not been anticipated is a different story.  Banning those helps everyone to a more balanced and fair environment.

These are two VERY difference scenarios and if me seeing everyone have the most fun possible is "taking the moral high ground" then yeah, I'm taking the moral high ground.

[mmimzie]

1 minute ago, Craptrain said:

It's a question of doing the least harm.  Allowing noncompetitive armies (as you specified in your original post) hurts no one.  You can play what you want.  Others can play what they want.  Everyone has fun.  There's no reason your fun should be diminished by someone playing a fluffy or non-competitive list.

Banning blatantly broken or overpowered combinations that had not been anticipated is a different story.  Banning those helps everyone to a more balanced and fair environment.

These are two VERY difference scenarios and if me seeing everyone have the most fun possible is "taking the moral high ground" then yeah, I'm taking the moral high ground.

BUt some people enjoy playing against these super powerful models, and other hate play against do nothing armies where it doesn't even feel like a game. I think you lack abit of empathy in this issue and can't see that other have an opinion, and assume your particular outlook is the majority or even the only way. Which is fair it is your opinion and i don't expect everyone to take into how others want to play a game.

Again i ahve nothing against narrative/open play and more open matched play games. I even like the compendium as i ahve said several times at this point. However, i have been arguing that i don't like them in a tournament setting or as common armies for the reasons i have mentions above. Simply we can agree to disagree which is fair by me ^.^ 

[Craptrain]

25 minutes ago, mmimzie said:

BUt some people enjoy playing against these super powerful models, and other hate play against do nothing armies where it doesn't even feel like a game. I think you lack abit of empathy in this issue and can't see that other have an opinion, and assume your particular outlook is the majority or even the only way. Which is fair it is your opinion and i don't expect everyone to take into how others want to play a game.

Again i ahve nothing against narrative/open play and more open matched play games. I even like the compendium as i ahve said several times at this point. However, i have been arguing that i don't like them in a tournament setting or as common armies for the reasons i have mentions above. Simply we can agree to disagree which is fair by me ^.^ 

I'm not sure I'm the one lacking empathy in this situation.  You, in your original post, suggested that people should not be allowed to bring compendium armies because you beat them too easily and that's not fun for you.  So rather than accepting in a single game that you get a free easy win and maybe a little less fun than usual, you want to bar them from the event, depriving them of X number of games and any fun whatsoever.  It's a question of doing the least harm and your argument doesn't do that.  I suggest you put yourself in the shoes of someone that poured them self into a Bret army, painstakingly painting each model to the best of their ability, only to be barred from a tournament because someone doesn't think their army is competitive enough.

 

I've already said tournament organizers have the right to allow or disallow what they see fit, including compendium armies.  I'm just saying your argument for doing so is (that playing against compendium armies lessens your personal fun) is not going to grow this hobby, create a community atmosphere, or make others want to play with you.  I have no skin in this game, I own neither TK nor Brets.  I just took umbrage with your post and casual dismissal of compendium players.

[Thomas Lyons]

Back on topic, I really am interested to see how they navigate the duplicity of all the forge world models since all of them are in Compendiums as well.

[daedalus81]

We got updated scrolls for exalted greater daemons with points soon to come.  FW items will not languish.

[Sleboda]

8 hours ago, mmimzie said:

Would i really want to have one of my first games to be against an army who is sure to kind of disappoint me tactically??? Comparatively i don't want to play against an army where i have no chance.

I disagree with nearly everything you've posted in this discussion, but please understand that it's civil disagreement.  I'm sure we'd have a nice game and share a beer after.  I just wanted to keep involved and your thoughts stir me to action the most.

For years I went to tournaments with my TK knowing full well I was going to get my rear handed to me.  I put together the best lists I could possible make, but still lost over and over and over (and my record with other armies is at least average).  When I would face Chaos Dwarfs or Ogres with the Hellheart, I knew before a die got rolled that I would be getting rolled more than the dice. Utterly non-competitive games, all.

Did I call for a ban to Ogres and Chaos Dwarfs? Heck no.  I stuck with it and gave it my best.  I am competitive in a way, though perhaps not in the traditional sense. I don't get a lot of joy in beating someone else.  I don't need to be "better" than anyone.  I am not. We are not.  That's probably too much philosophy, though. I always want to see how well I can do.  If I am going to lose to Chaos Dwarfs, can I make it further up the table than ever before?  How long can I make my army last after the Hellheart starts my army to crubmling on turn one?  It's about me being the best me I can be.  I prefer winning to losing, but only because it means I achieved something, not because it means my opponent didn't.

So, I look at all comp - all of it - as shameful and self-serving. It's why AoS delighted me so when it hit.  Comp was destroyed, other than the game-to-game "comp" of players putting fun models on a table in the interest of a good game for both.

When Matched Play reared its head, I shrunk back in fear.  Now I see this thread, and my fears are looking right into me. Read these posts! It's all about balance, competition, removal of things people personally don't like, and so on.  That's what comp always was and is becoming again - a way to impose personal selfish desires on the in-rules, legally allowed, hobby-awesome-ified armies of others.  Comp kills the hobby. AoS revitalized it, and now comp is back to crush the joy under the false banner of providing a "fair game for all."

AoS should never have been used as a tournament system.  Square peg, round hole.

But it is.  Fine. 

 

That's not good enough for some, though.  The system and rules that are out there are being once again warped by the (unknowingly I'll wager) misguided "good intentions" of TOs around the world.  In turn, local groups, local events are going to kill the light of joy for lots of people who transitioned from 8th to AoS.

And that brings me to the edit I was going to make in my earlier post, but will put here instead because a lot of posts have been made in between.

My concern with the SCGT removing completely legit armies from consideration is that they may indeed be hooked in to the GW braintrust. Maybe the Compendium lists are going away.  If so, it won't surprise me if there is a serious backlash of people leaving the system. Heck, I may. Here's why (and it's more than just "GW took my toys away").

Think about larger society.  Think about times when a poorly behaving person has reformed and how people are just waiting for the smallest slip up to go "Aha!  I knew it!  They didn't change at all."

Could be a bad boss who tried to turn a corner and treat his employees fairly but had to discipline one. Could be the drinker who wants to slow down but has a beer at the holiday party. Could be the friend who always was sort of a ****** to fat people, but saw the light and tried to be more kind and then made a non-weight related comment about a larger person that others figured was because of their weight.  Could be the drug using, womanizing athlete who changed his ways later in life and then had one single night where he failed to resist.

Pick something that resonates with you.

Any of these people are going to have to be super super super perfect to convince people that they are no longer the old person they were.  Fair or not, eveyone expects them to revert, and the slightest oopsie screams out "See, a leopard never changes its spots."

Now we have GW. I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that until about a year ago, they had a pretty crappy reputation when it comes to treating customers, retailers, the community, and so on like dirt. I was a salesman for them for years, and trust me, the attitude of "We're GW. We do what we want and they take it" was preh-val-ent!

Things seem to have changed. Community involvement! Social media! Old armies not abandoned.

 

Uh oh.

Do I need to spell it out?

 

[Marc Wilson]

Again, not new news - this is consistent with last year. Reasoning - probably the same as last year, that people using older models, not available for purchase, hold both an advantage over new players and possess rules that it's reasonable to suggest are not familiar to most people - as they have next to zero official exposure. But let's cut to the chase here. This is less about legacy armies as legacy models - a small number of powerful warscrolls used to boost current armies; this is absolutely advantage mining - it can't be dressed up any other way. No one has, say, Heinrich Kemmler because they lovingly painted him 20 years ago and are fond of his pointy hat. No one.

There's a lot of rekindled love of fluff. Tomb Kings are very powerful and are everywhere, Brettonia are over-coated and are nowhere ever. Bit curious as to why there's only a partial resurgence of nostalgia and why that's only limited to certain models.

This is to stop predatory douchebags like me (even though I'm not a very competent one) from mugging people with a squirrelled rule accompanying a chipped 20 year old model I ruinously outbid someone for on EBay.

Overall I was a bit ambivalent, but am since reminded of the emotions I felt when Donald Trump won. It was the least good outcome of a Hobson's choice, but when I saw entitled  celebrity Lady Gaga all panda-eyed and snotty, shaking her tear stained cheeks in bitter disbelief I felt a keen sense of schadenfreude.

p.s GW didn't ban them in their own GT so what's the problem? No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to go to Portsmouth. 

[Ollie Grimwood]

3 hours ago, Thomas Lyons said:

Back on topic, I really am interested to see how they navigate the duplicity of all the forge world models since all of them are in Compendiums as well.

They aren't listed in the compendium section in the the GHB which is probably what they are referring to. I guess we'll see when the event pack comes out all we've had so far as far as I'm aware is a couple of word comment on twitter. 

[Ben]

I understand why people are getting emotional about this but at the moment all you have is 1 event repeating its stance from last year.  

There are already 20+ UK events already booked in for 2017 and its the 3rd of Jan!) and one of them has announced no compendium (which I actually imagine will really mean no out of production models) its not big deal.

 Vote with your feet, or go along anyway enjoy the weekend but play a different army.  

 

 

[Ollie Grimwood]

10 minutes ago, Marc Wilson said:

Again, not new news - this is consistent with last year. Reasoning - probably the same as last year, that people using older models, not available for purchase, hold both an advantage over new players and possess rules that it's reasonable to suggest are not familiar to most people - as they have next to zero official exposure. But let's cut to the chase here. This is less about legacy armies as legacy models - a small number of powerful warscrolls used to boost current armies; this is absolutely advantage mining - it can't be dressed up any other way. No one has, say, Heinrich Kemmler because they lovingly painted him 20 years ago and are fond of his pointy hat. No one.

There's a lot of rekindled love of fluff. Tomb Kings are very powerful and are everywhere, Brettonia are over-coated and are nowhere ever. Bit curious as to why there's only a partial resurgence of nostalgia and why that's only limited to certain models.

This is to stop predatory douchebags like me (even though I'm not a very competent one) from mugging people with a squirrelled rule accompanying a chipped 20 year old model I ruinously outbid someone for on EBay.

Overall I was a bit ambivalent, but am since reminded of the emotions I felt when Donald Trump won. It was the least good outcome of a Hobson's choice, but when I saw entitled  celebrity Lady Gaga all panda-eyed and snotty, shaking her tear stained cheeks in bitter disbelief I felt a keen sense of schadenfreude.

p.s GW didn't ban them in their own GT so what's the problem? No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to go to Portsmouth. 

Quite and various tournaments have been comping stuff and banning stuff for as long as I've been aware of them  (25+ years), never caused me any issues when I played somewhere else. 

And yes I doubt anyone was taking Tomb Kings to the SCGT as the "fun" option. 

[Davariel]

Something worth mentioning is that this is a hobby that demands a substantial investment of time and money. Sure, we all envy the hobbyist who blows five hundred bucks on a new army and has it all painted beautifully three weeks later, but for most of us mere mortals our armies are a labour of love to be built up over months and years, at great financial cost. People put a huge amount of investment into their armies and don't want to see it invalidated. Why deny someone the chance to use an older army if there are perfectly good rules allowing them to do so? It's one thing if the compendium scrolls are no longer updated to work with a major edition shift or if GW radically overhauls the points system, but until something like that actually happens, why not allow them?

People were still using 6th ed Brets and Dogs of War in 8th ed because the rule and point structure hadn't shifted far enough to render them incompatible - why shouldn't we give compendium scrolls the same courtesy?

[Ollie Grimwood]

41 minutes ago, Davariel said:

Something worth mentioning is that this is a hobby that demands a substantial investment of time and money. Sure, we all envy the hobbyist who blows five hundred bucks on a new army and has it all painted beautifully three weeks later, but for most of us mere mortals our armies are a labour of love to be built up over months and years, at great financial cost. People put a huge amount of investment into their armies and don't want to see it invalidated. Why deny someone the chance to use an older army if there are perfectly good rules allowing them to do so? It's one thing if the compendium scrolls are no longer updated to work with a major edition shift or if GW radically overhauls the points system, but until something like that actually happens, why not allow them?

People were still using 6th ed Brets and Dogs of War in 8th ed because the rule and point structure hadn't shifted far enough to render them incompatible - why shouldn't we give compendium scrolls the same courtesy?

In short their event their rules, same as any other event that wants to add, removed or alter stuff. It's the beauty of AoS. Also if their event pack from last year is anything to go by they will be altering other stuff as well. 

[Nico]

Quote

 

When Matched Play reared its head, I shrunk back in fear.  Now I see this thread, and my fears are looking right into me. Read these posts! It's all about balance, competition, removal of things people personally don't like, and so on.  That's what comp always was and is becoming again - a way to impose personal selfish desires on the in-rules, legally allowed, hobby-awesome-ified armies of others.  Comp kills the hobby. AoS revitalized it, and now comp is back to crush the joy under the false banner of providing a "fair game for all."

AoS should never have been used as a tournament system.  Square peg, round hole.

 

I cannot say I agree with this. As I said on the other thread - I understand the pain of your armies being banned. An awful lot of my recent tournament armies would not be allowed at SCGT post FAQ and given the Comp. I have a TK army as part of a large Death army (alongside large armies in the other 3 Grand Alliances - all of which I've taken to events).

It's a great tournament game.

The Mo-Comp arguably saved the game in the dark early days. 

The initiative roll and other factors like battleplans being so varied means that there are hardly any matchups where one side has a near zero chance of winning in all 6 Battleplans.

The level of comp has been (I understand) pretty light touch compared to 8th Edition etc. (which I - perhaps thankfully towards the end - you tell me - never played). I suspect and hope that AoS comp will stay that way.