Compendium Scrolls - The Great Debate

[Mc1gamer]

So Vince from Warhammer Weekly puts out a weekly topic that many of us in the Youtube Community respond to and discuss. This week's is regarding feeling about the Compendium Scrolls and differing opinions on what to do about them, if anything at all. Here's the link for my response (The link to his video's is in the notes of mine and I encourage you to check those out first). I look forward to hearing/reading your (hopefully respectful and constructive) views. Thanks!

 

 

 

[Arkiham]

Personally, I like the forward momentum that some have started, though I feel it should be done with caution.

Excluding individual characters or units which are compendium I feel is fine, many characters or units over the years have had this happen so it's nothing new.

But, I feel that due to such strong desire for those to still have the option to play tombkings and Bretonnia not to include armies of them in that list, but it would have to be an army of them.

 

So, I'd be happy for those armies to be included in the ok list as, it is some people's entire collection and hobby, but not individual models, at least until a new army is released to replace them, once again these are my personal feelings on the matter.

[SuperKick]

Going to give this a watch later

My thoughts are pretty simple on the topic. 

Keep them for casual play 

Ban them from tournaments 

Most people don't play the game at tournaments and wouldn't generally mind playing these armies in any other setting. 

Given that they cannot be purchased directly it seems like a bad idea to keep them in the game in a competitive sense. Particularly at anything GW is officially running. 

You can still play these armies but not in a competition. They will have points but not be supported. 

If you frequent tournaments it's fair to say you're pretty into the hobby. I'm sure you can play 2k of something else. 

The idea of a kid wanting to spend an outrageous amount on TK's for example just because they see them winning tournaments is defiently a bad thing. 

I'm sure more stuff will move over in the future but as long as it has a decent life span in the competitive sense it's all good. It will also live on for casual play. 

It's the same logic with WHFB, just play it if you want to. It's got decades of models and lore - play away, have fun. 

 

[buffalozap]

I think (my opinion) that its a problem for GW to financially support or even just endorse tournaments with armies that can't be purchased through GW.  The recent tournament showed the most competitive Death grand alliance armies are Tomb King, an army that can't be purchased through GW. I see three options to address this problem.

1) the sneaky solution that no one will like. With the release of GHB 2.0 make un-purchasable miniatures less effective competitively by raising their points just high enough to drive serious competitive play away from them. A careful touch and thoughtful adjustments might make this gentle enough to be unnoticeable by 99.9% of the community because of the inherent difficulty people generally have with the math behind such things. The advantage here is that there is no need to split the game into Legacy and Current divisions for competitive play. The downside is that a lot of people will be ticked off, for good reason, that the armies they enjoy for aesthetic reasons are not getting a fair shake. Then again so long as GW denies they've done it and keeps their points recipe a secret very few people, if any, will be able to prove its even happened.

 

2) Divide the competitive play into Legacy and Current divisions and be prepared for the fact that Current divisions will be the only kind financially backed and or endorsed by GW.

 

3) Do nothing.  GW takes the financial hit/risk associated with endorsing/supporting competitive play with units they do not manufacture.

 

I don't see a clear cut solution.

[buffalozap]

1 hour ago, buffalozap said:

I see three options

I came up with a fourth option.

4) Games Workshop could spend a lot of money to be able to manufacture the miniatures for every single warscroll they have made and will ever make in the future. Even if they are "special order" and 5X as expensive they might be able to find a way to make it profitable.

[Carnelian]

Keep them all! Let Sigmar sort them out!

[rokapoke]

33 minutes ago, buffalozap said:

I came up with a fourth option.

4) Games Workshop could spend a lot of money to be able to manufacture the miniatures for every single warscroll they have made and will ever make in the future. Even if they are "special order" and 5X as expensive they might be able to find a way to make it profitable.

Unfortunately, it has seemed that the GW products that are less resistant to copyright infringement have been axed. Brettonians are basically just medieval knights. Tomb Kings are basically a reincarnation of ancient Egyptian mythology. Models that have been produced since AoS's release, however, are by and large distinct enough that competing model producers can't make alternative versions at a lower price and steal GW's thunder. Their choice may not be player-friendly (I agree that it's not), but it's the best move in terms of financial stability and market dominance in the long run. 

[Bimli]

They should just stay as is. They have points and rules nothings is Uber over the top don't really see the problem 

[Uprising]

Today is your Tomb Kings and Bretts, tomorrow will be your Stormcast Eternals and your Ironjawz (basically you will not care until your army on the line). 

I agree with the video, let do number 4. 

[Mc1gamer]

3 hours ago, rokapoke said:

Unfortunately, it has seemed that the GW products that are less resistant to copyright infringement have been axed. Brettonians are basically just medieval knights. Tomb Kings are basically a reincarnation of ancient Egyptian mythology. Models that have been produced since AoS's release, however, are by and large distinct enough that competing model producers can't make alternative versions at a lower price and steal GW's thunder. Their choice may not be player-friendly (I agree that it's not), but it's the best move in terms of financial stability and market dominance in the long run. 

What about the abundance of models in the compendium that aren't TK or Brets? Many essential heroes and units in the Dwarf list are needed for it to compete as is, and still its an uphill climb. Tk is an outlier. Brets are not dominant, but work nice with Empire. Vamp Lord on Abyssal Terror isnt going to break any lists but offers a unique ability needed for non TK Death. It goes on and on. Most aren't generic such that IP concerns wouldn't apply

[Nacnudllah]

If I were running a competitive tournament, I would require players to choose their warscrolls from one book.  So they could either play from a single compendium pdf, a Grand Alliance book, or a battletome.  I think this would control use of older warscrolls pretty effectively (and some of the newer ones too for that matter).  It would resolve concerns like Death players ability to summon Ghouls, Chaos fielding Hellcannons, and so forth while also allowing people to play Tomb Kings or Brettonians if they so desire it.

[Arkiham]

1 hour ago, Uprising said:

Today is your Tomb Kings and Bretts, tomorrow will be your Stormcast Eternals and your Ironjawz (basically you will not care until your army on the line). 

That tomorrow is a very very long time away.

There is no market financial reason for them to do that,  it would be business and reputation suicide. That argument is terrible.

[SuperHappyTime]

2 hours ago, Arkiham said:

That tomorrow is a very very long time away.

There is no market financial reason for them to do that,  it would be business and reputation suicide. That argument is terrible.

My reply to this is down later.

This whole debate came out of nowhere, and I feel this was a push by SCGT for whatever brainfarting reason they have that makes them think a move like this is "Supporting AoS". Removing pieces from the game and telling players they aren't invited HURTS the game, not helps it. Doon and Darkness can shove it too for his similar opinion

Now if GW is dropping the Legacy stuff and they got a heads-up from them, then this needs to get out direct from GW now. Not when we don't see it in the General's Handbook v2.

And for the most part I think GW would start making a profit off of both TK and Brets again. There aren't any horse/cav armies, making the Brets unique, and the Death Alliance as a whole is lacking in model count/choices. And Brets may not sell, but TK would again. But both were asked for heavily when GW asked what we'd like to see MtO from GA Order.

So onto the quote. Look, there was no reason for GW to keep any of the other things or try to fit the legacy stuff into the current story. They could have dumped all of them and given the response "Sorry, we're doing our own thing now" and started with just the Stormcast, Fyreslayers etc. And you know what, nobody would be playing this game right now. Some of us have bought new armies, some to add to our old ones. You don't get rid of Dwarfs and High Elves, you add to them in new ways we would enjoy playing them. And you don't kill off entire playable armies, even if they weren't being sold in an old edition. Somebody (me) may still want to buy them (I would buy Ushabti and Necropolis Knights in a heartbeat. I didn't get any for my TK army before they went MtO)

[Bimli]

If they get rid of the compendium units I think gw would lose some players. I'm a dispossessed player and I can tell you without the compendium they would just suck. Right now it's hard for dispossessed to win due to some other armies being crazy so why get rid of the thing that can keep my army competitive?

[Ollie Grimwood]

GW has already effective done away with compendium units, they don't sell them any more. Some of them may come back, we've seen it happen already and I expect many more will get the FEC/BCR reworking.

I don't think the removal of Brets/Tomb Kings was a IP protection thing (it could have easily been changed in AoS), it's more likely they were non profitable and were discontinued because of that, it also why they had such long periods between Army Books in WFB.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AGPO]

I played Chaos Dwarfs in 5th edition WFB before they were squatted, and used to be a mod on the community forum that kept the army going and eventually lobbied for the Forge World release. I'd therefore like to add my prior experience.

There are two issues for players when their army becomes discontinued - availability of models and availability of rules. The former is more easily overcome. Conversion has been part of this hobby for a long time, and having every option you want for a unit included in a kit is a relatively recent development. Most of my chaos dwarf collection these days in converted from the standard dwarf range. There's also third party producers. Perry minis make some great medieval minis that can fill out the ranks of a Bret army. As time goes on you may need to talk your opponent through your army a little more but it's no big deal.

The greater issue is the availability of rules. Body blows to the Chaos Dwarf community came when the Ravening Hordes booklet (which contained "get you by" rules for all the armies when 6th edition made all army books invalid) disappeared from the shelves, when 7th and 8th editions were released and we still had no update, and when the PDF of our rules came down from the GW site. Each time the rules became harder to get hold of, it became harder to find opponents willing to give your Chaos stunties a game.

Why should this last point matter? Traditionally, many gamers end up taking two breaks from the hobby. The first comes when they discover beer and the opposite sex, the second comes when they have kids and jobs which eat up their free time. For some this is the end of it but many of us come back. When we do, we don't necessarily have the money to invest in a brand new army right away, or the time/inclination to get one built and painted. Being able to play with their old models and gradually update their collections is what enables many old hands to come back to gaming. Hearing that your old range has been discontinued is one thing. Minis have advanced so much that most players who've had a few years out will want to start a new army sooner or later. Being told there's no rules for your stuff is a whole different issue and much more likely to dissuade returnees. AoS has only been around two years and there are plenty of people who may well return and grow our community given an easy route in.

The last issue I have here is that blacklisting old armies further establishes the competitive scene as the be all and end all. The only issue with legacy scrolls is if you want to use them to build a high powered competitive list. There's nothing to stop TOs comping certain legacy scrolls if they think they're unbalanced, but removing them from the GHB serves the needs of a small part of the community whilst reducing the options for everyone else.

Tl;dr: Let TOs deal with any comping issues, but don't restrict options and routes back into the game for old players just for the sake of the tournament scene.

[Gwill_of_the_Woods]

I think compendium/legacy units were already assigned points in a way that discouraged use. Especially in comparison to newer releases. 

 

Plus, as any of you who play the older armies, the amount of extra abilities and cohesion of newer armies directly out-matches them in points and practice.

[Gwill_of_the_Woods]

...there is no way they can viably compete.

 

There doesn't seem to be a recognisable and consistent algorithm for pointing models, other than this one is new, it's good, buy it! 

[rokapoke]

I doubt that GW will stop "supporting" anything in terms of AoS rules -- see the FAQ, top right of page 6. 

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Errata/warhammer_aos_rules_en.pdf

That said, for tournaments to restrict the use of compendium/legacy models/units is their business. I personally don't see GW reopening closed product lines but the rules should always be accessible, per their own FAQ. For two of the three "officially supported" modes of play, all models with warscrolls are fair game, and I highly doubt that GHB 2.0 will change that, even if such models are no longer assigned points for matched play.

 

[Gauche]

My $0.02 is if GW isn't going to support the armies moving forward they shouldn't be used for Tournaments, as a few others have said. My local scene has already ratified this and made it known while our League is still going on, nothing from the Compendium in Tournaments. I haven't heard any big gripes about that, but that's anecdotal.

Reading the Compendiums it's pretty clear their design is different from the newer books and they either range from very underwhelming to probably a bit too good, mostly underwhelming. Since AoS can be and is mostly played outside of a competitive setting I don't think this would harm the game much and would also improve the competitive scene. I realize that excluding people from Tournaments is bad for growth but I believe it's better for the game in the long term and competitive players are very different from other types.

Eventually the problem will likely solve itself either through GHB 2 or there just being no more of these models as stocks dwindle. However that feels dishonest towards the player base and I'd prefer a hard statement from GW. I come from a competitive miniatures background with other games and GW needs to do a much better job at talking from the top instead of leaving it up to individual tournaments to run whatever they like. Doing that makes it hard to build anything beyond a local scene and regional/national events will suffer from disparate rule sets.

Again, just my opinion that's heavily colored by being a tournament/competitive player.

[AGPO]

1 hour ago, Gwill_of_the_Woods said:

There doesn't seem to be a recognisable and consistent algorithm for pointing models, other than this one is new, it's good, buy it! 

GW actually answered this one a long time ago (about 1999 I think). The reason they don't use an algorithm is that points should reflect synergy and the value of a certain unit within an army, not just the unit's own stats. That makes determining points values more of an art than a science.

Not sure whether they still apply the same philosophy, but given the importance of synergy, the variance in base sizes and the rolling release of new war scrolls rather than single army books, it makes a lot of sense for them to introduce rolling points updates.

[Squirrelmaster]

If they aren't going to properly support these armies (and it looks like they aren't), I'd like to see an official "counts as" list. Liche Priests as Necromancers, Ushabti as Vargheists, something like that. If they brought out some new undead monstrous cavalry, we could use Necropolis Knights and chariots as them.

I'd be happy enough with that as a solution.

[Drizzle4shizzle]

I also responded to vince's video, my personal opinionis that they need to be split into a separate tournament list. Vince drew the comparison to magic the gathering with type 1, type 2, legacy and such which I beleive is the correct descision.

[Drizzle4shizzle]

I also responded to vince's video, my personal opinionis that they need to be split into a separate tournament list. Vince drew the comparison to magic the gathering with type 1, type 2, legacy and such which I beleive is the correct descision.

[Kyriakin]

I just returned to this hobby this past year, and went all-in with Scourge Privateers. I have dropped around 400 quid on GW products, as I am essentially starting my collection (equipment, paints, miniatures, etc.) from scratch.

If compendium gets axed, I will feel like the Sword of Damocles is hanging above the head of my army, as well as any others that are currently fully-legal, on sale but do not yet possess a battletome. This is especially true with the zealot-like reactions of the hardcore narrative and tournament players - who are not usually allies - demanding that everything is "current".

The problem is, in this scenario, anything except stormcasts and the three main chaos gods could go from "100% OK" to "100% unplayable" on the day of a new GHB release and, GW tend not to reveal their upcoming plans for factions. This leads down the path of an investor, who's trying to research sales performance and rumours with regards to whether "Army X" is a safe purchase, as the hobby is suddenly taken out of your hands and into the hands of unseen suits in a Nottingham boardroom.

These are not Kleenex. People put tens, of even hundreds, of hours of their life - the only life they will ever get - into assembly and painting, and enforced obsolescence will only railroad people into the same boring 5 or 6 "ultra safe" factions so as to avoid that time being wasted. Or, worse still, will decide its not worth gambling their time and money at all, and disappear completely to company where their investment feels safer.