Compendium Scrolls - The Great Debate

[GRex]

On 1/28/2017 at 1:06 PM, SuperKick said:

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. 

This. I feel that because these armies cannot be purchased, except secondhand, they will eventually be barred and probably dropped by GW. Expect to see them phased out of Generals Handbook unless GW fires up the model lines again.

[buffalozap]

2 hours ago, Squirrelmaster said:

an official "counts as" list

The back of every compendium is a long list of counts as units that didn't make the cut in the transition to AOS from fantasy. R.I.P. Dark Elf Pegasus Hero, you defined a meta, you shall be missed...  Anyways, the point is there is precedent for this and I wouldn't mind so long as it was somewhat reasonable.

 

I don't want to be playing against a troll that counts as a mounted knight or something silly.

[Sleboda]

On 1/28/2017 at 3:06 PM, SuperKick said:

Most people don't play the game at tournaments and wouldn't generally mind playing these armies in any other setting. *1

Given that they cannot be purchased directly it seems like a bad idea to keep them in the game in a competitive sense.*2

You can still play these armies but not in a competition. They will have points but not be supported. *3

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. *4

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. *5

I'm trying' to keep the language of this reply even-keeled, but it's tough, because I see so much wrong-headed about this that all I want to do is virtualslap ya!   (nothin' personal, mind)

1) How many people play in tournaments has nothing to do with if they should be allowed. The thing that makes tournaments different from casual play is the win/loss record over a series of connected games, using rules designed to emphasize individuals' skills over other factors. What about that has anything to do with what % of gamers would attend them?

2) The hole in this one is big enough to charge a Godbeast through. Availability of models has nothing to do with tournaments. What happens when I go to a tournament using my old non-compendium army that has, quite literally, not a single model you can buy from GW in it? Not "last chance" not "made to order" or anything like that.  Totally unavailable in any way other than to buy them from an individual who is selling their collection. The models are totally recognizable as what they are in the rules.  They are GW models. They just happen to be no longer produced anywhere.  Can I not use those either? 

Like it or not, TK and other compendium forces are 100% legit in the current rules for AoS. As someone else pointed out, it even says so in the FAQ. This makes them no different in any way from my old Empire Flagellants (metal from Marauder), Knights Griffon, Nightmare Legion skeletons, or anything else in the game. Current rules. GW models. Playable and legit.

3) As much as I am loathe to admit it, competitive tournament gaming is a driver for participation in the hobby for many people. The return of points and the idea of matched play increasing interest in AoS shows this, at least anecdotally. For lots of people, a game every few weeks to a month is about all you can get in, especially in most areas of larger countries like America. Lots of people in that boat play their "casual" games in prep for an event. Take away their 'tournament' army and you leave them with no 'casual' army either.

4) Similarly, you seem to be assuming everyone is the same (same as you, maybe?). It's possible that tournament goers are into the hobby a ton.  Maybe not, though. They could easily not like the hobby much at all, but like competing and like the game.  I have personally spoken to gamers who don't like to collect, assemble, or paint their armies but like to play and compete. The hobby is a necessary evil to them. 

That's not my main beef with this bit, however. Let's say they are very much into the hobby.  Somehow this means they also have bigger budgets and more free time than others?  Huh? You can be totally into the hobby and love tournaments and still not have the time or funds to more than one army. You are making connections that simply don't connect.

5) It's bad for a player (a kid or otherwise) to get excited about an army he sees doing well? How? What is your connection? How does that apply to the premise of a tournament and the idea of banning models that have rules but whose models are harder to get?  I am at a loss for words on this one. 

 

So, my opinion, then is to let legal armies be played. Period. All this thought of trying to impose alternate. down-the-chain views of fun on others who just want to play by the rules is really starting to bring back the bad parts of Warhammer.

 

 

 

[Bosmer Nightblade]

I see this banning compendium idea as a tentative toe in the water from GW to see what happens when they ask their independent scene to turn competitive AOS into a system similar to that of MtG, where instead of a new card expansion, you buy a new army each year, facilitated by your stuff from last year becoming illegal in a competitive setting.

I'm sure GW is intrigued by the model as it has a lot of profit potential, and I'm near certain they have asked their independent competitive scene contacts to see if they can test the waters and make this work.

However, Warhammer is personal in a way that games like MtG are not, and that changes things.

Sure you build your own deck in MtG, but the cards you use are the same one's available to everyone else. People assemble, paint and convert AoS armies in their own personal way, and sometimes the army is chosen for personal reasons regardless of whether they play competitively. It's often a labour of love and there's more to it than simply buying new stuff and moving on. I'm not saying everyone does that; I know one or two myself who sell up on ebay and buy the new hotness almost every time. But AoS needs to be an inclusive hobby, not exclusive, even at the competitive level.

There are better ways to deal with 'overpowered' units, gameplay-wise, whether that's via comp, rules tweaks or even points increase. But those ways don't necessarily generate profit. They allow people to buy their army and use it at events forever.

GW would like to say "let those people keep their old collections for narrative and free games", and attempt to coerce spending to stay competitive. It's the most profitable way forward and also frees them creatively from always having to check backwards for balance when inventing new things. But there is a risk of turning many people off by creating these exclusions, which in turn could stop some people playing and buying altogether.

For me, I'd like to see old stuff usable at events. I think it's part of the magic of the game, even competitively.

Tread carefully GW. Not saying you're wrong necessarily, but there's a fine balance here, and SCGT and others, just be careful you don't get too overzealous with this new and exciting partnership/interaction with GW. Followers and event attendance shouldn't be taken for granted.

That being said, I'm hopeful we can all find a way forward here

[Kyriakin]

Without wanting to get political, there is a prevailing ultra-liberal (by the way, I'm generally liberal myself - just not to the extreme) of "we love everyone, unless you disagree on something - in which case, ****** you!" elitism.

I see parallels here, whereby players talk about AoS and its "openness" and "it's your game!" philosophy, until they see something they don't like (e.g. old models) and then immediately demand for it to be banned and that its out-of-touch, "toxic" owners must buy the new GW hotness or ****** off.

Sure, the above is an extreme case, but the extremely antagonistic recent video from Doom & Darkness on Youtube - and the 50% of comments that were in full support of it - shows that this "its a friendly, open and inclusive game, unless we don't like something" attitude is out there. It seems like a massive contradiction to me, and has reignited an "old vs. new" war that had actually started to calm down a little after GHB1.

[buffalozap]

43 minutes ago, Kyriakin said:

but the extremely antagonistic recent video from Doom & Darkness on Youtube

I really liked that video because it was honest. A lot of people are afraid to say what they want to say because they are afraid of being rejected by people or are afraid of hurting someone's feelings, its really refreshing when you get to hear an uncensored opinion. 

[Sleboda]

52 minutes ago, Kyriakin said:

I see parallels here, whereby players talk about AoS and its "openness" and "it's your game!" philosophy, until they see something they don't like (e.g. old models) and then immediately demand for it to be banned and that its out-of-touch, "toxic" owners must buy the new GW hotness or ****** off.

:clap:

:clap:

:clap:

Yep. Been that way 4evs. Was hoping AoS would have left the old guard (mentally) behind. Seems it has not.

[Uprising]

Can someone explain and give good reason why we are telling our opponent they can't use the compendium scroll(which are legal, even if they are not, allowing your opponent not to use them quickly makes you the guy no one wants to play with)?  GW has gave no official ruling, but TO can do what they wish with their event(but they better be prepare for the backlash). 

 

In the ends, not everyone plays in tournament, but why cater to the minority?  We should allow all forms of play because at the end of the day THIS IS A GAME, why not have fun?  What gives you the right to tell others how to have fun?  What give you the right to say what army I can't bring(If your a TO, its your event, but I have the right to not go/pay for your event). 

[Kyriakin]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

:clap:

:clap:

:clap:

Yep. Been that way 4evs. Was hoping AoS would have left the old guard (mentally) behind. Seems it has not.

AoS started at the "loose" extreme of the spectrum, which was a bit too free-form (i.e. no points) for me personally. The game then swung to a more moderate position, with a certain amount of freedom combined with a certain amount of structure.

However, if forced obsolescence comes to pass (i.e. removal beyond compendium), the game will have swung 100% in the opposite direction from which it was spawned, with the future usability of every individual army/model completely dependent by GW's unknown future intentions with regards to their range.

As I said, hardcore narrative and tournament players love this "meta" situation, while I suspect hobbyists, veterans and casuals may tend to be less enamored with it. Personally, I don't really follow the ongoing story and am unlikely to play in a competitive tournament, but I just think pirate elves are a "cool" theme and wouldn't mind playing a game from time-to-time without getting snooty comments about being a "cheapskate" or "stuck in the past".

[DarkBlack]

There are several ways to play. Include or exclude as you like.

AoS was designed to be a casual game and aimed at a more casual target market from the start, this seems to have been a successful strategy. I think GW will (and should) continue to allow/support all of those (i.e. publish what the relevant players need, so points and one accessible warscroll).

I would like all warscrolls with replacements/revised versions to be made unavailable and banned though.

[Bosmer Nightblade]

7 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Yep. Been that way 4evs. Was hoping AoS would have left the old guard (mentally) behind. Seems it has not.

I wasn't going to say this, but it's relevant.

I'll reveal no names but let's just say that the other week I witnessed one of the most influential people in the tournament scene in a full blown, raging, toys out of the pram rant about exactly this topic (I.e. compendium at tournaments)

His attitude and indeed his words were essentially that anyone who wants to use compendium in competitive can **** off.

I'll not embarrass him or associated tournaments or podcasts by saying who, but unfortunately the elitist attitude goes deep into the community. I didn't agree with his attitude then and I don't now, but I'm a little concerned that it's people like that who otherwise act as a beacon to the community and with the ear of GW.

[Gaz Taylor]

7 hours ago, Uprising said:

Can someone explain and give good reason why we are telling our opponent they can't use the compendium scroll(which are legal, even if they are not, allowing your opponent not to use them quickly makes you the guy no one wants to play with)?  GW has gave no official ruling, but TO can do what they wish with their event(but they better be prepare for the backlash). 

 

Yup. I think all the issue is down to the SCGT wanting to ban legacy warscrolls (and a few other events). This lead several people to assume that because they worked with GW on the Generals Compendium, that organisers of these events know something and were trying to prepare the community.

Personally, it's common sense that these warscrolls will disappear at some point but at the moment there is no reason for GW to do that. I suspect with the new slant of the Battletombs to have even more specific faction rules (like Disciples of Tzeentch and upcoming Stormcast books), we will see less and less people use the older scrolls.

[MrCharisma]

I guess the argument comes down to a number of factors;

Views from GW: they want to lock down the IP of their models (because they are a model company first) and compendium armies are too generic to stop competition

Views from TO's: they want a fair competition, and the larger competitions are looking for support from GW. Tomb Kings winning on a liver stream on Warhammer TV would cause a world of problems 

View from Old Players: they spent a good amount of money and time on their army and want to continue using it. How is it their fault they picked the wrong army and should be kicked out of the game they love. If GW brought in new Chaos Dwarf or Brettonia models I'm confident players would snap them up...  they just haven't had the support. 

View from New Players: it's time to move forward with AoS and the old armies just don't fit into the atheistics of story from the Realm Gate wars.

 

I personally think the issue isn't with compendium armies, the issue is that Tomb Kings are under costed in match play.  I'm yet to here about Bretonnia being OP or destroy the tournament scene, which boils the compendium arguement down to TK's. Flying snakes at 160 points is ludercrious! 

Match play seems the most popular system at the moment, so TO's and GW need to fix the points. Make the points fair or over costed... And you'll naturally see players transition to other armies or not domimate the tourament scene. 

AoS is still in its infancy and it's best to keep as many players in the game as possible... which includes keeping Grand Alliance: Compendium 

[wayniac]

I watched the doom and Darkness video last night and I honestly see the Point although the rant was a little much. I do kind of agree that the old models have a very different aesthetic to what GW seems to be wanting AOS to look like. And I do agree that as a strictly casual a narrative player that I do think the newer models look a lot better on the table. However I do not agree with the rant about going in spending more money on new things or whatever because that's just stupid.

So I guess I see the points of both but a lot of the problem too is the battlefields don't really look all that good either because there is such limited Terrain. You can always scratch build things but as somebody who exclusively plays in a GW store that is not an option and the terrain GW Sales doesn't really do a good job of helping convey what age of Sigmar supposed to look like, so what does it matter if the models don't either.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[Blish]

The opinions of British tournament players and the opinions self-conscious game store regulars worried about 40k or 9th Age players making fun of them have little impact on my enjoyment of Age of Sigmar. 

But I agree with them.

I'll be playing my compendium army locally... but it would suck to face legacy units or models that aren't for sale in a competitive environment.

[Ollie Grimwood]

If the compendium is totally removed we miss out on the exciting mini game of trying to get anyone who plays Settra to kneel [emoji846].

The "silly" rules are the best bit of the compendium by miles.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CoffeeGrunt]

I do find it interesting to read the arguments pointed out whenever this topic rears its ugly head. My personal favourite was the bloke complaining that the majority of competitive Death armies are Tomb Kings, then offering four ways to alleviate that didn't include, "release new book and models to give options that dilute the reliance on Tomb Kings."

I personally dip into Compendium because I'm getting utterly rekt lately. Clan Skyre Stormfiend spam in that battalion that allows them to tunnel. Ranged spam lists. Teleporting Stormcast. There's plenty now that can pump enough dakka into my Skellies to annihilate squads, or at least cripple them. I avoided Tomb Kings as much as I could until I simply had to use them to stop watching my opponent bashfully apologising every time they snipe my Heroes and then roll my army back into their graves.

As far as the underlying principle of it, it does smack of elitism and some bitterness. I see few calls if any for current units that are considered OP to be banned in these threads, and the tone seems to be that those who use Compendium are either Old Man Jenkins who's gotta get with the times, or some guy who runs them for the cheesiest tournament ability. If we're accepting that armies and models have a lifespan, then how do we decide how long they get to live? Does it just become a game of the Stormcast poster boys hanging around while other armies flit by? Will we see Stormcast get removed in a few years' time? You say it's unlikely, but no-one predicted Stormcast even existing this time two years ago.

Plus the argument that you can't play models that aren't sold is petty. It's the adult equivalent of, "if I can't have it, then neither can you!" Plenty of the old kits were plastic injection moulded, which means those high-grade aluminium moulds were almost definitely still in good shape to produce minis, GW just decided to axe them for various reasons. GW not making money on these armies but still allowing them to be played is their decision as a business, and if they've decided it's fine, then I'm sure they've analysed it with all the data on how much they're not making and okayed it. Us here on a forum trying to dictate their business practice is hardly needed.

Not to mention the inherent fallacy in assuming that an army that has Compendium models in it doesn't produce money for GW. A Tomb Kings army might be running Settra, sure, but it might be using VC parts for the Skeleton Warriors and Tomb Guard with some conversion, and so ultimately GW's making money on that one way or another. Plus do we then ban second-hand armies if we're trying to preserve GW's profits? 

[Bosmer Nightblade]

40 minutes ago, Blish said:

it would suck to face legacy units or models that aren't for sale in a competitive environment.

Of all the anti-compendium arguments, it's this one that makes least sense to me, but I see several people say the same sort of thing.

I don't really see why ability to currently purchase should have anything whatsoever to do with whether it's legal in a competitive game. Is there anything to this viewpoint other than slight jealousy perhaps that someone has models that you don't? Or is there something more to it.

If they're overpowered then that's one thing, although isn't linked in any way regarding availability.

The rate GW are currently releasing kits as well as what is currently legal, I can imagine quite a lot of stuff will soon be no longer available.

Back when we only had hard copy books, it would at least be understandable to say 'well I can't even tell what they do', but that's not the situation now.

So what's the sentiment then behind 'if I can't buy it I don't want to fight it'? Is it jealousy, is it if you found out it was powerful you'd want to go and buy it yourself (similar to a form of netlisting?).

[Bimli]

11 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I'm trying' to keep the language of this reply even-keeled, but it's tough, because I see so much wrong-headed about this that all I want to do is virtualslap ya!   (nothin' personal, mind)

1) How many people play in tournaments has nothing to do with if they should be allowed. The thing that makes tournaments different from casual play is the win/loss record over a series of connected games, using rules designed to emphasize individuals' skills over other factors. What about that has anything to do with what % of gamers would attend them?

2) The hole in this one is big enough to charge a Godbeast through. Availability of models has nothing to do with tournaments. What happens when I go to a tournament using my old non-compendium army that has, quite literally, not a single model you can buy from GW in it? Not "last chance" not "made to order" or anything like that.  Totally unavailable in any way other than to buy them from an individual who is selling their collection. The models are totally recognizable as what they are in the rules.  They are GW models. They just happen to be no longer produced anywhere.  Can I not use those either? 

Like it or not, TK and other compendium forces are 100% legit in the current rules for AoS. As someone else pointed out, it even says so in the FAQ. This makes them no different in any way from my old Empire Flagellants (metal from Marauder), Knights Griffon, Nightmare Legion skeletons, or anything else in the game. Current rules. GW models. Playable and legit.

3) As much as I am loathe to admit it, competitive tournament gaming is a driver for participation in the hobby for many people. The return of points and the idea of matched play increasing interest in AoS shows this, at least anecdotally. For lots of people, a game every few weeks to a month is about all you can get in, especially in most areas of larger countries like America. Lots of people in that boat play their "casual" games in prep for an event. Take away their 'tournament' army and you leave them with no 'casual' army either.

4) Similarly, you seem to be assuming everyone is the same (same as you, maybe?). It's possible that tournament goers are into the hobby a ton.  Maybe not, though. They could easily not like the hobby much at all, but like competing and like the game.  I have personally spoken to gamers who don't like to collect, assemble, or paint their armies but like to play and compete. The hobby is a necessary evil to them. 

That's not my main beef with this bit, however. Let's say they are very much into the hobby.  Somehow this means they also have bigger budgets and more free time than others?  Huh? You can be totally into the hobby and love tournaments and still not have the time or funds to more than one army. You are making connections that simply don't connect.

5) It's bad for a player (a kid or otherwise) to get excited about an army he sees doing well? How? What is your connection? How does that apply to the premise of a tournament and the idea of banning models that have rules but whose models are harder to get?  I am at a loss for words on this one. 

 

So, my opinion, then is to let legal armies be played. Period. All this thought of trying to impose alternate. down-the-chain views of fun on others who just want to play by the rules is really starting to bring back the bad parts of Warhammer.

 

 

 

Ok ok hold on a sec all your points are  just are just..... well not gonna lie I agree with everything you wrote

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, Blish said:

...it would suck to face legacy units or models that aren't for sale in a competitive environment.

Please elaborate on why the retail abailability of models causes your gaming to suck or not suck.

 

[Bimli]

What GW making something OP, or broken, or under costed.... pffff get real look at 40k GW has made many things under costed for what they do and there are many OP stuff out there. Cause the TK won a tourney people start up roaring and blame the compendium? This is just nuts I think its more that those "competitive" players that are complaining are just doing so cause they got beat. Any one playing AOS complaining that compendium is broken should also complain about scaven skyre tunnel cheese (no pun intended) or the arrow boys span (not sure their actual name) or the storm cast drop and kill or the Oger dude riding the I just do 6 straight damage to you or or or and the list keeps going and going. 

If anything GW just need to do a little balancing act but its not just the compendium that needs this it is a whole bunch of units new ones included.... Or you know for us dispossessed player make are stuff better and maybe we wont use bugman

[Ollie Grimwood]

What GW making something OP, or broken, or under costed.... pffff get real look at 40k GW has made many things under costed for what they do and there are many OP stuff out there. Cause the TK won a tourney people start up roaring and blame the compendium? This is just nuts I think its more that those "competitive" players that are complaining are just doing so cause they got beat. Any one playing AOS complaining that compendium is broken should also complain about scaven skyre tunnel cheese (no pun intended) or the arrow boys span (not sure their actual name) or the storm cast drop and kill or the Oger dude riding the I just do 6 straight damage to you or or or and the list keeps going and going. 

If anything GW just need to do a little balancing act but its not just the compendium that needs this it is a whole bunch of units new ones included.... Or you know for us dispossessed player make are stuff better and maybe we wont use bugman [emoji14]

To be fair I've seen a fair amount of moaning about Kunnin Rukk Arrowboyz, BCRs, Clan Skyre et al. I also suspect Mr Veal might have been making a point taking TK in the masters.

Quite a few tournaments had been comping out compendium units since before the GHB can out.

Thing is I doubt GW will be doing anything with the compendium (they said they wouldn't) but never say never it's been an interesting year. Though the Endless Deserts might solve the problem in that respect

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bosmer Nightblade]

2 minutes ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

I also suspect Mr Veal might have been making a point taking TK in the masters.

 

You're correct. He took them purely to try to prove a point. However he failed in making any point. Russ is an excellent player and wins many tournaments,  regardless of what he uses. He's known for winning with many armies.

IF in the other hand we'd seen a relative unknown, or even a competitive player with a low success rate suddenly take them and win, then that would have made a good point.

But in fact that has and hasn't already happened. Plenty of unknowns took TK to recent events and didn't finish any higher.

[Guest]

I wrote this blog post back in April last year the first time the community got into a flap about Tomb Kings and 'legacy scrolls'. Seems just as relevant today, sadly:

Tomb Kings - A Crossroads For AoS

"Amongst all of the speculation and the anxiety, it's worth remembering one thing; if the Tomb Kings are squatted, this time around it will be the community that does the squatting. It won't be due to the lack of warscrolls in Grand Alliance: Death, and we'll have no right to lay any blame or recrimination at Games Workshop's door. It will be due to the collective decision of the community that a newer publication automatically invalidates everything contained in a previous publication. This is not a self-evident truth. It's a choice."

[Bimli]

I haven't read up on this toruney, but for those that has was the winners 1) TK 2)TK and 3) TK? probably not right and I'm sure there may of been other TK players that didnt do so well (I could be wrong) I just don't get the complaining really I don't. But if its that big on an issue then GW should just fix every army not just compendiums to make everything fair.... 

For individuals that bought the compendium models and sat there an painted or took the time to convert they spent money on GW and GW should respect that (hence the reason for compendium) and any GW based tourney should allow compendium. Me personally I would never say you can't use something GW made and has rules for in a competitive setting.