Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I wrote this about a month ago when the issue compendium first came about and SCGT's initial response to it. They have since changed their stance by allowing compendium warscrolls and the subject seems to have died down a bit. However, the subject has come up again recently in the latest Scruby & Wells' podcast with Vince Venturella and on Warhammer Weekly so I decided to post this and share my opinions on the subject. 

In the podcast, Vince offers various approaches to treating power issues in the game; some of which are inspired by Magic the Gathering (and all of which are more elegant than mine). I recommend giving both episodes a listen (linked at the bottom). 

I think the Scruby & Wells podcast brings a unique and interesting perspective to the AoS community. With a game that's still so new and changing, it's good to hear people talk about its current state and what they would like to see. One of the more intriguing aspects of his show that I enjoy is the "why" of Warhammer.

With that in mind, I've a few forums and podcasts discuss their opinions about compendium warscrolls and "why" they should be removed. It seems that the main arguments boil down to three components: 

(1) On the gaming side, having strong compendium armies (e.g. Tomb Kings, Bretonnians, etc...) offsets the balance of the game. 
(2) Since the models are difficult or expensive to get, they should be removed from the game to be fair to the majority of hobbyists. 
(3) Compendium armies don't exist in the Mortal Realms and "people should just move on". 

I thought I would play devil's advocate on this:

Removing compendium warscrolls means they won't have points in the upcoming GBH2 so they wouldn't be allowed at Matched Play events which is the desired outcome for some people. To me this seems like overkill because it would also affect the Narrative events that use the points system. Since Narrative events inherently focus more on the hobby and less on serious competition, they shouldn't suffer because of changes made to Matched Play. Therefore, by removing compendium warscrolls from the game, Games Workshop would effectively be taking a step back from their original position when Age of Sigmar first came out. 

So instead of Games Workshop making a decision which would have larger negative consequences than intended, I propose a few other ideas on how the compendium warscroll issue could be addressed and some of their positive side effects. 

First and foremost, by keeping compendium warscrolls in the General's Handbook, Games Workshop would be taking measures to preserve the state of Narrative and Open play which are the "new kids on the block". They took a big risk in the beginning by releasing Age of Sigmar with no point system and it would be a shame to see one style of play begin to negatively impact the others after only 18 months of the game being released.

(1) Keeping compendium warscrolls pointed would increase the number of armies available to play. Again, some people say that this offsets the balance of the game but I would disagree. Since Age of Sigmar has been released, I've heard many podcasts talk about what armies are the currently dominating their local club or scene and it seemed to coincide with the latest release. First it was death with "Nagash and Friends", then Stormcast, then Seraphon, Archaon and Everchosen, Stormcast again (when Extremis released), Ironjawz, Flesh Eater Courts, Sylvaneth, Bonesplitterz and Beastclaw Raiders, then Stormcast again (Warrior Brotherhood). Then, all of a sudden, we hit a break 40k releases and the holidays. It was around this time that we started hearing the "compendium talk" (about Tomb Kings mostly). So to me, it seems that the balance of the game itself was offset with (almost) every new army release.

(2) The fact that the armies are rare should only encourage the hobby side by way of alternate models or conversions (i.e. imagination). This would actually promote more creativity in the construction of the army, since the standard options are not available. 

Since AoS is my first time playing Warhammer (and the hobby in general), I have been wanting to build a Bretonnian army since I didn't get to. I've been coming up with ideas for some (what I think are cool) conversions but, if they are deemed illegal when the GHB2 comes around, I may not continue to work on them because they might not ever see the table. Yes, I know that I can still play them with friends in Open or Narrative play but, like other people, we use points to make sure we are playing on a similar level. 

(3) Since the Mortal Realms have not been fully explored, who's to say that certain compendium armies don't exist there? 

If I were to apply some logic here: In the End Times the entire world and everyone in it got sucked through the warp. We already know from the fluff that some of them made it through intact (more or less). Take Archaon for example. Not only does he seem to be the same but he has the Eye of Sheerian again (it was broken before he got sucked through the warp). So if the Mortal Realms haven't been fully explored, and we know some people or groups (skaven) made it through in one piece, it stands to reason that other people or groups might have as well. That's perfect for anyone wanting to create a brand new army or include an old one. And I know Tyler Mengel already has for the Tomb Kings. 


Now, let's assume that Games Workshop does not remove compendium armies and there actually is an issue with game balance due to the power of the army. I would suggest that final say should be up to the tournament organizers (T.O.s) as it is now. The SCGT has stated that compendium will not be allowed in their tournament which is their right to do. However, I don't think that abolishing all compendium warscrolls is the solution for the reasons stated in (1) above. Instead, I would like to see the T.O.s take a more creative approach. 

Maybe they could include compendium under certain conditions or standards. 

For example, an event could say compendium is allowed only if it is fully painted, round bases and WYSIWYG. I know that some of the highly competitive gamers build finely tuned lists with minimum standard paint jobs or just gray plastic models or proxies. These conditions would ensure that the people bringing compendium armies are more likely to be playing them because they love the army itself, not just its power. 

Also, the T.O.s could require a backstory explaining why/how the army exists in the Mortal Realms. This would make use of the openness of the Mortal Realms (3) and require some creative thinking on the player’s part. 

The T.O.s could also allow compendium but say they were eligible for best Overall, Sports, Painted but not best Faction. This would again ensure they are there to enjoy the game with others and not there just to win. 

These conditions are something that I would honestly be ok with if I were to ever finish my Bretonnians and take them to a tournament. 

In closing, these are some of my opinions as to "why compendium". Apologies for being long winded, but this topic seemed to strike a chord with me. I would love to hear your feedback and see where you stand on the subject. 

Cheers,

Jacob B

Scruby & Wells EP14 - https://player.fm/series/scruby-wells-1258638/ep-14-age-of-sigmars-long-term-health
Warhammer Weekly 02082017 - https://youtu.be/enGcZlhKtfs?list=PLcdsbwBroEmBGkTuXU79xqvTNctCiYAGW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate your thoughts on the subject, but a fair amount of your text seemed to be in response to GW removing compendium units from the General's Handbook II... which (through their sneak peek that included Tomb Kings units) seems to be a complete non-issue. I don't understand why one tournament (SCGT) proposing a ban of compendium units in their event has been expanded in the minds of the public to "GW are killing my army!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback. Most of it was written before the GHBII sneak peek. Hopefully more previews of it will keep it a non-issue. That aside, I wanted to share some additional ideas that I thought were outside of the box. Do you have any thoughts on them?

I agree that the response to a single tournament's decision was much stronger than it should have been. Possibly because of the weight the specific tournament brings to the scene and the fact that it is well known the TO's of it worked closely with the GHBI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ReverendDangles said:

Thanks for the feedback. Most of it was written before the GHBII sneak peek. Hopefully more previews of it will keep it a non-issue. That aside, I wanted to share some additional ideas that I thought were outside of the box. Do you have any thoughts on them?

I agree that the response to a single tournament's decision was much stronger than it should have been. Possibly because of the weight the specific tournament brings to the scene and the fact that it is well known the TO's of it worked closely with the GHBI.

It was undoubtably the connection that was being drawn between the TOs and GW that caused the reaction, despite I might add @Ben also being involved as much and catagorically stating he would be allowing compendium units and armies at his events. 

To be honest this has been quite heatedly discussed on here and I think the points being adjusted is the most mutually acceptable outcome 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, rokapoke said:

I don't understand why one tournament (SCGT) proposing a ban of compendium units in their event has been expanded in the minds of the public to "GW are killing my army!"

I guess because the SCGT guys have the ear of GW people now see their opinions as a bellwether for the direction that GW might take. Not an unreasonable assumption, albeit potentially still way off base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 guess because the SCGT guys have the ear of GW people now see their opinions as a bellwether for the direction that GW might take. Not an unreasonable assumption, albeit potentially still way off base.

Agreed. Having seen the approach they're taking in the GHBII by adjusting points instead of removing them, I think GW is paying attention which is great. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not an experienced Warhammer veteran (I, too, only started the hobby with Age of Sigmar), but I agree with the idea that narrative-based armies from the "old world" can still be tweaked to fit within the stories being produced by GW. I personally have very little experience playing against compendium armies, but every game that I've played using matched play rules and points from GHB I has been down-to-the-wire. So I'll play against whatever my opponent wants to put on the battlefield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, rokapoke said:

I'm not an experienced Warhammer veteran (I, too, only started the hobby with Age of Sigmar), but I agree with the idea that narrative-based armies from the "old world" can still be tweaked to fit within the stories being produced by GW. I personally have very little experience playing against compendium armies, but every game that I've played using matched play rules and points from GHB I has been down-to-the-wire. So I'll play against whatever my opponent wants to put on the battlefield.

Even before points came in and we were balancing 'by eye', I found that most games felt close even then. I have a feeling it's down to some inherent balance in the game mechanics at least as much as it's down to points balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Even before points came in and we were balancing 'by eye', I found that most games felt close even then. I have a feeling it's down to some inherent balance in the game mechanics at least as much as it's down to points balance.

Agreed. I think they've been doing a good job incorporating the balance in the warscrolls and abilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, rokapoke said:

I'm not an experienced Warhammer veteran (I, too, only started the hobby with Age of Sigmar), but I agree with the idea that narrative-based armies from the "old world" can still be tweaked to fit within the stories being produced by GW. I personally have very little experience playing against compendium armies, but every game that I've played using matched play rules and points from GHB I has been down-to-the-wire. So I'll play against whatever my opponent wants to put on the battlefield.

I always imagine that in the far reaches of the mortal realms one may encounter echos of the world that was.

That's all the justification I need any way. I feel like the argument that it ruins immersion is just poor imagination and/or saltiness. Of course it's all subjective...

46 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

I guess because the SCGT guys have the ear of GW people now see their opinions as a bellwether for the direction that GW might take. Not an unreasonable assumption, albeit potentially still way off base.

I agree, anytime a big name in the community has insider info or some influence on the game (either real or imagined) people are going to react as though it's gospel. 

Is it fair? Probably not, but without total transparency I don't think that will ever change. 

Personally I rather like the drama it creates. Gives us something to gossip about while we wait for new content. Better idle chatter and baseless speculation  than empty forums imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that the armies are rare should only encourage the hobby side by way of alternate models or conversions (i.e. imagination). This would actually promote more creativity in the construction of the army, since the standard options are not available. 

I will not get too deep into Compendium vs No Compendium (I have posted my thoughts on that elsewhere), but this particular comment caught my eye.

I'm always surprised when I see arguments based on the "good of the hobby."  GW is not concerned with the state of the "hobby."  Nor should they be.  They are concerned with the state of GW product and market share.  It does not benefit GW to encourage people to look elsewhere for creative new models.  All that does is push money into the hands of competitors.  If it has been deemed not profitable enougb to continue a line, the only smart thing for GW (or any company) to do is cut off that metaphorical limb and move forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder whether the problem was exasperated by the GHB category of 'Compendium'?

Ultimately, only a finite number of different armies can be supported by GW at any one time, and over the years there have been, and will be, armies that are no longer sustainable I guess.

Without a doubt, if the majority of your games are played at tournaments, or against tournament players, there will always be a tension when fielding something that isn't seen seen as official. 

The only way to truly combat this is to cover yourself with as many different types of opponents as possible, play as many different types of games as possible, and have as many armies in your collection as possible!

In conclusion. Immerse yourself in this wonderful hobby we all enjoy!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

It was undoubtably the connection that was being drawn between the TOs and GW that caused the reaction, despite I might add @Ben also being involved as much and catagorically stating he would be allowing compendium units and armies at his events. 

To be honest this has been quite heatedly discussed on here and I think the points being adjusted is the most mutually acceptable outcome 

Even then tomb king players are claiming they're being costed out of the game on purpose.

 

I feel personally the view point of "if it's not available to all to purchase then it isn't allowed to tournaments or competitive play"

GW will keep it in store as long as it makes profit and makes sense story wise which as shown is long after they stopped making models for it. 

Otherwise where does it stop? Should we support compendium armies and units for ever? 

What happens next year if they relook at the book, or the year after and so forth. In 5 years time they decide to remove compendium armies, this whole argument will happen again when those armies have long been stopped lore wise.

 

All this outcome has done is kick the ball down the field for tomorrow to deal with.

It will happen eventually, otherwise the game becomes a joke. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

It does not benefit GW to encourage people to look elsewhere for creative new models.

I agree that it isn't in their best interest to encourage people to look elsewhere for models but I have to imagine they know that's going to happen to some degree when they discontinue a line. 

They have addressed this a little bit with the Made to Order stuff now. That will also show them which models/armies still have a high demand by how quickly they sell out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, rokapoke said:

I appreciate your thoughts on the subject, but a fair amount of your text seemed to be in response to GW removing compendium units from the General's Handbook II... which (through their sneak peek that included Tomb Kings units) seems to be a complete non-issue. I don't understand why one tournament (SCGT) proposing a ban of compendium units in their event has been expanded in the minds of the public to "GW are killing my army!"

:shrug: Just reinforces the idea suggested by many that tournaments do indeed have significant inluence beyond their own event. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ReverendDangles said:

I agree that it isn't in their best interest to encourage people to look elsewhere for models but I have to imagine they know that's going to happen to some degree when they discontinue a line. 

I'm sure they do know it... which is why the line stops getting support from the game rules, too.

Think of it this: you're a musician and you own an instrument store.  You sell all sorts of instruments and you give away lessons for all of them for free.

After 5 years, you realize that you sell a ton of guitars and drum sets, but very few mandolins.  So you make the decision to stop selling mandolins so your resources can be focused on what does sell.  Would you continue spending resources giving free lessons for mandolins now that you no longer sell them?

I submit that you would not.  Not if you're acting in the best interest of your business.  Why spend an hour teaching the mandolin when you can spend an hour teaching guitar?  After all, there's now a chance you'll sell a guitar off the lesson, but since you no longer carry mandolins, there's no gain there.

And what if you did keep offering mandolin lessons to appease the previous buyers?  There's no harm in that, right?  Not until a new person walks in, tries your mandolin lesson, then wants to buy a mandolin.  He can't.  Not from you.  So he goes and buys it online.  Or at a competitor.  You just made a sale for someone else and got nothing for it.  If you had cut mandolin lessons as soon as you dropped mandolins, that new person would have to take a guitar or drum lesson.  The you'd have a shot at making money for you.  Not the guy down the street.

Does that mean you should carry mandolins again?  5 years of data tells you they won't sell the way you want them to.

We like to think companies support the mythical hobby.  They don't.  Not the ones that stay in business anyway.   GW wants you buying GW.   Privateer Press wants you buying Privateer Press.  And Mantic, who a lot of Warhammer "refugees" consider the new saint on the block wants to sell, you guessed it, Mantic.  They didn't write bunch of lists to "heal the hobby."  They did it to sell their book and showcase their models.  And now those ayers buy Mantic.  Just like they wanted. 

Taking that a step farther, GW didn't reach out to Dan and Wayne and Ben for input on the GHB and all them because they're smarter or have a better feel for true balance or anything so sentimental.  They did for numbers.  Those guys have hundreds, possibly thousands of customers tuning in every month.  Bringing those guys in ensures the customer base knows GW is "reaching out."  It's a huge PR move that creates a lot of good faith that GW realized they needed.  That's why GW picked them.

Sorry.  Rant over after one more note.

Please don't mistake my words for bashing GW or any other company.  Rather, I respect the hell out of these decisions.  They make solid business sense.

I'm just trying to point out that while we may have a relationship with the game, our relationship with GW is limited to "give money, get toys.  Repeat."

We're engaging in a hobby,  but what we're buying is plastic crack.

It isn't good.  It isn't bad.  It just is. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Criti said:

We like to think companies support the mythical hobby.  They don't.  Not the ones that stay in business anyway.   GW wants you buying GW.  

 

True, but if the product is ****** no one buys it. Look at WHFB they still put out great models for that game but no one bought it. That's because the game was ******. I would argue that a healthy AOS is GW's biggest selling point. So long as the games are good AOS will sell new models for GW even if it's not making money from compendium army's. While they could theoretically make more by canning compendium "forcing" people to buy new stuff it seems like delaying is the right choice. If the game continues to grow and the demand for compendium continues to rises with it, there may be profit in a re-release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Delaying only makes sense if it's financially viable.  

I don't have the inside knowledge,  so I don't pretend to know the details - but I do know that producing and storing miniatures costs money.  Even on demand ones have overhead.  And production schedules are plotted out months,  even years in advance.  

If I had to guess,  and this is only a guess,  I'd bet GW would benefit more by dropping the "dead" lines,  and pumping out new stuff for now.  I'd even venture a guess that they'd make more money eliminating the Compendium stuff, sitting on the concepts, and bringing them out as new armies 3, 4, or even 5 years from now.  By then,  then discussion will have died down,  and there's a good chance anyone who wants to play them will be buying entitling new armies,  rather than updating a unit here and there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Criti, I understand your point and your analogy works well. But if you don't sell mandolins anymore, are you still a part of the mandolin market? You are in the musical instrument market (i.e. miniatures) but not mandolins (i.e. Tomb Kings, Brettonians, etc...).  Also:

Quote

Sorry.  Rant over after one more note.

That made me giggle a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By offering mandolin lessons, you keep people interested in music. You might even get new people into music. Even if they get a mandolin somewhere else, if you offer a superior musical experience in your store, they may come back to your store for performance nights, drawing others in for the event, who might buy your wares. The mandolin player, enticed by the welcoming and inclusive environment in your store, may even get interested in other instruments or supplies that you do sell.


Or, you know, you could just announce to all that if they don't like drums or guitars then they have no business enjoying music near you at all. That's sure to win customers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

Or, you know, you could just announce to all that if they don't like drums or guitars then they have no business enjoying music near you at all. That's sure to win customers.

"May" and "might" don't pay the rent at the end of the month.

And actually, I'm really glad for the quoted comment above.  For 6 years, I worked for a major automotive tire, maintenance, and repair organizations.  2200 locations nationwide.  For 5 of those years, I ran the company's most successful store on the west coast of Florida.  I was in the Top 5 most successful stores in the southeastern US for the final 4 of those years.  The first year, I was not terribly successful.

Why?

Because I thought that getting every customer was more important than getting the right Customer.  When requested, I would special order dealer parts, rather then using aftermarket (funnily enough, all market research indicates aftermarket parts are generally a higher quality, too... people just recognize the dealer name, but I digress).  If people asked, I would bring in specialty oils, rather than use the oil we received in bulk through our contracts.  And I would acquire "outside buy" tires because I accepted that when someone asked for a certain brand that it was the only brand they wanted.  It made me very popular in my area.  60+ cars a day ran through my shop that first year.  It was brutal on me and my staff.  But we made money, and we had customers.  There were 5 other autos shops within 2 miles of my location... grabbing every customer and catering to any whim, regardless of how small the actual demand was had to be the key.  Right?

After that first year, I thought about whether not I was really doing myself any favors.   I decided to step back and change my mentality.  You need tires?  I sell these choices in Brands X and Y.  You want Brand Z?  Sorry, I don't deal with that.  Let me show you X and Y again.  You want oil brand A?  Sorry, all I carry is oil brand B.  What happened next scared the hell out of me as a manager.  My car count dropped.  I was used to running 60 cars a day and now I was only running 40.  I saw the shop across the street with more cars in the parking lot.  Surely, I had made a huge mistake!

At least... it looked that way.  But the our sales were up... and my profit for that year was LITERALLY double what it had been the year prior.

Why?

Because I replaced "customers" with "Customers."  I stood behind my product only, and I stood behind the direction I wanted to take my store.  And now my people spent more time talking about the product I wanted to move... and it moved.  Were there people who left and never came back?  Yes.  Were there customers who came in for our oil changes with brand new tires on their cars that weren't ours?  Even though we recommended tires on their last visit?  Yes.  But those people didn't matter to the grand scheme of things.  They weren't my Customers anymore.  And those who were, got the real attention.

My profit increases continued for the next 4 years.  And my car count went back up, too.  The average per day was at 57 when I left - back where I was at the start.  And my strategy remained the same.  "Here are your choices - take them or leave them."  It was about that point my son was born and I took a position with another company that would allow me to spend more time with him.  But had I remained, my strategy would have remained the same.

Was it a "customer friendly" strategy?  I can't say I even know what that means, if I'm being honest.  If that means ignoring sales data and accepting smaller profits just to appease a vocal minority, then no.  It wasn't.  But that didn't matter, either.  I've said it before and I'll say it again.  Companies are not friends with their customers.  Publix isn't my friend.  Neither is GW, or Mantic, or Sony, or IKEA, or... any of them.

What mattered is that I had a responsibility to post sales and profit, and that's exactly what I did.  I had a responsibility to follow a code of ethics, and I did that, too.  I never once lied to any customers.  What I did was limit the number of choices.  I still offered quality, but I didn't offer the sun anymore.  I lost customers... but I gained BETTER ones.

GW has that EXACT responsibility to its shareholders.

If anything, the real mistake they're making here is not being clear about their direction.  If the goal was to phase out Compendium scrolls when the model lines stopped being supported, then it should have happened immediately.  Pull the rules and call it quits.  If the goal was not to phase them out, then the models should still be readily available.  It's high time to ****** or get off the pot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Criti said:

"May" and "might" don't pay the rent at the end of the month.

And actually, I'm really glad for the quoted comment above.  For 6 years, I worked for a major automotive tire, maintenance, and repair organizations.  2200 locations nationwide.  For 5 of those years, I ran the company's most successful store on the west coast of Florida.  I was in the Top 5 most successful stores in the southeastern US for the final 4 of those years.  The first year, I was not terribly successful.

Why?

Because I thought that getting every customer was more important than getting the right Customer.  When requested, I would special order dealer parts, rather then using aftermarket (funnily enough, all market research indicates aftermarket parts are generally a higher quality, too... people just recognize the dealer name, but I digress).  If people asked, I would bring in specialty oils, rather than use the oil we received in bulk through our contracts.  And I would acquire "outside buy" tires because I accepted that when someone asked for a certain brand that it was the only brand they wanted.  It made me very popular in my area.  60+ cars a day ran through my shop that first year.  It was brutal on me and my staff.  But we made money, and we had customers.  There were 5 other autos shops within 2 miles of my location... grabbing every customer and catering to any whim, regardless of how small the actual demand was had to be the key.  Right?

After that first year, I thought about whether not I was really doing myself any favors.   I decided to step back and change my mentality.  You need tires?  I sell these choices in Brands X and Y.  You want Brand Z?  Sorry, I don't deal with that.  Let me show you X and Y again.  You want oil brand A?  Sorry, all I carry is oil brand B.  What happened next scared the hell out of me as a manager.  My car count dropped.  I was used to running 60 cars a day and now I was only running 40.  I saw the shop across the street with more cars in the parking lot.  Surely, I had made a huge mistake!

At least... it looked that way.  But the our sales were up... and my profit for that year was LITERALLY double what it had been the year prior.

Why?

Because I replaced "customers" with "Customers."  I stood behind my product only, and I stood behind the direction I wanted to take my store.  And now my people spent more time talking about the product I wanted to move... and it moved.  Were there people who left and never came back?  Yes.  Were there customers who came in for our oil changes with brand new tires on their cars that weren't ours?  Even though we recommended tires on their last visit?  Yes.  But those people didn't matter to the grand scheme of things.  They weren't my Customers anymore.  And those who were, got the real attention.

My profit increases continued for the next 4 years.  And my car count went back up, too.  The average per day was at 57 when I left - back where I was at the start.  And my strategy remained the same.  "Here are your choices - take them or leave them."  It was about that point my son was born and I took a position with another company that would allow me to spend more time with him.  But had I remained, my strategy would have remained the same.

Was it a "customer friendly" strategy?  I can't say I even know what that means, if I'm being honest.  If that means ignoring sales data and accepting smaller profits just to appease a vocal minority, then no.  It wasn't.  But that didn't matter, either.  I've said it before and I'll say it again.  Companies are not friends with their customers.  Publix isn't my friend.  Neither is GW, or Mantic, or Sony, or IKEA, or... any of them.

What mattered is that I had a responsibility to post sales and profit, and that's exactly what I did.  I had a responsibility to follow a code of ethics, and I did that, too.  I never once lied to any customers.  What I did was limit the number of choices.  I still offered quality, but I didn't offer the sun anymore.  I lost customers... but I gained BETTER ones.

GW has that EXACT responsibility to its shareholders.

If anything, the real mistake they're making here is not being clear about their direction.  If the goal was to phase out Compendium scrolls when the model lines stopped being supported, then it should have happened immediately.  Pull the rules and call it quits.  If the goal was not to phase them out, then the models should still be readily available.  It's high time to ****** or get off the pot.

I am going to have to agree with this here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

perhaps a compromise may be that if a model has been integrated into the new AoS lore and has a warscroll then AoS trumps compendium.

So for example if warriors of chaos slaves to darkness warscroll was a country mile different to WoC compendium, then sorry but the model is still in production but you don't use compendium anymore.

If Tomb kings got rebranded and re-released in this years story arc as desert drybones faction then TK compendium is no longer valid as those models have a current factions and scrolls.

It'll still mean brets will be brets, but at least one can argue that if the model exists now, one shouldn't be using the scroll of way back then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...