Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

From the Battle Missions thread in News & Rumours:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Strictly speaking, Rulebook and Codex are for Tournament play, as Planestrike, CoD and Battle Missions tend to favour specific types of armies (Guard are a nightmare in CoD!) whilst providing others with additional challenges to get the win.

But like it or not, Tourny play isn't terribly high on the agenda at GW. Rules are written with fun in mind. Not that the two are mutually exclusive, but it's easier to write fun and characterful rules than ones perfectly balanced for competitive play.

This got me thinking - why?

Why not create a yearly Tournament Compendium? Hell, screw the Tournament prefix - why not bring back the yearly compendium? Whether it's online or in printed format (I'd buy it in printed format for sure), does not matter.

It could include:

General
- FAQ, Errata
- Scenarios
- Trial Rules

Tournament Specific
- Tournament Scenarios
- Standardized Tournament Rules
- Yearly GT results review
- Codex Tweaks

FAQs, Scenarios and Trial rules sort of explain themselves. I think they used to have all of this in their old Chapter Approved publications. Then eventually, you add all of the succesful scenarios and trial rules once the new edition is about ready to come out.

The first two items in the tournament section would simply be the official Grand Tournament Scenarios and rules for the year/season. They could rotate a couple of scenarios in and out every year or so to keep things fresh.

Yearly GT results I don't know if they would do, simply because I'm sure GW would prefer the average player to believe each codex is equally strong. However, one could argue that this type of add-on is more aimed at the established player anyway (which most of their add-ons are anyway).

Codex tweaks, aka patches. Is there really any reason we have to wait 8 years for them to fix an obviously broken/underpowered/overpriced (all of DA?) unit? I totally see that GW want to accompany each new release with a miniature release, naturally this prevents them from making too regular updates, right?
Wrong. Simply put any changes in the compendium, and make them tournament official. Does it affect casual players that don't care about tournaments? No, not unless they want to. Does it affect the way they release things? No, they still get their codex+miniature splash release, and do not reduce hype in any way. In fact, it might maintain players interests in fringe armies (might make DA and Necron players slightly less depressed).

Does anyone know why they stopped the whole Chapter Approved thingy in the first place? It seems like the best way to keep the game up to date... If they don't have the resources to print one of these a year, putting it online should work just as well.

Thoughts?

Depending on how much it costed, yes.

IIRC the Battle Missions book was 24$? I'd assume something like that.
Btw, if anyone is voting "Yes, but not as described" - could you please comment on what you'd want it to be like?

number9dream wrote:Why not create a yearly Tournament Compendium?

Does anyone know why they stopped the whole Chapter Approved thingy in the first place?

It seems like the best way to keep the game up to date...

Because:
- it's probably nearly enough work as updating the base Rulebook
- the Compendium doesn't drive new model sales like a sea change in the Rulebook
- it's an optional sale, like an expansion
- it sells for less than the Rulebook
- players will need to carry (outdated) Rulebook, latest Compendium, and Codex to game

See above why Chapter Approved died.

Actually, GW has decided the best way to keep the game up to date is to release new Rulebooks every 4 years:
- marginally more effort per update, but only once every 4 years
- drives lots of new model sales
- mandatory purchase for all players
- full-price purchase
- keeps things simple at just Rulebook & Codex
GW is actually making our lives easier. Thank them with your wallet!

- the Compendium doesn't drive new model sales like a sea change in the Rulebook

And Planet Strike/Cities of Death/Battle Missions, does?

Actually, GW has decided the best way to keep the game up to date is to release new Rulebooks every 4 years:

There is a problem here, however. Updating the rulebook every 4 years does take care of the main rules, yes... but it does nothing to address the problem of many books going a decade without seeing an update, something that a yearly compendium would at least alleviate, wouldn't you say?

And I wouldn't call the rulebook outdated because of something like this, at least not the way I had imagined it. It wouldn't be creating new rules (things like trial rules would be optional and completely separate from tournament play), just compiling the FAQs and Erratas they already have available on their website (don't you have to carry all those anyway?).

- keeps things simple at just Rulebook & Codex

Simple is great, but wouldn't having unified rules (as well as rulings on controversial issues i.e deff rollas ramming or Doom of Mal'antai and vehicles) be quite handy in a tournament setting? Hell, wouldn't it be quite handy in ANY setting? It's a way to keep their hand in the game without having to change their current model of selling rules+new minis together.

number9dream wrote:

- the Compendium doesn't drive new model sales like a sea change in the Rulebook

And Planet Strike/Cities of Death/Battle Missions, does?

With Planetstrike and Cities of Death, did you notice the large number of MUST HAVE terrain pieces released with these? Bastions, ruins, etc. Battle Missions is not yet out, so I cannot comment, but if it has a MUST HAVE Thunderhawk and they release one later this year... yeah, it aided model sales.

number9dream wrote:

- the Compendium doesn't drive new model sales like a sea change in the Rulebook

And Planet Strike/Cities of Death/Battle Missions, does?

Yes, it does. Planetstrike / CoD terrain sold well. Missions isn't out yet, but it'll probably be drive some mini-Apocalypse-like extra sales.

number9dream wrote:

Actually, GW has decided the best way to keep the game up to date is to release new Rulebooks every 4 years:

Updating the rulebook every 4 years does take care of the main rules, yes... but it does nothing to address the problem of many books going a decade without seeing an update, something that a yearly compendium would at least alleviate, wouldn't you say?

And I wouldn't call the rulebook outdated because of something like this, at least not the way I had imagined it. It wouldn't be creating new rules (things like trial rules would be optional and completely separate from tournament play), just compiling the FAQs and Erratas they already have available on their website (don't you have to carry all those anyway?).

GW could hardly care less about minor army updates falling by the wayside. If you buy Woofs, Templars, Inq. or some other minor army, you know you're getting Tier 2 or Tier 3 support with the occasional FAQ. Yearly compendium isn't needed, as those books don't change on a yearly basis. A new edition FAQ solves all of it at once, and is more consistent FAQ-to-FAQ-to-Rulebook

Trial rules don't really help, as it confuses how the game should play. Either you play alternate rules expansion (e.g. Apoc, PS, COD), or base. It's clearer that way. Similarly, compiling Errata & FAQs isn't really a high priority - anybody who really cares will get it from the website; the rest will house rule and go forward. Quite frankly, I'd rather GW spent time on main rules than throwing random trial rules out there.

number9dream wrote:

- keeps things simple at just Rulebook & Codex

Simple is great, but wouldn't having unified rules (as well as rulings on controversial issues i.e deff rollas ramming or Doom of Mal'antai and vehicles) be quite handy in a tournament setting?

Nice to have, but not worth spending actual effort on. Particularly as the only guys who really care are Tournament players, who've proven that they can take care of themselves without GW.

Yes, it does. Planetstrike / CoD terrain sold well...

Yeah, I didn't consider terrain until I had posted, my bad.

...Missions isn't out yet, but it'll probably be drive some mini-Apocalypse-like extra sales.

How come? I haven't paid too close attention to them, I did pick up on there being one mission involving a Thunderhawk, but other than that - what else? (honest question btw )

Nice to have, but not worth spending actual effort on. Particularly as the only guys who really care are Tournament players, who've proven that they can take care of themselves without GW.

You think? Just looking at how half the 'Ard Boyz last year allowed Deff Rollas and the other half didn't made me think there was some room for improvement.

Plus, getting rid of comp would be nice.

Of course, I only have an outsiders perspective on the US tourney scene so, maybe it's run really well... (again, this is not said in a mocking way, I just want to clarify that).

What's stopping a normal person from compiling the available information? Print -> 3 ring binder.

number9dream wrote:Yeah, I didn't consider terrain until I had posted, my bad.

Sure, tho Baneblade sold well enough to spawn Shadowsword, along with releasing the Stompa and locking the Valk as a "GO!" to include in the IG book.

number9dream wrote:

...Missions isn't out yet, but it'll probably be drive some mini-Apocalypse-like extra sales.

How come? I haven't paid too close attention to them, I did pick up on there being one mission involving a Thunderhawk, but other than that - what else? (honest question btw )

Presumably, people will want to be more-balanced and/or better-specialized for various missions, and buying just one whatnot (or a few more) will do it!

number9dream wrote:

the only guys who really care are Tournament players, who've proven that they can take care of themselves without GW.

Just looking at how half the 'Ard Boyz last year allowed Deff Rollas and the other half didn't made me think there was some room for improvement.

Plus, getting rid of comp would be nice.

Of course, I only have an outsiders perspective on the US tourney scene so, maybe it's run really well... (again, this is not said in a mocking way, I just want to clarify that).

I hardly see how a schism of Deff Rollas being allowed or not breaks the tournament scene. I think there's plenty of room for variety in tournaments.

As above, it's OK to have choices and not always play the exact same way every time. Let people play how they choose.

IMO, GW getting out of the way was a good thing. GW does their thing and leaves the Tournament stewardship to those who *really* care at a grassroots level. The Tournament guys stepped up and the Tournament scene matured into a gamer-directed thing, finally catching up to how the casual scene has always been inherently gamer-directed. The INAT FAQ has become unquestionably the best Tournament-centric FAQ ever produced (tho completely unnecessary for normal play). And best of all, no more arguing how the occasional GW event somehow "defines" the hobby.

number9dream wrote:

- the Compendium doesn't drive new model sales like a sea change in the Rulebook

And Planet Strike/Cities of Death/Battle Missions, does?