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.

 Eldarain wrote:
Which IIRC you couldn't go above 25% of your points which remains a far better method of maintaining faction identity while allowing for some thematic alliances.

Yup. Iirc it may have also come from your Support allowance, but I could be wrong about that.

Unfortunately, genestealer cults could get pulsa rokkits, too.

 catbarf wrote:

nekooni wrote:
You asked for a narrative to explain this, I gave you one. It's fine if you don't like it, its not well thought out. I don't play at tournaments nor do I bring lists that weird, but this whole "oh my God I can't accept that your list does not fit my view of how the standard imperial task force would operate" thing is honestly just stupid in a universe that big. There are examples that could work as reference, for example Badab.

I'd rather just be honest about it and say "I'm not going to play your tournament tryhard list".

I never asked for a narrative to explain it. I said there's a difference between what is obviously a tryhard soup list that doesn't fit the fluff, and one that simply mixes reasonably standalone detachments as one would expect in a combined-armed force.

You then argued that they're the same thing... as long as you come up with a contrived backstory to explain it, and assume that the Marines (who are smash captains on the tabletop) are actually just randoms.

Give me an excerpt from any fluff relating to Badab that supports the idea of a couple of Space Marines with jetpacks and hammers leading a Guard detachment accompanied by several Knights and I will eat my umble pie.

Sure, I won't even try to find that exact scenario, but during the badab war Space Marines acted as integrated commanders to the Tyrants Legion. Not sure if there were also knights around, but it's not hard to imagine eg a freeblade helping out the Astral claws during that conflict. Regarding the other points see my previous post.

Soup isn't horrible at all.

What people don't like is the fact that it's better in 90% of cases than running a mono army because there are no downsides to doing it and it generates more CP.

 Ishagu wrote:
Soup isn't horrible at all.

What people don't like is the fact that it's better in 90% of cases than running a mono army because there are no downsides to doing it and it generates more CP.

Not for much longer it seems.

Yeah, it's exciting to see what happens.

Yes, looking forward to today's talk about the new rules. Hope they give details on how detachments work with the new cp system. I want to start planning lists now. Though they may change when the new points are released.

Jidmah wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Look up the RPG term "munchkin", and you'll figure out why it's bad.

Because of this?

Spoiler:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I haven't played Munchkin in forever so I might just pick that expansion up when this all blows over.

…

I was referring to the type of character that power gamers design that have no weakness, no flaws, the like. Soup is like that, allowing people to build lists with the sole intent of compensating/eliminating the inherent weaknesses/flaws of their army.

I'm fully aware of that. Munchkin is a game that makes fun of that very thing.

SemperMortis wrote:From a game standpoint, balance should be the #1 priority

Disagree. Fun/enjoyment should be the #1 priority. And balance certainly helps with that, but I've never viewed balance as the critical thing in my experience.

As much as you say "oh, ignore the narrative stuff and let those players figure that out for themselves", why shouldn't it be the other way around, and say "ignore all the balance and competitive stuff, let them figure that out for themselves"?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
y "ignore all the balance and competitive stuff, let them figure that out for themselves"?

GW tried that - it was AoS at launch.

Whilst those who love making their own games finally had an eager audience (locally) to play their games, it was overall a disaster. You lose unity between game clubs (even within for the biggest); you lose all sense of structure.

To me Game rules and balance are like the foundations of a language. It's spelling, sentence construction etc... They are the tool that allow you to them write a novel, a short story, an action adventure, a childs book, a highly complex legal document etc.... Ergo they are the foundations upon which everything else can be built. If you've a well balanced system you can play better narrative and open play games because now when you tweak things away from the "2K standard armies" you have some ability to predict outcomes or at least counterbalance changes.

It's a simple fundamental that underlays the whole game - solid rules simply work better than sketchy confusing poorly balanced ones.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:From a game standpoint, balance should be the #1 priority

Disagree. Fun/enjoyment should be the #1 priority. And balance certainly helps with that, but I've never viewed balance as the critical thing in my experience.

As much as you say "oh, ignore the narrative stuff and let those players figure that out for themselves", why shouldn't it be the other way around, and say "ignore all the balance and competitive stuff, let them figure that out for themselves"?

Because it's easier for a couple of new players to make up a scenario for the setting they know instead of mathing out what's over the top and what's not and figuring out which Strats are overpowered or not.