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.

 Blacksails wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


You think wrong. A faction that contains half the content in the game, vastly more than any other faction and including multiple complete factions, is not valid. There is absolutely no legitimate reason to have that kind of disparity in options in a fair game.

You assume 40k is meant to be a "fair game". I think after over 20 years of grossly imbalanced rules and relatively poor balance, GW is not trying to build a "fair game" at all. It's just that's what people want, so they keep trying to force 40k to be it.

Then its fair to say that being poorly balanced makes it a bad game. People want a good game. Good games are balanced.

I don't think its unreasonable to criticize and hope GW makes the game better by actually balancing it.

Well, yes, of course. GW games definitely falls into the "degenerate game" category as far as game design goes.

 Crimson wrote:
Well IG shouldn't get 4ppm meatshield troops either. Such thing just being brokenly good in this edition is the reason why everyone is allying them in their armies..

I always felt they didn't scale the weapons that scale to the logical point. Like the Demolisher cannon scaling from D3 to D6 if the unit is 5+ models. They should have added something like... It scales to 2D6 when shooting a unit with 15+ models.

I'm a marine player, but I think several of the old big template weapons should scale. Whirlwinds, Demolisher cannon, in particular with my Marines should scale IMHO. I think Smite should scale also, but that might be just me.

Wayniac wrote:


Well, yes, of course. GW games definitely falls into the "degenerate game" category as far as game design goes.

Then on that we can agree!

 Blacksails wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


You think wrong. A faction that contains half the content in the game, vastly more than any other faction and including multiple complete factions, is not valid. There is absolutely no legitimate reason to have that kind of disparity in options in a fair game.

You assume 40k is meant to be a "fair game". I think after over 20 years of grossly imbalanced rules and relatively poor balance, GW is not trying to build a "fair game" at all. It's just that's what people want, so they keep trying to force 40k to be it.

Then its fair to say that being poorly balanced makes it a bad game. People want a good game. Good games are balanced.

I don't think its unreasonable to criticize and hope GW makes the game better by actually balancing it.

Truth.

You can't fully design forced faction identity when there is a big disconnect between lore, TT and what people believe is fluffy. The w40K universe is supposed to be huge but sometimes it feels very small.

Soup is a balance nightmare best crubed or banned in matched play. SOme smaller factions that have problems scaling up either need extra units (stormtroopers/scions for IG, decent everything for GK) or smaller points

edit: I meant stormtroopers for inquisition.

 Earth127 wrote:
You can't fully design forced faction identity when there is a big disconnect between lore, TT and what people believe is fluffy. The w40K universe is supposed to be huge but sometimes it feels very small.

Soup is a balance nightmare best crubed or banned in matched play. SOme smaller factions that have problems scaling up either need extra units (stormtroopers/scions for IG, decent everything for GK) or smaller points

No, its a tool that adds flexibility to list and army construction that should be improved on until it sits at a fairly reasonable level. Fortunately Games Workshop also seems to agree - it is wild to me that people post things like this and then don't understand why people who have invested in multiple faction armies (for whatever reason) don't just say 'yeah, you know what, you're right, I should just have to shelve the hundreds of dollars of models I've bought'. I play Tzeentch Demons and Thousand Sons, a perfectly viable fluff combination of armies, and there are plenty of other people who play similar lists who shouldn't be punished because a subset of players would rather advocate for the lazy solution. Soup armies are a legitimate, viable part of matched play and have been for several editions at this point - the correct move is to move the needle on soup lists until they sit at a roughly approximate space as mono build armies.

TS and tzeentch daemons shouldn't even be considered a soup, but tzeentch daemons should be included in the TS codex. Some of those daemons already are.

It's TS plus deathguard of something of khorne that would be a soup.

The real problem about soups is that several factions shouldn't be independent ones but part of a larger force. And without the possibility of allying something it's really hard to bring them to competitive games. This issue is the justification of soups but it also allows units from major factions that already have tons of options available to soup for advantage.

 Blackie wrote:
TS and tzeentch daemons shouldn't even be considered a soup, but tzeentch daemons should be included in the TS codex. Some of those daemons already are.

It's TS plus deathguard of something of khorne that would be a soup.

The real problem about soups is that several factions shouldn't be independent ones but part of a larger force. And without the possibility of allying something it's really hard to bring them to competitive games. This issue is the justification of soups but it also allows units from major factions that already have tons of options available to soup for advantage.

I don't disagree with the bulk of that statement - which is again why I believe there should be adjustments made to soup (limiting CP, providing scaling bonus CP for mono faction armies, limiting access to certain stratagems, or relics are all places to start). I do not believe that 'banning soup' is the right answer because it ignores that some armies are either designed for soup or are inherently non viable without it. I don't think soup in its current form is OK but the wrong reaction to simply try to hatchet it out as opposed to attempting to make it better.

Armies that are non viable without soup shouldn't exist though - they should just exist within the codex they are designed to work with.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Armies that are non viable without soup shouldn't exist though - they should just exist within the codex they are designed to work with.

Sure but GW is clearly not interested in this route - ultimately I try not to argue from the position of large shifts on GW's part because I don't think its realistic. I don't say this denigrate but more that I accept that that specific part of the equation (GW will produce 'ally' armies as standalone books) is a known factor and not a variable that can be changed.

I'd hate "banning soups" as well, I just think that major factions shouldn't get allies or to be allied to minor factions without some drawbacks.

 Blackie wrote:
I'd hate "banning soups" as well, I just think that major factions shouldn't get allies or to be allied to minor factions without some drawbacks.

I ask just for clarity - you also found the same issue with 6th and more so 7th editions various ally systems?

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I'd hate "banning soups" as well, I just think that major factions shouldn't get allies or to be allied to minor factions without some drawbacks.

I ask just for clarity - you also found the same issue with 6th and more so 7th editions various ally systems?

I skipped the 6th edition completely so I can talk about it, but the 7th edition ally system was terrible, IMHO the most terrible thing about 7th edition. Eldar & tau???? Come on.

I hated those SW lists that made them quite competitive and were based on thunderwolves deathstars with celestine or some SM biker librarians. I refused to even consider those options

If GW was really trying to make a good strategy game, they would be taking notes from this guy:
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/balancing-multiplayer-games-part-1-definitions

But I suspect they are leaning very much toward RPG design methods that inherently do not have a game "balance".
http://legendaryquest.netfirms.com/books/RPG_Design_Patterns_9_13_09.pdf
http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/09287.23528.pdf

As has long been the battle: are we participating in a common fantasy world to participate in a shared "narrative" or is it a competitive strategy game?
I honestly think both can be achieved but I suspect GW is still being dishonest and marketing as strategy while designing as RPG hence the confusion and sometimes anger.

Soup is just another symptom of someone trying to "gather their party before venturing forth".

Pardon my ignorance, but can someone explain the term "Soup" in the context of Warhammer?

Thanks in advance

SG

 ServiceGames wrote:
Pardon my ignorance, but can someone explain the term "Soup" in the context of Warhammer?

Thanks in advance

SG

It means putting units from different codexes into the same list.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Armies that are non viable without soup shouldn't exist though - they should just exist within the codex they are designed to work with.

No. It is completely fine to have armies that are supposed to work as allies. People just need to get over their soup allergy.

I’m fine with it in theory. Using allies in these games has many benefits, and most other systems use it. Kings of war, bolt action, Runewars, etc... all commonly use allies and it seems to work fine. As with so many things GW does, it’s a good idea with poor/inconsistent implementation.

Regardless, we’ve gone too far ar down this road with 8th to just simply step back. Banning soup would break more than it fixes at this point, as many books are clearly designed to be little more than ingredients to the soup mix.

the_scotsman wrote:
Or just... remove faction benefits if your army includes more than one <faction> and give any unit intended to be allied/mercenary (not just SOS, Inquisition whatever but also stuff like Scourges, basic Custodes infantry squads if you like, 1 Deatwatch kill team, commmonly fluff-based ally stuff) a rule that allows them to be added with no penalty.

I like these ideas best of all.

Inquisitors should be HQs that must be the warlord and bundle other assets under its own heading with access to certain stuff within limits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:
If GW was really trying to make a good strategy game, they would be taking notes from this guy:
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/balancing-multiplayer-games-part-1-definitions

But I suspect they are leaning very much toward RPG design methods that inherently do not have a game "balance".
http://legendaryquest.netfirms.com/books/RPG_Design_Patterns_9_13_09.pdf
http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/09287.23528.pdf

As has long been the battle: are we participating in a common fantasy world to participate in a shared "narrative" or is it a competitive strategy game?
I honestly think both can be achieved but I suspect GW is still being dishonest and marketing as strategy while designing as RPG hence the confusion and sometimes anger.

Soup is just another symptom of someone trying to "gather their party before venturing forth".

This is smart.
Thank you!

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Xachariah wrote:
Obviously they just need let Xenos be a faction keyword.

Let space marine players use Celestine. I'll be deep striking in my Monolith and unloading 30 boyz while my Fire Warriors cap objectives.

Lol that would be.... Entertaining.

This summarises the problem with soup nicely.

From the other thread.

Summarizes my idea on soup , you either limit Imperium or allow the above

 Talizvar wrote:
...is it a competitive strategy game?

No. Never has been, never will be. Not in the sense that Warmachine is designed from the ground up to be focussed on tight, tournament level play. Warhammer has always been a game for relaxing and having a laugh with friends.

Much as soup (and allies before it) offends my 3rd-5th ed sensibilities, I realize taking away options that were previously available makes for angry customers. So, much as I might like to see soup go away, I'm aware that is not a reasonable thing to hope for.

What would be more reasonable to hope for would be for GW to add some benefit to playing single-source lists, to balance them against the inherent advantages of soup lists.

Quick question regarding soup. I play an army from 3 different codexes. However every model in my army shares at least 3 keywords (Daemon, Tzeentch, Chaos). Is it still soup? I mean my friends "pure" codex has models that only share a single keyword with the rest of his codex.

By the definition of soup, I keep seeing thrown around IE chaos/imperial soup my list would be less soupy than his. Why should I be punished because I want to play a Tzeentch army which just so happens to be spread over 3 codexes?

Yes, if your army is comprised of units from multiple sources, it is by definition a soup list.

What army does your friend play? Off the top of my head, I'm guessing Tau.

The Salt Mine wrote:
Quick question regarding soup. I play an army from 3 different codexes. However every model in my army shares at least 3 keywords (Daemon, Tzeentch, Chaos). Is it still soup? I mean my friends "pure" codex has models that only share a single keyword with the rest of his codex.

By the definition of soup, I keep seeing thrown around IE chaos/imperial soup my list would be less soupy than his. Why should I be punished because I want to play a Tzeentch army which just so happens to be spread over 3 codexes?

Because they can't do it (if you read the entire thread that's what it boils down to, if I can't soup I want to punish you for being able to).

And because most codices have a semblance of internal balance but the external balance goes haywire when soup is involved.

 Earth127 wrote:
And because most codices have a semblance of internal balance but the external balance goes haywire when soup is involved.

Yeah, Eldar is an internally balanced book, so is Tau, for that matter so is the Chaos Space Marine book and Thousand Sons. Oh wait - none of those books have even the remotest sense of internal balance nor balance against the existing meta.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Armies that are non viable without soup shouldn't exist though - they should just exist within the codex they are designed to work with.

Or maybe Codexes that are non-viable shouldn't exist.

When you stop to think about what a Codex really is these days, the book is a collection of Dataslates, Stratagems, Psychic Powers, and Warlord Traits. That's it. Fluff aside, there's no FOC, there's no tactical guides, there's no conversion corner, etc.

Feels like we've reached the point where some Codexes are good for building armies, some Codexes are good for building auxiliaries to handle specific tasks. But you can't say they are all good for creating strong mono-forces, not that it's ever been that way.

I find the arguments against soup armies weird, mostly because they are based on the idea that players are getting around the weaknesses of a specific Codex. On the one hand, that's the point of list optimization. On the other hand, allies are a good thing. It means I get more playing time with my models because I have so many more options. The fact that my CSMs are marginally more reliable when I can take a detachment of Bloodletters instead of summoning is not really a reason to get rid of them, and (other than IG conscript spam in the start of 8th edition) I've not really had a hard time against Imperial armies. The games are always competitive.

So is the point of the complaints about soup really just bellyaching about non-themed armies? I could almost understand that, but there are so many suggestions about penalties for combining factions. The problems people are looking to solve are not always evident.


It feels like we are doing Codexes for the point of doing Codexes, and arguments against soup armies would go away if we just had dataslates with keywords instead.

techsoldaten 752669 9886566 wrote:It feels like we are doing Codexes for the point of doing Codexes, and arguments against soup armies would go away if we just had dataslates with keywords instead.

I don't think so. Each unit would still have to have faction keywords for strats to key off of, and there will always be people who want to play mono-faction. They should be able to play mono-faction without the system effectively punishing them for it by making multi-faction lists more powerful than mono-faction can hope to be.

I know some people would like to see multi-faction lists penalized. I can definitely see their point, but boosting mono-faction would be an easier pill to swallow. I think most people would see the logic behind it, and it wouldn't generate feel-badsies the way imposing penalties on mono-faction lists would.

Yes, but "people who want to play mono-faction" are like people who "want to play with only cultists" or in my case "people who want to play how the fluff says" without regard for things like optimization or whatever (or at least with those things in a lower priority).

They're fine, and welcome to it, and I think that's awesome. But they're never going to be top level, and that's also okay. Themed lists are rarely also top-tier competition lists, and that was true whether or not soup was allowed.

In any given edition before soup, the top lists were rarely well-themed. They may have been mono-faction, but that's because they were required to be, not because they cared about theme.