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.

I would say a CP tax would work just fine. So each detachment is a -1 CP.

UltraMarines and Space Wolves...-1 cp
Ulthwe and Beil Tan .... -1 cp
Imperial Guard and Sisters and Marines and Inquisition....-1 or more CPs depending on how the detachments are arranged.

Ynarri would suffer the most unless the entire detachment was purely 1 faction.

This curbs some of the Ynarri abuses so many have listed.

 admironheart wrote:
I would say a CP tax would work just fine. So each detachment is a -1 CP.

UltraMarines and Space Wolves...-1 cp
Ulthwe and Beil Tan .... -1 cp
Imperial Guard and Sisters and Marines and Inquisition....-1 or more CPs depending on how the detachments are arranged.

The thing I don't like about CP taxes is that it's essentially a rule to make cool things happen less often. Additionally, it doesn't really address the issue that has come up numerous times in this thread that some factions are obviously not meant to be run by themselves. So having an assassin in your army without giving up regiment rules would now come at a CP cost. I could see an argument for that being acceptable, but I suspect assassins, DW, etc. would begin to look like bad options if they suddenly cost you a CP or your stratagems/relics/tactics to field.

Ynarri would suffer the most unless the entire detachment was purely 1 faction.

This curbs some of the Ynarri abuses so many have listed.

How so? Ynnari rules don't really tie into CP. You'd still be soul bursting with Dark Reapers and shining spears just as often. You'd just have one fewer CP for whatever craftworld stratagems you're using. So unless the problem with Ynnari is that they have exactly 1CP to many, I'm not sure this really addresses their issues in a meaningful way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
Really what needs to be done is additional bonuses for the more " pure your army is. For example

Mixed detachment gets no traits, stratagems, obsec

Pure detachment gets trait A, basic stratagems, obsec

Pure army gets Trait A+, advanced stratagems, obsec

For example if we used imperial fists.

A detachment would get their current Trait, and stratagems
a full army would get current trait + bolter drill as a trait (exploding 6s for bolter weapons), as well as some additional imperial fist only stratagems.

That would be really cool. Obviously, you'd have to be careful not to make these "advanced stratagems" and A+ traits OP while also making them roughly as good as a series of specialized sub-factions or a cherry picking soup list, but the concept is neat.

I think you'd generally need to have the A+ traits be new bonuses or stratagems-turned-traits. You could split Biel-Tan's rules into A = +1Ld for aspects and A+ = rerolling with shuriken weapons, for instance, but the +1 Ld thing is so minor that I'll never take a detachment just for that. I think the bolter drill as a trait approach is along the right track.

 admironheart wrote:
UltraMarines and Space Wolves...-1 cp
Ulthwe and Beil Tan .... -1 cp
Imperial Guard and Sisters and Marines and Inquisition....-1 or more CPs depending on how the detachments are arranged.

The obvious flaw here is that the factions that need/are designed to take allies are being more heavily penalised that those who in this example (the eldar) are taking them for pure mechanical advantage.

A.T. wrote:

 admironheart wrote:
UltraMarines and Space Wolves...-1 cp
Ulthwe and Beil Tan .... -1 cp
Imperial Guard and Sisters and Marines and Inquisition....-1 or more CPs depending on how the detachments are arranged.

The obvious flaw here is that the factions that need/are designed to take allies are being more heavily penalised that those who in this example (the eldar) are taking them for pure mechanical advantage.

I see what your getting at, but on the other hand should GW realy be designing factions that cannot function without an additional army.
I don't want to see some of them removed from the game but equally it would be a minor adjustment in comparison to just add a key word of "Allies" units with this keyword are excluded from counting the lowest common faction keyword. Which would allow things like assassins, etc to be included without the rest of your army taking the pain, but it would have to be used responsibly not handed out like candy to every unit.

Wyldhunt wrote:

So to some extent, this topic boils down to whether or not you like the idea of a faction being able to cherry pick a wider variety of units to fill in gaps and weaknesses. Personally, when we're talking about tournament play, part of me prefers the thought of armies having pronounced advantages and disadvantages.

The problem with this is that it makes for games that are often decided by matchup rather than play. You have a pronounced disadvantage against shooting? You have to play Tau? Bummer, man, should have played something else. If your disadvantage starts dominating the meta? Shelve that army and pick up something else. Armies with filled in weaknesses trade skew for a more balanced mix of traits. It makes for tournaments where players are more likely to be fielding lists that take all comers and are less about matchup and more about the game itself. It's just overall better if each faction is able to adjust and adapt to the meta rather than being defined by what they lose against. I still don't really see soup as a problem that needs fixing. At the very least, when I look at competitive lists these days they look more like the universe presented outside of the game far more than previous editions with more "purity".

 LunarSol wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

So to some extent, this topic boils down to whether or not you like the idea of a faction being able to cherry pick a wider variety of units to fill in gaps and weaknesses. Personally, when we're talking about tournament play, part of me prefers the thought of armies having pronounced advantages and disadvantages.

The problem with this is that it makes for games that are often decided by matchup rather than play. You have a pronounced disadvantage against shooting? You have to play Tau? Bummer, man, should have played something else. If your disadvantage starts dominating the meta? Shelve that army and pick up something else. Armies with filled in weaknesses trade skew for a more balanced mix of traits. It makes for tournaments where players are more likely to be fielding lists that take all comers and are less about matchup and more about the game itself. It's just overall better if each faction is able to adjust and adapt to the meta rather than being defined by what they lose against. I still don't really see soup as a problem that needs fixing. At the very least, when I look at competitive lists these days they look more like the universe presented outside of the game far more than previous editions with more "purity".

The issue is that being able to cherry pick from across several armies leads to less list building creativity because there are more "auto-include" choices. I'm not against it, I just think presenting viable ways to create mono-faction builds would lead to more types of lists being played.

 LunarSol wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

So to some extent, this topic boils down to whether or not you like the idea of a faction being able to cherry pick a wider variety of units to fill in gaps and weaknesses. Personally, when we're talking about tournament play, part of me prefers the thought of armies having pronounced advantages and disadvantages.

The problem with this is that it makes for games that are often decided by matchup rather than play. You have a pronounced disadvantage against shooting? You have to play Tau? Bummer, man, should have played something else. If your disadvantage starts dominating the meta? Shelve that army and pick up something else. Armies with filled in weaknesses trade skew for a more balanced mix of traits. It makes for tournaments where players are more likely to be fielding lists that take all comers and are less about matchup and more about the game itself. It's just overall better if each faction is able to adjust and adapt to the meta rather than being defined by what they lose against. I still don't really see soup as a problem that needs fixing. At the very least, when I look at competitive lists these days they look more like the universe presented outside of the game far more than previous editions with more "purity".

As opposed to "bummer, you play a (sub)faction that offers nothing to a soup"?

Wyldhunt wrote:

Ynarri would suffer the most unless the entire detachment was purely 1 faction.

This curbs some of the Ynarri abuses so many have listed.

How so? Ynnari rules don't really tie into CP. You'd still be soul bursting with Dark Reapers and shining spears just as often. You'd just have one fewer CP for whatever craftworld stratagems you're using. So unless the problem with Ynnari is that they have exactly 1CP to many, I'm not sure this really addresses their issues in a meaningful way.

I have yet to play vs a Ynarri list this edition. From these boards a lot of complaints come from the LVO guys having different craftworld units in the main detachment (ala saim han shining spears)+ others. Then a full detachment of Alaitoc....etc.

So the first detachment with units from several craftworlds/elder types would get a -1 and then since there would be -1 or more 'pure' detachments that are different factions to unlock some traits/strategems.

So lets go back to LVO and take -2 or -3 to the ynarri lists that whole threads complained about. Those lists maximized soup. The way to counter that is not to nerf units to dust but to nerf soup....maybe not completely but enough that it is a tradeoff.

So would those 3 ynarri lists still have made it into the top 8 if they each had 2 or 3 less CPs? I'm thinking all their games would have played out different.

If you want that assassin in the marine army or that marine assault squad in that imperial guard...well you have to weigh the trade offs. It is only 1 CP in this instance, but you start min and maxing more factions for your advantage....there is a penalty that may counter your power gaming.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You wanna fix the soup issue?

How about you start with fixing internal balance and external balance first? Makin stupid rules like this won't fix the issue if people aren't gonna want to take their own units. I'm almost content just using the CP for rerolls and extra relics now and then.

Internal and external balance are also important, but that doesn't mean there aren't certain problems with soup armies. Reasonably balanced melee army is much better when it's backed up by also reasonably balanced shooty army. Gunline army is more powerful when it has access to cheap spam units from another faction. That sort of thing. It's not that people don't want to take their own units; it's that some factions have units that are just objectively better at a given role (like bubble wrapping) than the units in another faction. I often field kabalites as my bubble wrapping troop tax instead of avengers, guardians, or rangers because their lower cost basically makes them better at the job I need them to do. It's not that rangers or avengers are bad. It's just that I have a more efficient option.

So to some extent, this topic boils down to whether or not you like the idea of a faction being able to cherry pick a wider variety of units to fill in gaps and weaknesses. Personally, when we're talking about tournament play, part of me prefers the thought of armies having pronounced advantages and disadvantages. Want to field marines? Awesome, but you'll give up your stratagems if you want to take a cheap guardsman CP battery detachment. Want to play Ynnari? Cool. Then you'll be playing Ynnari instead of Alaitoc with a double-tapping squad of reapers on the side. But that is, admittedly, mostly a personal preference.

When we're talking about balance in 40k, one of the biggest issues is the sheer number of options and combinations available. Disallowing or adding a drawback to soup mitigates this somewhat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You wanna fix the soup issue?

How about you start with fixing internal balance and external balance first? Makin stupid rules like this won't fix the issue if people aren't gonna want to take their own units. I'm almost content just using the CP for rerolls and extra relics now and then.

Addendum: You could follow up by taking the "Codexes" that fall under the Imperial Soup umbrella wherein standalone use is either pointless (Assassins, Inquisition, Sisters of Silence) or crippling (Grey Knights, Deathwatch) and give them some way to stand on their own rather than punishing them for existing because you might catch out some abusive Guilliman-stacking shenanigans with the same tweaks.

I am personally of the opinion that some factions really just don't make sense as a standalone force. At least not in typical 40k game sizes. Assassins are an extreme example of this. I don't think we need to make assassins a viable standalone faction. Just make sprinkling them into a list viable while also acknowledging the impact that soup has on the game. Thus my above proposal for a system where you're limited to one "main" detachment but can potentially take a second detachment containing "mini factions."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
But then, what about a Cadian Battalion of infantry with a Catachan tank detachment? Nothing wrong with that, should that be penalised?

IMHO subfactions from the same codex are not soups. And some imperium factions should be merged into a single one.

Basically what really is annoying with soups is to ally celestine or AM units to SM lists, or AM to other imperium factions.

Cadians + Catachans shouldn't be penalised, it's like bringing coven stuff plus kabal units or bad moons plus goffs. Those are not examples of soups.

I'm not... strongly opposed to mixing sub-factions, and it's fluffier for guard than for some other factions. That said, in the context of tournament play, would it really be that bad to only get one sub-faction's worth of traits? I mean, sure, marine chapters team up often enough, but I feel it's easy to end up in a situation where every melee marine unit you see is a blood angel, every long-ranged unit you see is RG or UM, and Imperial Fists never field bikes because some other chapter tactic does it better. Similarly, my dark reapers are almost never any craftworld other than Alaitoc because they simply don't benefit much from the other craftworld traits. Again, this is personal taste. I find it more interesting to look at an army and go, "They're playing to this theme and thus have these strengths and weaknesses," than to say, "Ah. Yep. He took the best possible special rules for each of his units by breaking the army up into three detachments. Again."

There isn't an issue with soup armies. They've existed for years now except that Codices have split up a bit (like how the Daemon Hunters is two Codices now and Chaos ended up splitting Daemons and CSM, yet we would be essentially punishing those armies because of this thread being short sighted). In fact, Eldar as a codex proves you wrong as they've never needed allies to do anything in tournaments.

What the real issue is that you only have incentive to pick pure if your internal and external balance isn't such hot garbage. Eldar players had the option to bring in Dark Eldar and Harlequins in 6th and 7th, but didn't that remain a compliment to the force rather than being a crutch and therefore didn't happen often, if at all? Isn't the actual issue right now that Dark Reapers are getting Soul Burst is stupid powerful in the first place and GW didn't think out Soul Burst?

Not every army is Eldar and you forget that. We have armies that are bad like AdMech simply because bad internal balance also led to bad external balance.

 Silentz wrote:
Soup can be fine. I absolutely LOVE fielding a mixed Imperium army - feels very fluffy to have an Astra Militarum battalion advancing through the crossfire, with Space Marines dropping behind enemy lines on wings of fire to take out high value targets. However I also think it's disappointing that most factions work best when you can (in tournaments read: have to) patch their weaknesses by jimmying in other armies.

SO: How about allowing pure single faction lists to use Stratagems from their codex TWICE per phase rather than just once.

By single faction I mean single SUB faction. The lowest possible common faction keyword. So you only get to do this if you are 100% Hive Fleet Leviathan, or 100% Forge World Mars, or 100% Blood Angels.

It would mean a pretty huge power bump to many factions who are powerful but only in parts - e.g. the Blood Angels 3d6 charge can only be used on one unit per turn, so you know there's no point running a pure death company list as only one of them will be able to do it. Doubling that option per turn would, I think, make these pure armies much more focused.

Do you think this would be workable?

I feel like if you have a friend who's frustrated that their monofaction army doesn't stack up against your souperfriends list, this could be worth trying.

Problem is having two uses for some strats will be massivly OP, something like 3 additional CP for bringing one sub faction might work.

Or only certain units can be brought as troops if your whole faction is the approciate faction.

The other option is change the way CP generation works entirely, make it based on points per unit type rather then slots filled. This wont solve the problem entirly but will help a little.

Breng77 wrote:

The issue is that being able to cherry pick from across several armies leads to less list building creativity because there are more "auto-include" choices. I'm not against it, I just think presenting viable ways to create mono-faction builds would lead to more types of lists being played.

I guess it depends on what you're expecting out of "more types of lists". I don't think forcing everything to stick to their codex really changes anything. You just end up with the same small set of lists with less variety in them. Forcing factions apart isn't going to give you 2 kinds of lists; its just going to make the stronger half more dominant with the other gone completely.

The main reason I'm a huge fan of soup is that by forcing lists into 3 varied subsections, you make the lists themselves more varied and interesting. The biggest problem I see with the system currently is that the slots focus of detachments makes things like Outrider and Spearhead impractical for a lot of factions; making it hard to fit in some of the heavy support and fast attack options for an army efficiently. If they were a little more practical I think you'd see more "pure" armies made up of 3 varied detachments from the same codex keyword. As is, those ones don't translate well from points spent into CP earned.

Except soup by it self can never produce varied army lists when there is no incentive at all to go mono-faction. No one is suggesting (or at least I'm not) banning soup and forcing mono-faction. I'm suggesting you provide some benefit to mono-faction that is commensurate to the benefit you gain from souping your army. I want both ways to be equally viable, right now if you want to compete at the top you essentially need to play some sort of soup. You are looking at it as forcing everyone to stay in codex, I'm looking at it as, if you stay in codex you get bonus x for doing so that may convince you depending on your list to stay in one codex/faction.

I'm also not even sure what you mean by 3 varied subsections. There are more than 3 factions, there are only 3/4 "major" factions that can soup, but you have several that cannot do so, and so encouraging soup, unless you make those other armies much stronger stand alone factions makes those armies suck.

Breng77 wrote:

I'm also not even sure what you mean by 3 varied subsections. There are more than 3 factions, there are only 3/4 "major" factions that can soup, but you have several that cannot do so, and so encouraging soup, unless you make those other armies much stronger stand alone factions makes those armies suck.

What I mean is 3 detachments from the same codex. Currently a lot of factions can really only efficiently create Battalions and Vanguards to generate CP. One of the big drawbacks to things like Land Raiders is just that you're probably not building a Spearhead or whatever because the base cost of a slot is way too much to take 3 of. A lot of factions have models that just don't contribute to detachments they support very well. Essentially what I'm saying is that if it were more rewarding to take things other than Batalions, you'd see people taking a better depth of their faction rather than jumping elsewhere. I don't think soup is such a massive advantage if, for example, Orks were "souping" a batalion of Green Tide with an outrider of the Cult of Speed and a spearhead of Meks. The issue is really right now is just that batalions are efficient CP generators, and still have enough other slots to take the stuff that you wouldn't really want to be taking 3 of to try and squeak out a single CP.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

There isn't an issue with soup armies. They've existed for years now except that Codices have split up a bit (like how the Daemon Hunters is two Codices now and Chaos ended up splitting Daemons and CSM, yet we would be essentially punishing those armies because of this thread being short sighted). In fact, Eldar as a codex proves you wrong as they've never needed allies to do anything in tournaments.

They've existed for years, and I'm mostly fine with them, but ultimately soup from a competitive standpoint boils down to two main things:
1.) Gaining advantages that a "pure" version of your force lacks, or covering weaknesses it would normally have. Have an elite, expensive force? Take some guardsmen for cheap CP and bubble wrap. Don't like your melee units? Your pals next door might have one more to your liking.
2.) Occassionally, and this is a solveable thing that isn't especially common at the moment, you'll find probably-unintended synergies between units that make certain options far better than normal. See Guilliman + conscripts or deepstriking primarchs.

Reasonable people can feel that the first point isn't a problem, and I don't necessarily disagree, BUT I do feel that we lose a bit of an army's personality when we can patch over disadvantages with other units. I also feel that this risks favoring imperial armies (and to a lesser extent eldar and chaos) as they have a huge range of options with which to min max while certain armies (necrons spring to mind) are stuck looking at a single book for ways to deal with their weaknesses. I suspect 'crons would quite like to be able to ally in some guardsmen for CP or efficient ranged dakka. And then that sort of raises the question of what level a given faction's overall efficiency should be at compared to other armies. Do you design 'crons to be as potent as a pure marine force, or do you design it to be as potent as a marine force with guardsmen (or whatever) patching holes in their normal weaknesses?

What the real issue is that you only have incentive to pick pure if your internal and external balance isn't such hot garbage. Eldar players had the option to bring in Dark Eldar and Harlequins in 6th and 7th, but didn't that remain a compliment to the force rather than being a crutch and therefore didn't happen often, if at all? Isn't the actual issue right now that Dark Reapers are getting Soul Burst is stupid powerful in the first place and GW didn't think out Soul Burst?

Well, fortuned shadow fields and webway portal wraith guard and fire dragons in raiders and taudar all had their moments in the spotlight, so... I think you could make the argument that eldar could have worked pretty well (and did work pretty well) without those "soup" elements, but the soup was definitely effective in its own right. That eldar were still potent without soup mostly speaks to the poor design of scatbikes and wraith knights in 7th. Without those, I'm pretty confident most eldar lists would have been webway portal soup.

You're not wrong about ynnari reapers being a separate issue though.

Not every army is Eldar and you forget that. We have armies that are bad like AdMech simply because bad internal balance also led to bad external balance.

Fair point. Some follow-up questions then:
1.) If you were to balance AdMech as an effective standalone force, would being able to soup in complimentary elements not make the souped AdMech more potent than just AdMech alone? This assumes, of course, that there exists a unit in the imperial arsenal that fills a certain niche better than what AdMech has at its disposal.
2.) If the answer to 1. is affirmative, how do you propose balancing the souped and unsouped version of the army?
3.) Given their relatively small selection of models, would AdMech be candidates for the "mini faction" status I described in my previous posts?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 admironheart wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Ynarri would suffer the most unless the entire detachment was purely 1 faction.

This curbs some of the Ynarri abuses so many have listed.

How so? Ynnari rules don't really tie into CP. You'd still be soul bursting with Dark Reapers and shining spears just as often. You'd just have one fewer CP for whatever craftworld stratagems you're using. So unless the problem with Ynnari is that they have exactly 1CP to many, I'm not sure this really addresses their issues in a meaningful way.

I have yet to play vs a Ynarri list this edition. From these boards a lot of complaints come from the LVO guys having different craftworld units in the main detachment (ala saim han shining spears)+ others. Then a full detachment of Alaitoc....etc.

So the first detachment with units from several craftworlds/elder types would get a -1 and then since there would be -1 or more 'pure' detachments that are different factions to unlock some traits/strategems.

So lets go back to LVO and take -2 or -3 to the ynarri lists that whole threads complained about. Those lists maximized soup. The way to counter that is not to nerf units to dust but to nerf soup....maybe not completely but enough that it is a tradeoff.

So would those 3 ynarri lists still have made it into the top 8 if they each had 2 or 3 less CPs? I'm thinking all their games would have played out different.

If you want that assassin in the marine army or that marine assault squad in that imperial guard...well you have to weigh the trade offs. It is only 1 CP in this instance, but you start min and maxing more factions for your advantage....there is a penalty that may counter your power gaming.

Hmm. Fair points. I'm still more fond of rewarding people for taking "pure" lists than punishing people for taking soup (or for just limiting people to one detachment plus maybe a single allied detachment of approved "mini factions"), but I see your point here. Would this disproportionately impact some factions over others? Losing out on a single command point per detachment is less of a big deal for factions with cheap troops to fill out batallions than factions that lack such options.

 LunarSol wrote:

I don't think soup is such a massive advantage if, for example, Orks were "souping" a batalion of Green Tide with an outrider of the Cult of Speed and a spearhead of Meks. The issue is really right now is just that batalions are efficient CP generators, and still have enough other slots to take the stuff that you wouldn't really want to be taking 3 of to try and squeak out a single CP.

Orks can have competitive lists using battallion + spearhead + outrider detachments, an example:

Battallion:

Warboss, bike, klaw
Weirdboy
3x30 boyz, nob, klaw

Outrider

Weirdboy
(Zagstruk)
30 Stormboyz, nob, big choppa
2x5 Strormboyz, nob, big choppa

Spearhead

Big mek, kff, (bike)
3xKMKs

That's just 1350ish points, and all of the units listed are among the most effective ones for orks. In fact these are all the most popular units at the moment. You can toy with a list like this adding a naut, a couple of buggies and a trukk with something embarked, or if you want a competitive lists just keep spamming the units listed. "Soups" with green tide, cult of speed and artillery already exist and they're also quite common. Maybe in the future going with 2x battallions and eventually another detachment could be more rewarding but at the moment CPs are not that important for orks since we don't have stratagems to use for and not even D6 damage weapons. Having 7-8 is more than enough usually.

Just require a battalion for a army to qualify for the benifits of being battle forged. that'll curb some of the worst excesses.

Not really almost every competitive list runs at least 1 battalion. In fact some of the worst abuses are people taking things like guard battalions for cheap CP.

 Silentz wrote:
Yeah the Slaanesh or Ynnari stratagem to shoot twice would be super OP

I still don't understand why they didn't just re-use the Age of Sigmar rules where up to 20% of your points can be in an allied style force, otherwise you lose your special allegiance powers. They already wrote the system to control mad soups, why not use it?

Only reason I can think is that it would make Imperial Knights unplayable, as they are >25% of a 2k list on their own.

This. You can even adjust the value to allow up to 25-50% (requires playtests) and limit the number of allied detachments.

Also the biggest issue is the price and value of the stratagems - they define the game right now. And, for example, mono-custodes army gets like 6CP at most with d3 refundable if you pay crazy premium for Trojan Valoris.
It is not enough, it is nothing. You can spend half of that even before the game starts and the rest on turn 1.

Such stratagem-dependable armies (death guard and custodes are best examples) HAVE to spam cheap battalions to pile up CPs and while some of them have their own means (poxwalkers, cultists, infantry squads, scouts) others lack them completely (grey knights, custodes).

What I would TOTALY do first - is to give a player N-amount of CP to spend EACH TURN in addition to the pool of CP he has from the detachments and characters.
You can wrap it up differently:
a) Dawn of War style: for each controled objective you get 1CP or you get 1-d3-d6 depending on whether you control 1-3-6 markers. - this works fine for Maelstrom but in EW it is harder to implement
b) You get flat 1-3 CP each turn to spend
c) You return d3 CP spend each turn.
d) Variations or combinations of the a-c.

This would eradicate this horrible necessity of Battalions spam AND reduce the value of CP-recycling relics (it is very sorry to see Kurov's aquila and Veritas Vitae is almost every list as if other relics are non-existant).
And you will see some strategems used end-game.
I haven't yet played a single game in 8ed where I had CP on turn 5-7 to spend, and my armies usually have formidable 9-12CP.

Secondly I would increase the amount of CP you get from detachments or allow scaling.
For example if you have minimal units in battalions - you get 3CP, if you have 9 units in battalion - you get 6CP and so on.
This will promote BIGGER detachments instead of several smaller ones, without necessity to go into the Brigade territory.
This could allow spearhead,outrider and other specialized detachments to grow into something useful CP-wise.
Brigade should be something extraordinary and severely rewarded, 9CP is a huge bonus, but very few armies can capitalize on TAC lists right now.

I'll say it again simply put the CP system works backwards you should start with a given number and loose CP's per detachment taken for marched play.

Ice_can wrote:
I'll say it again simply put the CP system works backwards you should start with a given number and loose CP's per detachment taken for marched play.

Could also work. There are many routes, but your approach is hard to implement in chapter approved (i doubt they will print another rulebook in a forseable future).
While CP generation can be easily included in the matched play section of the chapter approved.
I'd say:

1CP per turn for each 1k points of the game.
(1cp for games up to 1000, 2cp for games up to 2000 and so on).
PLUS in chapter approved you can just ADD UP maelstrom and eternal war missions which GIVE you extra CP for controlling objective.

We already have weird missions like tactical gambit, where you interact with objectives, adding CP bonuses to Maelstrom should go flawlessly.

 Blackie wrote:

That's just 1350ish points, and all of the units listed are among the most effective ones for orks. In fact these are all the most popular units at the moment. You can toy with a list like this adding a naut, a couple of buggies and a trukk with something embarked, or if you want a competitive lists just keep spamming the units listed. "Soups" with green tide, cult of speed and artillery already exist and they're also quite common. Maybe in the future going with 2x battallions and eventually another detachment could be more rewarding but at the moment CPs are not that important for orks since we don't have stratagems to use for and not even D6 damage weapons. Having 7-8 is more than enough usually.

Yeah, I knew Orks would be a bad example because their stuff is cheap enough to efficiently fill detachment slots. It's just the only faction whose sub themes I know well enough to rattle off without putting much thought into...

My point though is that armies that don't have out of codex allies still have a pretty diverse selection of models to work with. For the most part, I see soup as a necessary contraction after years of unnecessary expansion. Genestealers are way more of a Tyranid expansion than something with any real model diversity of its own. A lot of it is like if Boyz, Meks, Bikes, and Gretchin were all seperate Codexes. There's overally a pretty decent variety in Xenos codexes; its just never been pointlessly spun out into separate armies the way the Imperium has. Chaos has largely worked the same way. As soon as GW put any effort into it, CSM went from "pure" to 3 different codexes in the blink of an eye.

Part of the reason they split the lesser factions out is to avoid horrible rules disjointedness.

Having Harlequins in Dark Eldar and in Eldar back in early 5th edition was hilarious, because the DE ones were 3rd edition relics that operated completely differently from the Eldar ones.

Can you imagine having an Assassins entry in every single Imperial codex? If GW wanted to change a rule and point cost for every Culexus entry, it'd literally have to update every single other codex's FAQ.

The way it is now, they can do it once, in whatever the one book the Assassin is in, and call it a day.

To be fair that's why there needs to be a generic Inquisition codex with all their militant arms (Sisters, Deathwatch, Grey Knights) they stereotypically use and then their own tools (like their retinue and Assassins and a Storm Trooper entry, etc).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
To be fair that's why there needs to be a generic Inquisition codex with all their militant arms (Sisters, Deathwatch, Grey Knights) they stereotypically use and then their own tools (like their retinue and Assassins and a Storm Trooper entry, etc).

So... you couldn't take Assassins with IG?
Or would souping be still allowed?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
To be fair that's why there needs to be a generic Inquisition codex with all their militant arms (Sisters, Deathwatch, Grey Knights) they stereotypically use and then their own tools (like their retinue and Assassins and a Storm Trooper entry, etc).

So... you couldn't take Assassins with IG?
Or would souping be still allowed?

"Allies" in 3e-5e (pre-GK book) was a set of special rules in the Ordo Hereticus/Ordo Malleus books that permitted mixing Inquisitorial units with Guard/Marines in specific/proscribed fashions, you could go back to that.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
To be fair that's why there needs to be a generic Inquisition codex with all their militant arms (Sisters, Deathwatch, Grey Knights) they stereotypically use and then their own tools (like their retinue and Assassins and a Storm Trooper entry, etc).

So... you couldn't take Assassins with IG?
Or would souping be still allowed?

"Allies" in 3e-5e (pre-GK book) was a set of special rules in the Ordo Hereticus/Ordo Malleus books that permitted mixing Inquisitorial units with Guard/Marines in specific/proscribed fashions, you could go back to that.

Yes, you could.

I did enjoy a system where you could bring 0-1 Guard HQ and 1 troop. Or was it two troops? And did you have to bring a platoon before bringing an Armoured Fist squad, or could you just bring two (or one?) armoured fist squad. And could you do them at the same time? With 1 Guard HQ and one Marine troop? Do they get dedicated transports or would those be bought from the Inquisition codex, depriving the Marines/Guard from being able to ride in them? Would they benefit from regimental doctrines/chapter tactics? Or maybe just if they're only mixed a certain way?

Yeah, certainly, not overly complicated at all. If only they had some sort of system, where you could just cross reference one word on a sheet to see if it matches another word on another sheet. You could call them "Keywords"... maybe I'm on to something...

Ice_can wrote:
I'll say it again simply put the CP system works backwards you should start with a given number and loose CP's per detachment taken for marched play.

Why? You realize its perfectly possible and beneficial to take multiple detachments from the same Codex, right?

Quick elaboration on what I said above about steering lists towards 3 varied detachments:

I think a big reason you're seeing soup over purity currently is just that a lot of lists really want to be running at least 8, closer to 10 CP. The only reasonably practical way to make that happen is with double battalion, but that only makes sense if you're a faction with a spammable Troop type that makes the Brigade possible. Everyone else is probably running their minimum troops and then needing to find a cheap ally to fill in the rest. If it was more efficient to get CP from places other than Battalion, I think you'd see more pure lists that take something like a single battalion, then a vanguard and outrider or something like that. Change the base CP from 3-5 and reduce a Battalion to +2 and I think you'd see a pretty significant improvement in pure lists dividing their forces into multiple detachments.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
To be fair that's why there needs to be a generic Inquisition codex with all their militant arms (Sisters, Deathwatch, Grey Knights) they stereotypically use and then their own tools (like their retinue and Assassins and a Storm Trooper entry, etc).

So... you couldn't take Assassins with IG?
Or would souping be still allowed?

Souping could still be allowed in minimal amounts, but I'm still more concerned on cutting down Codex numbers and internal balance.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
To be fair that's why there needs to be a generic Inquisition codex with all their militant arms (Sisters, Deathwatch, Grey Knights) they stereotypically use and then their own tools (like their retinue and Assassins and a Storm Trooper entry, etc).

So... you couldn't take Assassins with IG?
Or would souping be still allowed?

Souping could still be allowed in minimal amounts, but I'm still more concerned on cutting down Codex numbers and internal balance.

I would vastly prefer cutting codexes, but my codex list looks some like Imperium/Chaos/Eldar/Orks/Tau/Necrons/Tyranids anyway, so to me soup just feels like an inelegant way of getting to where I think things should be.

 LunarSol wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
I'll say it again simply put the CP system works backwards you should start with a given number and loose CP's per detachment taken for marched play.

Why? You realize its perfectly possible and beneficial to take multiple detachments from the same Codex, right?

Quick elaboration on what I said above about steering lists towards 3 varied detachments:

I think a big reason you're seeing soup over purity currently is just that a lot of lists really want to be running at least 8, closer to 10 CP. The only reasonably practical way to make that happen is with double battalion, but that only makes sense if you're a faction with a spammable Troop type that makes the Brigade possible. Everyone else is probably running their minimum troops and then needing to find a cheap ally to fill in the rest. If it was more efficient to get CP from places other than Battalion, I think you'd see more pure lists that take something like a single battalion, then a vanguard and outrider or something like that. Change the base CP from 3-5 and reduce a Battalion to +2 and I think you'd see a pretty significant improvement in pure lists dividing their forces into multiple detachments.

But whats stopping a pure army taking 1 vanguard detachment and fitting its entire army into it or a brigade or battalion etc? Nothing that I can see. By keeping the cp system rewarding multiple detachments I can be mono codex and have say alitoc shooters and saim han outriders giving the bonuses I want for the different parts of the army and I gain CP as a bonus for min maxing. Untill that has a penalty you will always get soup. Battalions aren't the issue its being rewarded with CP's for min maxing thats really broken.