Switch Theme:

In defense of soup.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Farseer_V2 wrote:
 FrozenDwarf wrote:
Soup is for fluff and storytelling as that is where it does it best.
The sooner soup is illegal in matched, the better for the game.


Yeah because Ynnari players, Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, etc. This is such a short sighted view point that ignores the fact that part of the game is constructed around soup being an element in list building. At this point people who whine about soup are the 40k equivalent of people shouting about how the kids are ruining everything.


If you have something that you can't even play as a army, can you really be considered to be playing that? Isn't it like saying I drive a ford, and he drives a porsche, and then proudly proclaiming you drive a hotwheels? How is that possible?

I don't think a fix to soup is a ban. A fix to soup is less CP if you decide to run soup. Or something else.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
On the surface it sounds like we're saying the same things, but your statements come across as cynical ploys to trick customers instead of simple rules to let people use models in ways that make sense for the universe. The sales will follow without the need of some nefarious bean counter plot dictating "allies or you're fired".


I wouldn't say trick customers. I did not intend to imply that value was not created in the process.

Also, I tend to present business decisions in the most cynical light possible because, well, it's usually correct.

But you're right, it's not a trick, or a ploy, it's simply business. What annoys me is this argument that GW is somehow going to get rid of allies/detachments/soup (pick a term you like) because players think single codex armies should be dominant. That is stupid. Dumb. Idiotic. Incapable of doing basic math dumb. At the most basic level why would I settle for getting $40 from you for a single codex when I can get $200 for 5 (yes, I know you're a pirate, some of us aren't).


Where did I say I pirate? I just said I didn't think it was criminal. Not that I thought it was moral.

The majority GW's sales come from "Ooh, shiny!". You can look at sales data for any miniature company and see the sales drop off precipitously after a few months. Allowing allies ADDS sales. There is no doubt, but it also adds value to the game and long-time collectors. Nevertheless allies are not even necessary to their business. I still want to run a killakan/grot army some day even with no ally option available to transition to it.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Reemule wrote:
 Farseer_V2 wrote:
 FrozenDwarf wrote:
Soup is for fluff and storytelling as that is where it does it best.
The sooner soup is illegal in matched, the better for the game.


Yeah because Ynnari players, Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, etc. This is such a short sighted view point that ignores the fact that part of the game is constructed around soup being an element in list building. At this point people who whine about soup are the 40k equivalent of people shouting about how the kids are ruining everything.


If you have something that you can't even play as a army, can you really be considered to be playing that? Isn't it like saying I drive a ford, and he drives a porsche, and then proudly proclaiming you drive a hotwheels? How is that possible?

I don't think a fix to soup is a ban. A fix to soup is less CP if you decide to run soup. Or something else.


Ynnari are an army that is literally built around the concept of 'soup'.
   
Made in us
Morphing Obliterator





 Daedalus81 wrote:
Where did I say I pirate? I just said I didn't think it was criminal. Not that I thought it was moral.


It was an assumption based upon a statement, it was not an indictment of your morality or lack thereof.

In your case, allies are not necessarily driving sales of GW models to you.

In my case, unless a model is of use to my army, I'm not giving GW money for it.

GW would like to get money from both of us.

It's pretty straightforward.

"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




So your point is that this can't be fixed... and much like the OP, we should stop whining about Soup and be happy to play it and against it?

Or did you have a suggestion?
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Where did I say I pirate? I just said I didn't think it was criminal. Not that I thought it was moral.


It was an assumption based upon a statement, it was not an indictment of your morality or lack thereof.

In your case, allies are not necessarily driving sales of GW models to you.

In my case, unless a model is of use to my army, I'm not giving GW money for it.

GW would like to get money from both of us.

It's pretty straightforward.


Right, but there distinction lies in whether or not there is policy from upper management governing rules development. We know there is for new models. Allies? I'm not so sure.
   
Made in us
Morphing Obliterator





Reemule wrote:
So your point is that this can't be fixed... and much like the OP, we should stop whining about Soup and be happy to play it and against it?

Or did you have a suggestion?


My point is that it won't be fixed as it reduces revenue streams.

But the rest of your statement is correct.

"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Reemule wrote:
So your point is that this can't be fixed... and much like the OP, we should stop whining about Soup and be happy to play it and against it?

Or did you have a suggestion?


My point is that it won't be fixed as it reduces revenue streams.

But the rest of your statement is correct.


Well this game does have a long history of people not changing the things they don't like about it to make it more fair and to run tournaments, and such.

Sorry for the snark, but really? I can't even read that with a straight face.
   
Made in us
Morphing Obliterator





 Daedalus81 wrote:
Right, but there distinction lies in whether or not there is policy from upper management governing rules development. We know there is for new models. Allies? I'm not so sure.


I doubt it's something that's been detailed in a company policy memo or anything like that. However, as someone who spent many years working in game development I promise you that designers were included in meetings with sales and marketing people wherein they were asked how they could get existing customers to buy more models. I guarantee you that allies/detachments/soup was brought up as a way of doing this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reemule wrote:
Sorry for the snark, but really? I can't even read that with a straight face.


Yeah, happy to play against it is probably asking a lot. But learning to live with it is probably a better option than trying to change it, because I highly doubt that's happening.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/03/12 18:10:40


"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




My experience with what sells models that is controlled by the company...

Codex release (Easily number one. New Dex is released, people want more stuff/Start new forces.)
New Players starting. (duh)
FAQ (Something got better, or fixed? Let’s buy it.)
Then Soup.

Ban soup and the OP has to buy more to play a force… as do all those depending on running soup.

Now if it stays banned… that is where you get some great conspiracy theory.
   
Made in be
Courageous Beastmaster





Soup is fine for narrative play where the story and imbalance of scenario. However the unveness of acces to said soup should make it restricted in matched play.




 
   
Made in us
Librarian with Freaky Familiar






Out of the few things AoS did right, I think allies was one of them. They should adopt it for 40k, you can only take a single faction but then are limited on allies.

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in us
Morphing Obliterator





Reemule wrote:
My experience with what sells models that is controlled by the company...

Codex release (Easily number one. New Dex is released, people want more stuff/Start new forces.)
New Players starting. (duh)
FAQ (Something got better, or fixed? Let’s buy it.)
Then Soup.


So glad you have the sales data and metrics to back that up! That would answer so many questions on this thread, I mean, it would get us out of the realm of conjecture and moving towards fact.

Post that information, let's analyze!

Mostly because it directly contradicts my experience.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

Reemule wrote:
Ban soup and the OP has to buy more to play a force… as do all those depending on running soup.


Without soup GW's chances of selling me another model are absurdly small. I will not be starting a new army, I have so many CSM models that the list of models I'm actually interested in acquiring is literally less than 5 models and those are all situational. The only way GW is selling me new models is soup. What you're suggesting effectively abandons customers, it effectively says there are revenue streams I am not interested in pursuing, which is a failure of fiduciary responsibility.

"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Reemule wrote:
My experience with what sells models that is controlled by the company...

Codex release (Easily number one. New Dex is released, people want more stuff/Start new forces.)
New Players starting. (duh)
FAQ (Something got better, or fixed? Let’s buy it.)
Then Soup.


So glad you have the sales data and metrics to back that up! That would answer so many questions on this thread, I mean, it would get us out of the realm of conjecture and moving towards fact.

Post that information, let's analyze!

Mostly because it directly contradicts my experience.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

Reemule wrote:
Ban soup and the OP has to buy more to play a force… as do all those depending on running soup.


Without soup GW's chances of selling me another model are absurdly small. I will not be starting a new army, I have so many CSM models that the list of models I'm actually interested in acquiring is literally less than 5 models and those are all situational. The only way GW is selling me new models is soup. What you're suggesting effectively abandons customers, it effectively says there are revenue streams I am not interested in pursuing, which is a failure of fiduciary responsibility.


Hey you first, you started down this road with assurances of your credentials. Put some details down supporting your anecdotal evidence.

I give it 75% chance that FLG does something about Soup in the next year. 40% chance on GW doing something. Nothing to back it, just a feel.



   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





No reason for FLG to make a change - they're still a retailer who benefits from the added sales.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Farseer_V2 wrote:
No reason for FLG to make a change - they're still a retailer who benefits from the added sales.


I'm expecting them to do something about it in their tournaments, a place they have made clear they do make changes in.
   
Made in ca
Pulsating Possessed Chaos Marine




Soup can be fun or it can be crap. It really depends on the soup to be honest. I would rather see incentive in the way of buffs when taking a single army than nerfing soup.

Something like a extra 3-6 command points (not sure what would be balanced, I would say 6 due to just how much you lose by not taking soup.

This also opens up a can of issues because not all armies benefit from soup as much as imperials do. So a flat bonus may not be the best answer.

But seeing as soup makes sales I would not expect to see any nerfs until hell freezes over. They have been pushing to this point for a while and now we are here. So I say lets give some bonus's to single army lists.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/12 19:29:38


 
   
Made in us
Morphing Obliterator





Reemule wrote:
Hey you first, you started down this road with assurances of your credentials. Put some details down supporting your anecdotal evidence.

I give it 75% chance that FLG does something about Soup in the next year. 40% chance on GW doing something. Nothing to back it, just a feel.


Sure, 15 years, over a dozen shipped titles, I have never made it through a development cycle without having that discussion with marketing and sales. While that is still technically anecdotal evidence, it's a lot more than a feeling. It also jibes with discussions I've had with every person I have ever worked with in the games industry (especially marketing and sales, who have jobs that depend on that sort of thing), which number in the hundreds, again, anecdotal, but very consistent, still going out on the "more than a feeling" limb.

FLG will address Ynnari if GW doesn't. GW has already indicated they intend to adjust Ynnari. This fatuous belief that somehow there is going to be some grand coming to Jesus moment when GW walks out tearfully offering mea culpas for their terrible sins and how they've been trying to make money off their customers, while telling everyone they can only use what's in their codex, is just as silly as it sounds.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/12 19:48:16


"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."  
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
I mean soups should be legal but worse than ANY list made using a single book.


So that's great for the soup haters, but it means that all those soup sales will dramatically reduced. Which is contrary to the business goals of GW.


Maybe people will start buying full armies instead. If they can get away with just a few boxes to add to their already existing collection, why should they buy something more?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Farseer_V2 wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
I don't like soups but I don't want to erase them from 40k.

I mean soups should be legal but worse than ANY list made using a single book.


Right - because I should be punished for liking my Death Guard/NurgleDemon setup or TSons/Tzeentch Demons setup.


In competitive games yes, because chosing from more books is unfair since several factions can only choose from a single codex.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/12 20:40:02


 
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






This whining about soup is tiresome. Soup is not the problem, some OP/undercosted units are the problem.

Banning soup would be a one thing which would make me seriously consider quitting the game. I want to collect variety of models and it is amazing that I can field them together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Blackie wrote:


In competitive games yes, because chosing from more books is unfair since several factions can only choose from a single codex.

But not all books have the same amount of units anyway, so even if you could use only one book, it would still be similarly unfair.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/12 20:55:30


   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





 Blackie wrote:
In competitive games yes, because chosing from more books is unfair since several factions can only choose from a single codex.


Then GW should endeavor to make those books better, not take away options from other people.
   
Made in us
Morphing Obliterator





 Blackie wrote:
Maybe people will start buying full armies instead. If they can get away with just a few boxes to add to their already existing collection, why should they buy something more?


Building a business plan on potentially abandoning customers that are generating revenue should probably be based on something more substantial than maybe.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/03/12 21:51:24


"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."  
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

KurtAngle2 wrote:
 FrozenDwarf wrote:
Soup is for fluff and storytelling as that is where it does it best.
The sooner soup is illegal in matched, the better for the game.


Yeah let's destroy Assassins/Inquisition/any other "ally" army all together!


Or, you know, allow for them to be taken irrespective and not count for/against. With limits of course to prevent bullgak like that all assassin army.

Soup is a problem not because it exists, but because powergamers and competitive gamers abuse it. So I think GW will address it in some way. I have heard potentially making it so for Battleforged, <Chaos> and <Imperium> do not count as keywords, which would kill soup dead. At the same time they'd have to give Inquisitors, maybe Sisters of Silence and Assassins a special "pass to allow them to be taken. This wouldn't affect themed daemon armies (could still do <Nurgle> or <Khorne&gt but would eliminate bs like taking Tzeentch Daemons in a Nurgle army because they are cheap.

You know what would have actually solved this mess in the first place? Ally rules like AOS has; a percentage of your points can be taken from specific subfactions (or even the global faction). So all but 20% of your army has to be mono-faction, but 20% could be something else.

Ynnari needs to have it be all or nothing, not per detachment (like I think it was originally?) and replace Craftworld (so no using a Saim-Hann stratagem on Ynnari Shining Spears or whatnot).

What also might fix it is making it so you only get the stratagems of the detachment which your warlord belongs to, so no more taking a Patrol with a cheap HQ/Troop to unlock stratagems for abuse.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/12 22:25:50


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Morphing Obliterator





Wayniac wrote:
Soup is a problem not because it exists, but because powergamers and competitive gamers abuse it. So I think GW will address it in some way. I have heard potentially making it so for Battleforged, <Chaos> and <Imperium> do not count as keywords, which would kill soup dead.


That would be amazing, I'm so glad you thought that through completely before posting it, because it completely breaks the CSM codex itself. So basically the only Legions that could use Daemons would be the big 4, the rest of them become garbage on a stick, brilliant, well thought out.

Wayniac wrote:
This wouldn't affect themed daemon armies (could still do <Nurgle> or <Khorne&gt but would eliminate bs like taking Tzeentch Daemons in a Nurgle army because they are cheap.


Hey, you know, Bel'akor is really terrible in the new rules already, but how about we make it so you can't actually take him in any list, at all, ever.

Wayniac wrote:
Ynnari needs to have it be all or nothing, not per detachment (like I think it was originally?) and replace Craftworld (so no using a Saim-Hann stratagem on Ynnari Shining Spears or whatnot).


Make Soulburst a 1 CP stratagem, problem solved.

"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."  
   
Made in se
Swift Swooping Hawk





Having more options is always more powerful than having fewer ones, so of course you can get better results by fielding a bunch of Imperium models of different flavours than you can by restricting yourself to only Space Marine ones. The extreme difference in number of options between, say, Imperium and Necrons makes any demblance of balance impossible unless you artificially cut down on the power of soup. Even if all models were equally good, more options will win because they can choose the perfect tool for the job rather than pick an adequate one.

So if you want to be able to play any Imperium models together in an army without penalties and still have a fair game against armies with far fewer options, you need to make the other armies' options more powerful than the Imperium's across the board. The again, that would make the Imperial sub-factions like Space Marines and Guard decidedly underpowered.

Soup has to be penalised (or pure armies encouraged) in some way if you want a fair game between soup and pure. And if you're fine with a pure Space Marine amry being worse than Imperial soup because you can play those marines in the soup army anyway, you should still be for Necrons, Tau and Orks being able to compete. So then they should be given an option to soup it up as well.

The main problem is that there's much more parity between the number of options in single codices than there is between faction keywords. "Imperium", "Chaos" and "Aeldari", in that order, are just too prevalent compared to others.

Craftworld Sciatháin 4180 pts  
   
Made in us
Infiltrating Broodlord





United States

9th edition

One army codex. It has all the models in the game.

No more soup.


Ayn Rand "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality" 
   
Made in gb
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot






So...

How about gain 2CP for your army being battle forged

Or gain 5CP if it is battle forged and runs from a single codex?

I think this would be a decent incentive to build a mono build, while not penalising allied armies overly.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/13 04:42:25


Fully Painted Armies: 2200pts Orks 1000pts Space Marines 1200pts Tau 2500pts Blood Angels 3500pts Imperial Guard/Renegades and 1700pts Daemons 450pts Imperial Knights  
   
Made in au
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade





 DoomMouse wrote:
So...

How about gain 2CP for your army being battle forged

Or gain 5CP if it is battle forged and runs from a single codex?

I think this would be a decent incentive to build a mono build, while not penalising allied armies overly.


Keep it as it is, it works. I would suggest that you have to nominate a faction as your primary, and only that factions detachments grant you CP's. You're free to soup but you won't gain any CP's from it - hell, go one step further and -1 CP per non-primary detachment that you add, similar to auxiliary detachments.

My view though is to ultimately scrap the silliness of 7th Ed era detachments and have the old single force org chart. Remove soup and allies all together. Keep that stuff in for narrative games but remove it from Matched Play completely.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/13 04:51:47


"Courage and Honour. I hear you murmur these words in the mist, in their wake I hear your hearts beat harder with false conviction seeking to convince yourselves that a brave death has meaning.
There is no courage to be found here my nephews, no honour to be had. Your souls will join the trillion others in the mist shrieking uselessly to eternity, weeping for the empire you could not save.

To the unfaithful, I bring holy plagues ripe with enlightenment. To the devout, I bring the blessing of immortality through the kiss of sacred rot.
And to you, new-born sons of Gulliman, to you flesh crafted puppets of a failing Imperium I bring the holiest gift of all.... Silence."
- Mortarion, The Death Lord, The Reaper of Men, Daemon Primarch of Nurgle


5300 | 2800 | 3600 | 1600 |  
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought




San Jose, CA

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Keep it as it is, it works. I would suggest that you have to nominate a faction as your primary, and only that factions detachments grant you CP's. You're free to soup but you won't gain any CP's from it - hell, go one step further and -1 CP per non-primary detachment that you add, similar to auxiliary detachments.

My view though is to ultimately scrap the silliness of 7th Ed era detachments and have the old single force org chart. Remove soup and allies all together. Keep that stuff in for narrative games but remove it from Matched Play completely.



I think this might work. If they just went back to a certain percentage of your list needs to be (X) in order to gain +cp's and penalize you with -cp's if it's not.
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
In competitive games yes, because chosing from more books is unfair since several factions can only choose from a single codex.


Then GW should endeavor to make those books better, not take away options from other people.


I'd never said "take away options", but only to reward lists that are made by using a single codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Crimson wrote:

But not all books have the same amount of units anyway, so even if you could use only one book, it would still be similarly unfair.



You're right, in fact factions that only have a few units should never had their codex. Inquisition, grey knights, custodes, SoB etc should be part of the same codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Maybe people will start buying full armies instead. If they can get away with just a few boxes to add to their already existing collection, why should they buy something more?


Building a business plan on potentially abandoning customers that are generating revenue should probably be based on something more substantial than maybe.



How many people want the soup? And how many of them are collecting soups only for fluff reasons? I bet most of them do so for being more competitive. Reward one book armies and the majority of those customers will not abandon the hobby, they'll just adjust their current lists.

Makes hordes armies very competitive and lots of people will buy them. If GW guys want to make money just promote units that have kits that are not extremely recent. Sell those boxes, then promote something else among the old kits. New stuff will always sell.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/03/13 08:04:36


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: