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.

Stux wrote:
soup makes almost anything somewhat viable

Mission Accomplished?

 Stormonu wrote:
another (it’s like if the German Heer was battling the SS in WW2).

Well there is Battle for Castle Itter. But I agree with your point, on paper should be the exception.

 LunarSol wrote:

Stux wrote:
soup makes almost anything somewhat viable

Mission Accomplished?

Well, yeah, I agree. Except for the armies that can't soup. The problem is that you can't say that soup itself is the balancing mechanic, because then the individual factions necessarily have to be worse than those that can't soup.

So the alternative is keep soup, but tone it down.

Soup can easily go away if a significant portion of the players want to see it go away. I find it hard to believe that I see soup looked at so negatively by everyone I know that plays the game.

We have all toyed around with it but much prefer to play the game with mono lists. It has to be a significant portion of the player base that doesn't want soup in competitive.

The poll even shows that. GW does not make ITC rules - the ITC organizers do...It's time the rules start reflecting the player base.

 Stormonu wrote:
Fluff wise, it makes plenty of sense. Mechanically, it makes a mess of balance that, at least for tournaments, is wrecking havoc with a number of non-Imperium armies.

I really don't see how its making a mess of balance. I really honestly don't. It's the competitive standard for Imperium armies, but Imperium armies aren't the only things on the podium. Chaos, Eldar, and Nids are all doing quite well with Tau showing up from time to time too. Really, Necrons feel like the only ones a bit behind, with the exception of Orks who, barring stall tactics, are still waiting for a Codex.

When GW makes it possible to ally with anything with no consequence then you can come tell me how they're an evil money grubbing empire.

Until then get real. This is what players want and the company is giving it to them in a valid and fluffy framework. People have been pushing armies together in doubles tournaments well before any of this.

Stux wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

Stux wrote:
soup makes almost anything somewhat viable

Mission Accomplished?

Well, yeah, I agree. Except for the armies that can't soup. The problem is that you can't say that soup itself is the balancing mechanic, because then the individual factions necessarily have to be worse than those that can't soup.

So the alternative is keep soup, but tone it down.

There's.... 3? armies that can't soup? One doesn't have a Codex yet and absolutely possesses the variety of unit options to be viable. Orks have every kind of unit seen in a "soup" list after all they just need the kind of organization and rules support we've been seeing in the codexes. Of the other two, Tau are actually pretty viable from what I've seen. I'm not convinced they need help but if they really do, its in the form of a few tweaks CA is more than capable of. Necrons are the only faction I'm really unsure of. The point is, the vast majority of the game is in the best shape its ever been and removing soup isn't going to fix that; its going to shatter the game back into 20+ factions with only 2 or 3 of them being even remotely viable. That's pretty much the definition of burning down the house to fix a hole in the wall.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
another (it’s like if the German Heer was battling the SS in WW2).

Well there is Battle for Castle Itter. But I agree with your point, on paper should be the exception.

The Wikipedia article on this is excellent. It reads like a film script.

Honestly genuinely love the concept of 'soup'. You always have the option to play as a single army purist, but the ability to have Space Marines and Guardsmen blazing away together like in the artwork is a long time coming. Some of the scenarios you can make for the table top are excellent too - The Imperial Guard providing escort for a Mechanicus Explorator team etc, adding Renegades and Heretics to anything Chaos orientated to drive home the idea of a heretical uprising, that sort of stuff. It's a great way to show the unity inspired by the steadily more desperate situation the 'good guys' are facing as the plot continues. Obviously the problems occur when you encounter game breaking combinations. But as long as it's fluffy, it's fine by me.

Soup also gets in the way of tactical gameplay. This is not currently the case but every army should have specific strengths and weaknesses as part of its design. Soup allows players to shore up those weaknesses, which becomes a balance issue, but also diminishes decision making by removing something players have to keep in mind to try to minimize through good play, while at the same time their opponent is looking to take advantage of that weakness and capitalize on any mistakes. Allies should be removed from matched play.

 LunarSol wrote:

Stux wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

Stux wrote:
soup makes almost anything somewhat viable

Mission Accomplished?

Well, yeah, I agree. Except for the armies that can't soup. The problem is that you can't say that soup itself is the balancing mechanic, because then the individual factions necessarily have to be worse than those that can't soup.

So the alternative is keep soup, but tone it down.

There's.... 3? armies that can't soup? One doesn't have a Codex yet and absolutely possesses the variety of unit options to be viable. Orks have every kind of unit seen in a "soup" list after all they just need the kind of organization and rules support we've been seeing in the codexes. Of the other two, Tau are actually pretty viable from what I've seen. I'm not convinced they need help but if they really do, its in the form of a few tweaks CA is more than capable of. Necrons are the only faction I'm really unsure of. The point is, the vast majority of the game is in the best shape its ever been and removing soup isn't going to fix that; its going to shatter the game back into 20+ factions with only 2 or 3 of them being even remotely viable. That's pretty much the definition of burning down the house to fix a hole in the wall.

I've never said they should remove soup, soup is important. I just think it needs a downside.

Blastaar wrote:
Soup also gets in the way of tactical gameplay. This is not currently the case but every army should have specific strengths and weaknesses as part of its design. Soup allows players to shore up those weaknesses, which becomes a balance issue, but also diminishes decision making by removing something players have to keep in mind to try to minimize through good play, while at the same time their opponent is looking to take advantage of that weakness and capitalize on any mistakes. Allies should be removed from matched play.

There's a difference between strengths and weaknesses and differing playstyle. Shoring up weaknesses isn't the same as having all strengths. I wouldn't say an Imperial soup army is an assaulting horde any more than I'd view a Nid army with Genestealer support a gunline. Playstyle is way more about unique strengths, but players seem to have a habit of trying to define them by crippling weaknesses that result in something that doesn't actually work on the table.

 LunarSol wrote:


There's a difference between strengths and weaknesses and differing playstyle. Shoring up weaknesses isn't the same as having all strengths. I wouldn't say an Imperial soup army is an assaulting horde any more than I'd view a Nid army with Genestealer support a gunline. Playstyle is way more about unique strengths, but players seem to have a habit of trying to define them by crippling weaknesses that result in something that doesn't actually work on the table.

Right. Banana bikes are not a solid shooting army and most of the lists do not pack any meaningful ranged anti-tank. There is still a weakness present.

 LunarSol wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
Soup also gets in the way of tactical gameplay. This is not currently the case but every army should have specific strengths and weaknesses as part of its design. Soup allows players to shore up those weaknesses, which becomes a balance issue, but also diminishes decision making by removing something players have to keep in mind to try to minimize through good play, while at the same time their opponent is looking to take advantage of that weakness and capitalize on any mistakes. Allies should be removed from matched play.

There's a difference between strengths and weaknesses and differing playstyle. Shoring up weaknesses isn't the same as having all strengths. I wouldn't say an Imperial soup army is an assaulting horde any more than I'd view a Nid army with Genestealer support a gunline. Playstyle is way more about unique strengths, but players seem to have a habit of trying to define them by crippling weaknesses that result in something that doesn't actually work on the table.

You are being disingenuous. While play style and meaningful strengths/weaknesses have some overlap, reducing or eliminating an intended weakness of an army by bringing in units from another codex with no disadvantage for doing so is not a "play style." Strengths matter, but units and armies need to have a downside to be balanced, and to be interesting to play with and against. Like Synapse: It benefits your units, and helps define the army's play style, but the opponent can play around Synapse by killing your big beasties, weakening your army. 40k needs more of this, not less. That's how you get 8th edition blandness- give everyone special abilities and buffs without meaningful weaknesses. It is un-interactive design.

Stux wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:

marcman wrote:
From what I've read soup is basically allying in mutiple different armies, essentially using more then one codex in an army...

So why is it seen as a negative things?
It'd be fun combining a Iron Warrior Chaos Marine army with Dark Mechanicus Skitarri and maybe a Chaos Knight.
Maybe throw some renegade guardsmen in.

Seems fluffy enough.
Surely nobody is sad enough to abuse this freedom...right?

It's seen as a negative thing because not everyone has it. Imperium, Chaos, and Eldar get it best. Nids get something. Everyone else is on their own.

The issue is that every faction has its strengths and weaknesses. Soup means you can ignore your weaknesses by allying in a different faction that covers it.

No. I'm sure players only do it for fluff reasons.

Tau with guard to represent gue'va (I think it is). Maybe with marines in rare cases based on scenario.

Necrons with blood angels as they love that angel loving. Or anyone nowadays since they have become friendly.

Orks...could go with guard if doing an Armageddon theme with Strabb. Possibly chaos too. Especially khorne. Heck even alongside Ordo Xenos Inquisitors. Pay the ork freebooters to die.

Tyranids...well no they never ally. Ever. That's stoopid.

Eldar and the new friendly not grimdark Eldar can ally with most armies.

I can't think of anything who can't ally with something and making complete sense.
Like I say. I'm sure NOBODY uses it as a crutch...right?

Blastaar wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
Soup also gets in the way of tactical gameplay. This is not currently the case but every army should have specific strengths and weaknesses as part of its design. Soup allows players to shore up those weaknesses, which becomes a balance issue, but also diminishes decision making by removing something players have to keep in mind to try to minimize through good play, while at the same time their opponent is looking to take advantage of that weakness and capitalize on any mistakes. Allies should be removed from matched play.

There's a difference between strengths and weaknesses and differing playstyle. Shoring up weaknesses isn't the same as having all strengths. I wouldn't say an Imperial soup army is an assaulting horde any more than I'd view a Nid army with Genestealer support a gunline. Playstyle is way more about unique strengths, but players seem to have a habit of trying to define them by crippling weaknesses that result in something that doesn't actually work on the table.

You are being disingenuous. While play style and meaningful strengths/weaknesses have some overlap, reducing or eliminating an intended weakness of an army by bringing in units from another codex with no disadvantage for doing so is not a "play style." Strengths matter, but units and armies need to have a downside to be balanced, and to be interesting to play with and against. Like Synapse: It benefits your units, and helps define the army's play style, but the opponent can play around Synapse by killing your big beasties, weakening your army. 40k needs more of this, not less. That's how you get 8th edition blandness- give everyone special abilities and buffs without meaningful weaknesses. It is un-interactive design.

I'm not being disingenuous at all. There's a huge difference between "does not want to engage in close combat" style weaknesses and silver bullet, 2 meter wide exhaust port points of failure. Having unique tools to handle a variety of problems creates interesting and interactive games. Having "dies to swarms" creates pre-game concessions. Even if soup gave every faction ever playstyle (it doesn't, there is no version of the Imperium that's looking to solve genestealers by engaging them in CC for example) each LIST would still have its own playstyle, strengths and limitations. Ultimately though, having the tools available to win games against a wide variety of list types is what makes a game that's largely determined on the table rather than before the game begins, which is really what 40k needs more than anything.

ValentineGames wrote:

marcman wrote:
From what I've read soup is basically allying in mutiple different armies, essentially using more then one codex in an army...

So why is it seen as a negative things?
It'd be fun combining a Iron Warrior Chaos Marine army with Dark Mechanicus Skitarri and maybe a Chaos Knight.
Maybe throw some renegade guardsmen in.

Seems fluffy enough.
Surely nobody is sad enough to abuse this freedom...right?

because if someone points out that his army is bad right now, everyone dog piles him with add other armies, FW and play something else. Soup is an option giving thing is good, soup being used as something as an excusse to fixing stuff is bad.
I don't mind someone playing with 10 detachments from 10 different books. If it is fun to them, it is awesome. I would like to have my army work.

Nearly most of my armies barring my Taus and Necrons are soup armies.

My Chaos and Imperial armies have are most of the time soup or have at least a minor ally element (I don't make a Dark Angel army without my Vanguard detachment of 3 Vindicares, for example). Custodes+Sisters of Silence, Tempestus Scions and Bullgryns+Custodes, Custodes+Imperial Knights, Tempestus Scions+Imperial Knights, Death Guard+Chaos Space Marines, Chaos Space Marines+Chaos Daemons, etc...

I love soup. Feth competitive nay-sayers, 8th is the edition with most viable competitive builds and most variety in the top tables that has ever existed for warhammer, both soup armies and mono faction armies. And Soup is phenomenal for casual play, for narrative play, for planing your armies (I bought 7 Grey Knights terminators to build them as 5 terminators, 1 Brother-Captain and 1 Ancient, just to have them as an ally patrol for funsies. I had never done that without soup. The same with my Vindicares, my Imperial Knights, my daemons and my death guard)

I am not a competitive player and I hate the fact, that GW more or less replaced my army with custodes. The soup option only exist, if the core army you are playing is good to begin with. Playing GK+IG, when custodes exist makes no sense. It makes even less from a army fixing perspective, when GW is making new kits for custodes, and no new kits for GK. So we can be sure they are going to want to sell more custodes then GK. Heck the way GK sell, they may not even have molds for GK anymore.

Karol wrote:
I am not a competitive player and I hate the fact, that GW more or less replaced my army with custodes. The soup option only exist, if the core army you are playing is good to begin with. Playing GK+IG, when custodes exist makes no sense. It makes even less from a army fixing perspective, when GW is making new kits for custodes, and no new kits for GK. So we can be sure they are going to want to sell more custodes then GK. Heck the way GK sell, they may not even have molds for GK anymore.

But that problem has 0 to do with soup and all to do with GK sucking ass.

Karol wrote:
I am not a competitive player and I hate the fact, that GW more or less replaced my army with custodes. The soup option only exist, if the core army you are playing is good to begin with. Playing GK+IG, when custodes exist makes no sense. It makes even less from a army fixing perspective, when GW is making new kits for custodes, and no new kits for GK. So we can be sure they are going to want to sell more custodes then GK. Heck the way GK sell, they may not even have molds for GK anymore.

Custodes are not grey knights +1, They have some similarites yes in that both can be used to build a elite "terminator" force with heavy melee damage capabilities. but Grey Knights are much MUCH more then that. Grey Knights have some other things for them that, if their codex was well designed instead of a phoned in crap codex where it's obvious that after the 5th edition GK codex GW's been afraid to let GKs soar, they'd be very distinct from Custodes. What should Grey Knights be?

Well to start with as a pskyic focused army they should have access to two schools. Thousand sons do (ok 1K sons have 3, but one of those is only for their deamon princes) and I'm pretty sure craft world eldar do.

secondly Grey Knights need to be released AFTER Deamons, and designed eaither in conjunction with, or after them. Why? Simple, GKs are deamon hunters, they need to be carefully designed so, well not being an overpowered rock to their scissors, but GKs need to have the TOOLS to deal with deamons as a general rule, other wise it makes their entire "the IoMs Elite anti-deamon force" fluff a cruel joke.


generally speaking one of the hallmarks of deamons are invunerable saves, VERY VERY VERY Few deamons have armor. This is one of the big elements of deamons, So with this in mind one would expect an army dedicated to dealing with deamons to have some sort of anti-invul save ability. So... what do they grey knights have in this regard? absolutely nothing. A good start would be making GKs a psyker elite army who have a few tricks uniquye to them such as stripping invul saves etc. Imagine if psybolt ammunition added +1 str to a shot, and instead of increasing it's AP instead "reduced the invul save, if any, of the target, by 1"

On the OP, it parrots the same poor premise that GW is using: that Steve, their target customer, already has an army. The target customer base should include those who DON’T have armies yet; the potential players...and the way to do that is make a good, solid game that is fun to play because that will attract customers. If soup makes the game itself bad then it’s ultimately bad for GW’s bottom line.

I am not a fan of Soup armies. I understand they are very popular with people who play Imperium, Chaos, and Aeldari factions, and suddenly yanking the rug out from under those players would be an unpopular move. However, there needs to be some mechanical incentive to play single-faction armies that balances out the inherent advantages of playing Soup. The easiest thing to do would be to let mono-faction armies generate more CP than Soup armies. A little more effort, but still not overly difficult, would be to give each faction some stratagems they can only use if they are fielded as a mono-faction force. I really don't care too much what GW does, as long as GW does something to address the inherent inbalance between Soup lists and mono-faction lists. Something is better than nothing.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
I am not a fan of Soup armies. I understand they are very popular with people who play Imperium, Chaos, and Aeldari factions, and suddenly yanking the rug out from under those players would be an unpopular move. However, there needs to be some mechanical incentive to play single-faction armies that balances out the inherent advantages of playing Soup. The easiest thing to do would be to let mono-faction armies generate more CP than Soup armies. A little more effort, but still not overly difficult, would be to give each faction some stratagems they can only use if they are fielded as a mono-faction force. I really don't care too much what GW does, as long as GW does something to address the inherent inbalance between Soup lists and mono-faction lists. Something is better than nothing.

So... should Orks be penalized for taking a Stompa?

That's the trouble with "soup". A lot of Imperium "armies" have the flimsiest pretenses for being their own thing largely because GW got into the business of selling a single new kit or two as its own faction. Most soup armies I've seen look as coherent as a pure one, unless they're using wildly different color schemes.

I would love to see an "Eastern Coalition" alliance type thing for xenos. So instead of Tau and friends we could have full factions working together. For starters Kroot could get a full faction roster with a new codex, then some Demiurg and boom alien soup.

ValentineGames wrote:I wish people would stop pouring soup on their models. It's getting ridiculous and messy.

Since nobody will ever explain what soup is I'm sticking to what it actually is

marcman wrote:From what I've read soup is basically allying in mutiple different armies, essentially using more then one codex in an army... Tbh I've done this a lot in 7th with Cult Mech, Skitarii, GK, SW and IK in the same army, however it would become more difficult of I tried allying in necrons...

Did they remove the rule that says armies like necrons/nids/DE don't get along with other armies and can't move within a certain distance/share transports ect?

Hoping my rulebook gets in soon haha

its a buzzword that people use because they don't understand it's original meaning, and think it makes their talk sound more legit for using lingo.

I saw a guy post his 'Aeldari Soup" list that was literally just CWE with a small Ynnari detachment.

It's corny as hell but what you gonna do


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the way GSC allies with IG should be looked as a template - special rules and restrictions concerning. I don't want allies to go, they are great, but they need to be regulated with a bit more finesse.

 Galas wrote:

Karol wrote:
I am not a competitive player and I hate the fact, that GW more or less replaced my army with custodes. The soup option only exist, if the core army you are playing is good to begin with. Playing GK+IG, when custodes exist makes no sense. It makes even less from a army fixing perspective, when GW is making new kits for custodes, and no new kits for GK. So we can be sure they are going to want to sell more custodes then GK. Heck the way GK sell, they may not even have molds for GK anymore.

But that problem has 0 to do with soup and all to do with GK sucking ass.

It has everything to do with soup, if the anwser to GK are bad, is just ally in 1950pts of other armies in to your 2000pts GK army and it will be fine. Add to this the fact that GW seems to focus only on the faction they just brought out, soup becomes an army killer. Why should GW update a weak army with one codex, when they can force someone to buy 3 books and 3 separate armies to play one, double that if the army is not selling well and the only people wanting to play the bad army are people who already paid GW.

Karol for the love of everything holy, can you please stop derailing every thread so that you can bitch about Grey Knights?

This has nothing to do with Grey Knights, the GK book is not a representation of how this game plays. and it's highly unlikely that they won't be given a MASSIVE overhaul to come in line with other dexes on their next implementation. You've said yourself a million times that this needs to happen, so let's stop trying to pretend that the game should be designed around the biggest outlier faction in the game, who aren't even going to be in that state for much longer.


I'm reporting your posts from this point forth that just completely ignore a thread topic and come in to whine about GK. We've all heard it a million times and it doesn't promote discussion, you have one sided views on everything through the lens of GK and it's getting too suffocating.

A list that is intentionally designed to be good at everything isn't going to have weaknesses, though. That's what soup allows. I understand many players aren't doing that, and are building lists they enjoy and think are fluffy, but allowing players to take whatever models they want just waters down decision-based gameplay as a consequence.

Blastaar wrote:

Spoiler:

 LunarSol wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
Soup also gets in the way of tactical gameplay. This is not currently the case but every army should have specific strengths and weaknesses as part of its design. Soup allows players to shore up those weaknesses, which becomes a balance issue, but also diminishes decision making by removing something players have to keep in mind to try to minimize through good play, while at the same time their opponent is looking to take advantage of that weakness and capitalize on any mistakes. Allies should be removed from matched play.

There's a difference between strengths and weaknesses and differing playstyle. Shoring up weaknesses isn't the same as having all strengths. I wouldn't say an Imperial soup army is an assaulting horde any more than I'd view a Nid army with Genestealer support a gunline. Playstyle is way more about unique strengths, but players seem to have a habit of trying to define them by crippling weaknesses that result in something that doesn't actually work on the table.

You are being disingenuous. While play style and meaningful strengths/weaknesses have some overlap, reducing or eliminating an intended weakness of an army by bringing in units from another codex with no disadvantage for doing so is not a "play style." Strengths matter, but units and armies need to have a downside to be balanced, and to be interesting to play with and against. Like Synapse: It benefits your units, and helps define the army's play style, but the opponent can play around Synapse by killing your big beasties, weakening your army. 40k needs more of this, not less. That's how you get 8th edition blandness- give everyone special abilities and buffs without meaningful weaknesses. It is un-interactive design.

I'm not being disingenuous at all. There's a huge difference between "does not want to engage in close combat" style weaknesses and silver bullet, 2 meter wide exhaust port points of failure. Having unique tools to handle a variety of problems creates interesting and interactive games. Having "dies to swarms" creates pre-game concessions. Even if soup gave every faction ever playstyle (it doesn't, there is no version of the Imperium that's looking to solve genestealers by engaging them in CC for example) each LIST would still have its own playstyle, strengths and limitations. Ultimately though, having the tools available to win games against a wide variety of list types is what makes a game that's largely determined on the table rather than before the game begins, which is really what 40k needs more than anything.

A list that is intentionally designed to be good at everything isn't going to have weaknesses, though. That's what soup allows. I understand many players aren't doing that, and are building lists they enjoy and think are fluffy, but allowing players to take whatever models they want just waters down decision-based gameplay as a consequence.

It DOES have weaknesses though, because points aren't infinite. Take all comers lists lack redundancy. They have the tools to deal with everything, but that means that they have fewer tools to deal with specific things. Your opponent should be looking to identify the things that most efficiently deal with their army and seek to disable them, even via inefficient means, because once they're gone the ability to deal with the army efficiently drops pretty quickly. It essentially creates that Synapse style gameplay; just organically through threat awareness rather than a blunt rule (that, fwiw, you can't generally focus on anyway due to character targeting).

Really, the ideal scenario is both armies being something of generalist take all comers armies. That allows both sides to have a good set of target priority decisions to make throughout the game. That doesn't mean they're identical; while you're going to be wanting to handle cheap infantry with tools that handle cheap infantry, Tyranids and Imperium are likely to go about it via very different means. Overall though, this is a way more interesting game than "I play Knights and you play Boyz and we see who GW currently has made mathematically more points efficient".

Not sure the argument makes sense.

"They won't do anything about soup cos they love selling models and making money."
"But what about the rule of 3? Isn't GW making it less likely I will buy 10 boxes of the new hotness?"
"...."

There is no way they are going to hard ban allies. Yes they want to sell models - and slotting Armigers into your imperial army is the first step to dropping hundreds of pounds on a full Knight force.

They are very likely however to try and change the rules so allies are not a competitive auto take.

I also feel "nah nah nah, Soup doesn't mean allies. It means mixed faction detachments" has had its day. I mean technically yes, but outside maybe Celestine such list building styles largely died a death shortly after the codexes were released.