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.

Ice_can wrote:


I'm not suggesting that GW bans soup just that it does need balancing and I'm not hearing anything as a reasoned counter.

So you're just choosing to ignore the suggestions made in this thread? Things like CP bonuses for mono armies, limiting relics in soup armies, and the general suggestion that GW should make mono books stronger than they currently are?

Also admech and guard have acess to everything in every marine dex too in your soup over balance happy place.

I'm not suggesting that I have a golden answer over what the balcne mechanism needs to be that levels out soup with mono codex, but blindly defending soup as balanced is saying screw anyone else.

Ice_can wrote:
I'm not suggesting that I have a golden answer over what the balcne mechanism needs to be that levels out soup with mono codex, but blindly defending soup as balanced is saying screw anyone else.

This is a strawman - I've been one of the most strident defenders of the concept and even I haven't suggested that soup is fine as is.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If it's that mixed though you should have issues.

Allies should be a compliment, not a crutch like GW made them because of mostly incompetent design. They get some things right this edition (moreso than last edition) but obviously some of us are unhappy with how some factions turned out competitively (Grey Knights and AdMech being the worst offenders in this regard), and internal balance wise (Chaos Space Marines and Space Marines once again being the worst offenders I feel in this category. Some might disagree but overall at least Grey Knights and AdMech have SLIGHTLY better internal balance).

Right I should have issues with playing my 50/50 Tzeentch Demons/TSons army - who cares about the money I've invested in it or that it makes sense fluff wise? Or maybe you could look at it from the other side that soup is an option in the game and has been for three editions now and understand why the general concept of 'make it worse than mono books (i.e. soft ban it)' doesn't garner great responses.

I haven't seen the Thousand Sons codex but I'd like to assume you have most of the daemon options available.

If not, that's the fault of the codex designers.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If it's that mixed though you should have issues.

Allies should be a compliment, not a crutch like GW made them because of mostly incompetent design. They get some things right this edition (moreso than last edition) but obviously some of us are unhappy with how some factions turned out competitively (Grey Knights and AdMech being the worst offenders in this regard), and internal balance wise (Chaos Space Marines and Space Marines once again being the worst offenders I feel in this category. Some might disagree but overall at least Grey Knights and AdMech have SLIGHTLY better internal balance).

Right I should have issues with playing my 50/50 Tzeentch Demons/TSons army - who cares about the money I've invested in it or that it makes sense fluff wise? Or maybe you could look at it from the other side that soup is an option in the game and has been for three editions now and understand why the general concept of 'make it worse than mono books (i.e. soft ban it)' doesn't garner great responses.

I haven't seen the Thousand Sons codex but I'd like to assume you have most of the daemon options available.

If not, that's the fault of the codex designers.

Effectively no - if I take them rather than summoning them I lose access to stratagems, warlord traits, chapter tactics, etc. They're listed in the book but they don't have the TSons keyword which means they break the detachment. This is the same way Deathguard and most forms of chaos work.

My new argument, lets ban soup so we can stop disqualifying Adepticon players.

Credit me with this idea please.

(This is humor, still don't want to ban soup)

Yikes just checked my CSM dex it's true. Only CHAOS and GOD
on the , I forgot abou that. Means in my "CHAOS is disallowed as the only general faction keyword" scenario CSM can't take their entire dex. Might need to think about that.

 Earth127 wrote:
Yikes just checked my CSM dex it's true. Only CHAOS and GOD
on the , I forgot abou that. Means in my "CHAOS is disallowed as the only general faction keyword" scenario CSM can't take their entire dex. Might need to think about that.

It is same with Ad Mech and Knights. One codex, no shared keyword besides <IMPERIUM>.

You would have to change a few things to make my sugestion worable for the smaller/incomplete factions. Note guard and SM arenot on the mist. Tough knights are, at least untill we have full rules fopr armigers.

so is the forgebane box soup?

Racerguy180 wrote:
so is the forgebane box soup?

Yes, the Imperium side is. Which is a perfect example why the desire to ban or severely punish soup is idiotic. People buy these boxes and expect that they can use the models provided. That is how GW intended it to be played.

Sadly.

Reemule wrote:
My new argument, lets ban soup so we can stop disqualifying Adepticon players.

Credit me with this idea please.

(This is humor, still don't want to ban soup)

I know its humor but I have to point out that his mistake had nothing to do with him taking the soup. He would have still been disqualified if he had 100% flesh tearer army since successors can't take chapter relics.

Soup is a good thing.

I like to be able to ally different factions of the Imperium together to wage war. Just like in the fluff.

I should mention that I don't own Guilliman or Celestine. I just like to collect different warriors of the Imperium that take my fancy and combine them to an unified force.

 RedCommander wrote:
Soup is a good thing.

I like to be able to ally different factions of the Imperium together to wage war. Just like in the fluff.

I should mention that I don't own Guilliman or Celestine. I just like to collect different warriors of the Imperium that take my fancy and combine them to an unified force.

I agree. In narrative they should be able to do exactly that. It is pretty unfair that Xenos don't get to do that because Taudar was strong. Meanwhile Imperial/Chaos Soup is strong and isn't a problem because tiny little Hufflepuff factions like the Inquisition cannot field their own armies. Its kind of like saying well Ork/Necrons isn't too strong so we will allow Taudar.

 DominayTrix wrote:

 RedCommander wrote:
Soup is a good thing.

I like to be able to ally different factions of the Imperium together to wage war. Just like in the fluff.

I should mention that I don't own Guilliman or Celestine. I just like to collect different warriors of the Imperium that take my fancy and combine them to an unified force.

I agree. In narrative they should be able to do exactly that. It is pretty unfair that Xenos don't get to do that because Taudar was strong. Meanwhile Imperial/Chaos Soup is strong and isn't a problem because tiny little Hufflepuff factions like the Inquisition cannot field their own armies. Its kind of like saying well Ork/Necrons isn't too strong so we will allow Taudar.

See, different factions of imperium allying makes sense in terms of fluff: they fight for a common cause. And chaos have basically a same kind of thing: they fight for a common cause.

But the xenos? For example: even Tau and Eldar joining forces is stretching it because I'm pretty sure that the Eldar view the Tau as monkeys (at best) and the Tau can't ultimately accept the Eldar because they don't serve their "greater good". And what about pairings such as Orcs and Necrons? Or Tyranids and Dark Eldar? None of them fight for a common cause. The only case that can be made is the eldari soup: Ynnari. That makes sense when it comes to fluff.

Do note that the above is only about the fluff. Xenos don't fight for a common cause. If you were to forget the fluff, an argument could be made that the imperium could also add Tau and Eldar to its soup: "they'd just set their differences aside and fight for a common enemy, am I right*?"

*This should sound wrong.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
You loosing 2 or 3 CP's for all the choice is balancing the advantage. .

No one is advocating for losing 2 or 3 CP though. They are either advocating for outright bans or such crippling changes that its untenable (no access to stratagems outside a 'main faction', no chapter tactics, etc).

Hold up, are you seriously contending that the loss of Chapter Tactics would be so utterly devastating as to leave your entire army untenable?

So your army’s viability is so fragile that the loss of a conditional 6+++ will break it? Or being able to reroll one hit/wound per unit/phase? Or reroll morale or charges or 1s to hit?

Yes you’d lose something. That’s the idea of a tradeoff. You lose a small bonus ability to gain the ability to completely cover your weaknesses.

As I said about ten pages ago, there’s more to this hobby than the top tables at LVO.

What the hell is soup anyways? Stop using fancy buzzwords, what is the next thing going to be? Imperial Glue? Condom Detachments? Sausage characters?

 Brutallica wrote:
What the hell is soup anyways? Stop using fancy buzzwords, what is the next thing going to be? Imperial Glue? Condom Detachments? Sausage characters?

Yeah, the so called "soup" should just be called "the imperium". It is an unified thing. It's kind of their thing.

kombatwombat wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
You loosing 2 or 3 CP's for all the choice is balancing the advantage. .

No one is advocating for losing 2 or 3 CP though. They are either advocating for outright bans or such crippling changes that its untenable (no access to stratagems outside a 'main faction', no chapter tactics, etc).

Hold up, are you seriously contending that the loss of Chapter Tactics would be so utterly devastating as to leave your entire army untenable?

So your army’s viability is so fragile that the loss of a conditional 6+++ will break it? Or being able to reroll one hit/wound per unit/phase? Or reroll morale or charges or 1s to hit?

Yes you’d lose something. That’s the idea of a tradeoff. You lose a small bonus ability to gain the ability to completely cover your weaknesses.

As I said about ten pages ago, there’s more to this hobby than the top tables at LVO.

I know right, as much as I love my salamander re-rolls, i could totally understand losing them if I chose to add in another not salamander detachment.

but your army should be able to stand alone without any chapter tactics. maybe in competitive play everybody doesn't get access to them? it would kinda solve the problem? maybe?

Racerguy180 wrote:
]I know right, as much as I love my salamander re-rolls, i could totally understand losing them if I chose to add in another not salamander detachment.

but your army should be able to stand alone without any chapter tactics. maybe in competitive play everybody doesn't get access to them? it would kinda solve the problem? maybe?

I’ve been advocating that in order to get Chapter Tactics in Matched Play you should need to have your entire army be the same Chapter/Legion/Hive Fleet/Sept/etc. If you don’t have that, you lose Chapter Tactics and Chapter-specific Relics, Warlord Traits and Stratagems (note that this only refers to Chapter-Specific ones, so you lose exactly one each Relic/Warlord Trait/Stratagem, but still get access to 6-7 Relics, 6 Warlord Traits and 20-ish Stratagems in the Codex).

I say that and people look at me as if I’m asking them to go back to being an Index army.

For the overwhelming majority of books it’s a simple one-paragraph change in the next Chapter Approved, and for the gaggle of mini-factions they’d all be classified as Auxiliary Forces or something and get a rule that means they don’t mess up the main factions’ Chapter bonuses.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If it's that mixed though you should have issues.

Allies should be a compliment, not a crutch like GW made them because of mostly incompetent design. They get some things right this edition (moreso than last edition) but obviously some of us are unhappy with how some factions turned out competitively (Grey Knights and AdMech being the worst offenders in this regard), and internal balance wise (Chaos Space Marines and Space Marines once again being the worst offenders I feel in this category. Some might disagree but overall at least Grey Knights and AdMech have SLIGHTLY better internal balance).

Right I should have issues with playing my 50/50 Tzeentch Demons/TSons army - who cares about the money I've invested in it or that it makes sense fluff wise? Or maybe you could look at it from the other side that soup is an option in the game and has been for three editions now and understand why the general concept of 'make it worse than mono books (i.e. soft ban it)' doesn't garner great responses.

I haven't seen the Thousand Sons codex but I'd like to assume you have most of the daemon options available.

If not, that's the fault of the codex designers.

Effectively no - if I take them rather than summoning them I lose access to stratagems, warlord traits, chapter tactics, etc. They're listed in the book but they don't have the TSons keyword which means they break the detachment. This is the same way Deathguard and most forms of chaos work.

Then give them the keyword. TS + Tzeentch daemons are not a soup, like deathguard + nurgle daemons. TS + death guard or khorne daemons are a soup and something that shouldn't exist. Maybe chaos should be divided into vanilla chaos, nurgle, khorne, tzeentch and slaanesh.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
I'm not suggesting that I have a golden answer over what the balcne mechanism needs to be that levels out soup with mono codex, but blindly defending soup as balanced is saying screw anyone else.

This is a strawman - I've been one of the most strident defenders of the concept and even I haven't suggested that soup is fine as is.

For sake of discussion, how would you resolve the soup vs mono-source balance issue?

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
I'm not suggesting that I have a golden answer over what the balcne mechanism needs to be that levels out soup with mono codex, but blindly defending soup as balanced is saying screw anyone else.

This is a strawman - I've been one of the most strident defenders of the concept and even I haven't suggested that soup is fine as is.

For sake of discussion, how would you resolve the soup vs mono-source balance issue?

You make sure mono armies are good, and then balance out allies as an afterward.

I think AoS, for all of my many issues with it, went about Allies pretty well. Only allowing X amount of points really does help solve some of the more ridiculous combinations.

Even then, for factions that pretty much exist only to be allied in (Inquisition, Assassins, etc) they could throw in a rule about them not counting towards the points limit on Allies or some such.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
I'm not suggesting that I have a golden answer over what the balcne mechanism needs to be that levels out soup with mono codex, but blindly defending soup as balanced is saying screw anyone else.

This is a strawman - I've been one of the most strident defenders of the concept and even I haven't suggested that soup is fine as is.

For sake of discussion, how would you resolve the soup vs mono-source balance issue?

Make sure mono armies are good? Its pretty simple - provide tiers of bonuses based on how 'mono' your army is. 1 detachment of each? As it stands. 2 and 1? Provide additional benefits for the 2 mono detachments, provide an even greater level for 3.

 RedCommander wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:

 RedCommander wrote:
Soup is a good thing.

I like to be able to ally different factions of the Imperium together to wage war. Just like in the fluff.

I should mention that I don't own Guilliman or Celestine. I just like to collect different warriors of the Imperium that take my fancy and combine them to an unified force.

I agree. In narrative they should be able to do exactly that. It is pretty unfair that Xenos don't get to do that because Taudar was strong. Meanwhile Imperial/Chaos Soup is strong and isn't a problem because tiny little Hufflepuff factions like the Inquisition cannot field their own armies. Its kind of like saying well Ork/Necrons isn't too strong so we will allow Taudar.

See, different factions of imperium allying makes sense in terms of fluff: they fight for a common cause. And chaos have basically a same kind of thing: they fight for a common cause.

But the xenos? For example: even Tau and Eldar joining forces is stretching it because I'm pretty sure that the Eldar view the Tau as monkeys (at best) and the Tau can't ultimately accept the Eldar because they don't serve their "greater good". And what about pairings such as Orcs and Necrons? Or Tyranids and Dark Eldar? None of them fight for a common cause. The only case that can be made is the eldari soup: Ynnari. That makes sense when it comes to fluff.

Do note that the above is only about the fluff. Xenos don't fight for a common cause. If you were to forget the fluff, an argument could be made that the imperium could also add Tau and Eldar to its soup: "they'd just set their differences aside and fight for a common enemy, am I right*?"

*This should sound wrong.

like necrons super hero teaming up with blood angels against the tyranids?

also I take issue with saying no xenos would work with other xenos, the imperium, or chaos. My orks are specifically free boota orks, they are per the fluff mercenaries and fight for whatever payment they can work out. maybe they get salvage rights to the battlefield, shipments of supplies and arms, or just following the prospect of a good scuffle.

I think the old allies matrix was pretty good, it gave options even if some were desperate allies. realistically would grey knights work with the Orks? probably not, but if a demon incursion happened on a world where orks and humans were both present and the orks were fighting demons pretty sure the greyknight would just also add to the orks firepower and negotiate if not a true alliance a armistice between the two factions to deal with the greater threat.

I don't need them to ban soup. I just need real incentives for single detachment and single faction.

The entire premise of a mixed force is to deal with a given target or enemy in the most efficient way.
You can read all kinds of instances of this both in 40k lore and in real life.
I at least like to see each "soup" element have at least it's own HQ units and Troops so it at least gives some illusion of a grouping of battle units under each Codex.

From a competitive viewpoint, whether you ban something or not it matters little: the players will find the most efficient combination of models and units to win a game.
You may get a fair bit of crying from anyone who lovingly built and painted the banned units in question.

For players that like to remain "true" to 40k lore or the theme of things, banning is the only solution to try to make the competitive players "play nice" or at least give some appearance to a traditional force organization.
A designed scenario you can add all the rules you like, the only reason a competition would enforce certain rules is to ensure no-one builds anything that looks ridiculous: it would not do to have a goofy looking winning army.

I am a fan of both methods: I may want a "soup" to best represent an Imperial task force of combined forces picked to deal with a specific threat BUT a plain old taking the rules to the max and cherry-picking the best units is a rather obvious choice.

I want soup to , in the name of balance, no longer be synonymous with imperium (or Chaos/Aeldari).

Or introduce a new faction key word, non-imperium. Then the divide is almost 50/50