Unpopular opinion- In defense of soup

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.

**Toofast**

Marmatag wrote:
#1 - You have provided no data at all. You're the one claiming soup is broken. The burden of proof is on you. If you're looking at all GTs, you could try to use blood of kittens. They have SOME of the data you're looking for - the actual winning & placing lists. If you're looking at that data, you're just looking at the total numbers, not actually checking the lists. Not all of the 21 Tyranids lists are pure. And finally BoK even doesn't tell you the full picture.

#2 - GK are not a mono faction, they have access to allies, Necrons don't. It seems like you do not understand what mono means. I would suggest you take a breather from rage typing and actually do a modicum of research into what you're saying. If allies are so broken, why are GK not dominating? They have access to the most overpowered ally pool in the game. Answer: Because allies in and of themselves don't make the game broken. Problem units do. Hence my statement regarding Ynnari, Knights, Guard, and Daemon Primarchs.

#3 - Orks just got a codex, i'm not sure how you could make the claim that they should be on par with codex armies. That's nonsense. If you watch the BoK livestream from SoCal you can see an undefeated Ork player (with an index) playing for the #3 spot. This won't make your radar because you're approaching this from completely the wrong angle. (You are making the silent assumption that only lists finishing in the top 3 are successful. This isn't true. Going 4-2, or 5-1, at a major is a big accomplishment. Losing at the top table can drop you out of the top 10).

You are claiming allies are the problem. The burden of proof is on you. And, if it is so obvious, you shouldn't have any difficulty proving it.

As with most dakka posters, you're used to looking at a chunk of data with no context and drawing a sweeping conclusion that the unwashed masses here will agree with, because they live vicariously through 10,000 foot level recaps for tournaments they would never actually participate in.

1. I have been providing data, you have just been hand-waving it away because it doesn't agree with your point, while also refusing to provide any data that counters it other than "one faction almost got top 10 at 1 event so soup isn't a problem".

2. GK aren't dominating because they are overcosted, that doesn't mean soup isn't a problem. None of the armies that are dominating in soup form would be nearly as powerful without the soup. However, if you balance their points based on soup lists, they become unplayable without soup. This is the problem. There is no way to create a point value that accurately represents how good a model is both in a single-faction list and in a soup list.

3. It does make my radar, it just does nothing to show that soup, overall, isn't a problem. Any army can have a decent showing at a single event. You need to look at what armies consistently win, or place top 3/10/15 at different events around the world over the course of the edition. There is only 1 type of army that does well at every event, on every continent, since the day this edition was released: soup.

If the fact that all the best armies this entire edition rely on soup to function, and the vast majority of the worst armies don't have access to soup doesn't do it for you, then I won't waste any more of my time debating someone who would rather stick their fingers in their ears and shove their head in the sand because facts don't agree with their preconceived notions.

**Arachnofiend**

Let me ask you this, Marmatag: Do you think that the Necron/Ork/Tau codex should have a consistent advantage over the Space Marine/Guard/Drukhari codex in a tournament setting? The latter can all take allies to offset their weaknesses (Space Marine lack of chaff or Drukhari lack of psychic potential, for example) so if the former can compete with the latter's no-weaknesses versions than they must necessarily have an advantage over the "pure" version of those lists.

**Darsath**

Arachnofiend wrote:
Let me ask you this, Marmatag: Do you think that the Necron/Ork/Tau codex should have a consistent advantage over the Space Marine/Guard/Drukhari codex in a tournament setting? The latter can all take allies to offset their weaknesses (Space Marine lack of chaff or Drukhari lack of psychic potential, for example) so if the former can compete with the latter's no-weaknesses versions than they must necessarily have an advantage over the "pure" version of those lists.

Stronger strengths, worse weaknesses would be the best way of doing this. Large alliance forces should be seen as generalists. Able to prepare for anything, but don't have the best specialists. Would make sense. Or just limit allies (or the CP from allies) in some capacity (like a 30% points limit).

**SHUPPET**

Marmatag wrote:
#1 - You have provided no data at all. You're the one claiming soup is broken. The burden of proof is on you. If you're looking at all GTs, you could try to use blood of kittens. They have SOME of the data you're looking for - the actual winning & placing lists. If you're looking at that data, you're just looking at the total numbers, not actually checking the lists. Not all of the 21 Tyranids lists are pure. And finally BoK even doesn't tell you the full picture.

He provided data. It just didn't suit your narrative.

**Daedalus81**

Toofast wrote:
Look at the results of all the GTs in 8th so far.

We can't. So much has change since LVO and Nova. Codexes, FAQs, and new units have constantly cast the way the game plays into upheaval.

**Asmodios**

I think soup is a great thing from a business viewpoint as well as fluff. The only issue is there being no downside to soup. I think some minor adjustments to CP sharing would move soup and non soup closer to each other in power and make the game far easier to balance. The less synergy between codexes there is makes them much simpler to balance. For instance look at knights that operate at a perfectly fine level and only really enter into OP category when being fuled by other codexes CP.

I doubt many want a complete removal of soup... simply a rebalancing

**Kithail**

Ultra competitive players with a WAAC mentality are always going to look, and find, a way to get the most optimized (and therefore unbalanced/broken) listbuilding techniques. It is hard for a game designer to chase them. Today is soup combinations, tomorrow will be something else. If you design/direct games, you are aware of that paradox, as are armor designers through histort. I think that in the end, the CP pool is still the main problem. Doom and screens and whatnot are not THAT influential. Many useful solutions have been provided aroynd the issue

**Marmatag**

SHUPPET wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
#1 - You have provided no data at all. You're the one claiming soup is broken. The burden of proof is on you. If you're looking at all GTs, you could try to use blood of kittens. They have SOME of the data you're looking for - the actual winning & placing lists. If you're looking at that data, you're just looking at the total numbers, not actually checking the lists. Not all of the 21 Tyranids lists are pure. And finally BoK even doesn't tell you the full picture.

He provided data. It just didn't suit your narrative.

Bad data has no value. It doesn't suit any narrative when it's flawed from the start. He's looking at blood of kittens data which goes back to the start of 8th edition. The game is fundamentally different than it was 6 months ago.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedalus81 wrote:
Toofast wrote:
Look at the results of all the GTs in 8th so far.

We can't. So much has change since LVO and Nova. Codexes, FAQs, and new units have constantly cast the way the game plays into upheaval.

A million times this. And, those results don't tell you that at SoCal, there were Orks and Tau finishing with only 1 loss in 6 games.

Guard + a Castellan is as designed. It's a good list played by a great player. The problem here isn't "allies," it's "a Castellan is undercosted, and Imperial Guard are undercosted."

**Toofast**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Toofast wrote:
Look at the results of all the GTs in 8th so far.

We can't. So much has change since LVO and Nova. Codexes, FAQs, and new units have constantly cast the way the game plays into upheaval.

Yet through all those changes, soup has remained the dominant form of list building.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kithail wrote:
Ultra competitive players with a WAAC mentality are always going to look, and find, a way to get the most optimized (and therefore unbalanced/broken) listbuilding techniques. It is hard for a game designer to chase them. Today is soup combinations, tomorrow will be something else. If you design/direct games, you are aware of that paradox, as are armor designers through histort. I think that in the end, the CP pool is still the main problem. Doom and screens and whatnot are not THAT influential. Many useful solutions have been provided aroynd the issue

If you start by writing rules with the primary intention of balancing the game instead of forcing players to buy as many books as possible, it's a hell of a lot easier. Soup exists to make people buy 3 codexes when they would have only needed 1 in 5th edition without any allies or 2 in 6th/7th with the old ally system. Now to compete you need a BRB, 3 codexes, and chapter approved.

**Daedalus81**

Toofast wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Toofast wrote:
Look at the results of all the GTs in 8th so far.

We can't. So much has change since LVO and Nova. Codexes, FAQs, and new units have constantly cast the way the game plays into upheaval.

Yet through all those changes, soup has remained the dominant form of list building.

I'm not so sure that is correct.

Prior to LVO conscript spam was the soup du jour.
Then Bobby G and Stormravens.
And when Boots on the Ground came out it was Bobby G and Assbacks. And when Assbacks got hit it was Fire Raptors.

Then Eldar came out and it was Dark Reaper spam with a splash of Ynnari (and that has stuck). A straight BA list made 6th there. Custodes started going bananas.

Tyranids popped out and straight Tyrant lists were killing it. As well as DA with Dark Talons.

The Big FAQ kicked out the rule of 3 and silenced Reapers.

DE have been in the meta for 6 months. Knights for 5. Those are the two most featured "problems" right now and they have only been around for about ONE THIRD of this edition.

Now we're waiting for the big picture to be revealed with the Sep FAQ and CA on the horizon.

**Marmatag**

Dark Eldar as primary faction aren't doing nearly as well as CWE or Ynnari as a primary faction.

Really people should say: "I am upset about Ynnari." And that's FAIR, because Ynnari are stupidly strong. Being able to act more than 6 times, in a game where points are based on the assumption of maximum 1 action per phase, it absurd.

This entire thread is people conflating problem units with soup. And it's just painful to read.

**Martel732**

For those of us that own power armor models, drukhari are a big problem.

**Darsath**

Martel732 wrote:
For those of us that own power armor models, drukhari are a big problem.

More accurately "Disintigrator Cannons are a big problem". They destroy most armoured infantry a bit too easily.

**Martel732**

Grotesques out punch all my cc stuff, too. And splinter ignores gravis armor, etc. The list is long.

**Vaktathi**

Marmatag wrote:Dark Eldar as primary faction aren't doing nearly as well as CWE or Ynnari as a primary faction.

Really people should say: "I am upset about Ynnari." And that's FAIR, because Ynnari are stupidly strong. Being able to act more than 6 times, in a game where points are based on the assumption of maximum 1 action per phase, it absurd.

This entire thread is people conflating problem units with soup. And it's just painful to read.

The fact that basically every placing list in every major event includes elements of other distinct armies, and that monolists are making practically no appearances at the winners tables, regardless of whatever specific units or factions are involved (imperial, chaos, xenos), illustrates that an issue with allies and soup exists.

Martel732 wrote:For those of us that own power armor models, drukhari are a big problem.

To be fair, this has been true in most editions. Despite their ostensibly raider/slaver nature, Dark Eldar have always done exceedingly well against more elite foes and less well against factions that rely on volume and numbers.

**Marmatag**

Martel732 wrote:
For those of us that own power armor models, drukhari are a big problem.

Sure, and for Orks aggressors are a big problem. Should we nerf aggressors?

**Martel732**

Sure, why not? They're already unusable. Aggressors arent invalidating half the game, though.

Why would orks ever see them anyway? They suck.

**Marmatag**

Martel732 wrote:
Sure, why not? They're already unusable. Aggressors arent invalidating half the game, though.

Why would orks ever see them anyway? They suck.

Aggressors are fantastic.

And Orks are good. They were good with an index in the right hands, and with the codex being so good you're going to see more of them.

Armies like Dark Eldar & Eldar won't stand up to a true Ork army. They also struggle with GSC and Nids.

You can't complain about Eldar, while also not complaining about how marines handle Nids & Orks.

**Xenomancers**

Keep in mind that you two play different versions of the game.

**Martel732**

Marmatag wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Sure, why not? They're already unusable. Aggressors arent invalidating half the game, though.

Why would orks ever see them anyway? They suck.

Aggressors are fantastic.

And Orks are good. They were good with an index in the right hands, and with the codex being so good you're going to see more of them.

Armies like Dark Eldar & Eldar won't stand up to a true Ork army. They also struggle with GSC and Nids.

You can't complain about Eldar, while also not complaining about how marines handle Nids & Orks.

You mean by losing to them miserably? Get some better nid players. Nids roll marines.

Aggressors are gak. They are so far from fantastic it hurts.

**Marmatag**

Xenomancers wrote:
Keep in mind that you two play different versions of the game.

Fair enough.

I see pretty much every faction doing well except Necrons & Grey Knights.

**Xenomancers**

Agressors could be great like - if they could go in a land speeder storm.

They have no effective delivery system outside of a Repulsor. Repulsor is just too dang expensive.

Or you take deathwatch (marines that have good rules) and deploy them that way. Really though - in DW you are just better off spamming intercessors IMO.

**Marmatag**

Xenomancers wrote:
Agressors could be great like - if they could go in a land speeder storm.

They have no effective delivery system outside of a Repulsor. Repulsor is just too dang expensive.

Or you take deathwatch (marines that have good rules) and deploy them that way. Really though - in DW you are just better off spamming intercessors IMO.

Aggressors don't need to worry about a delivery system. They're not there to run upfield and dominate, they protect you against anything that wants to be close.

Dark Angels can hand them a 4++ as well. In cover that's a 2+/4++ T5 2W unit... that puts out an expected ~60 shots.

And terrain is a thing.

**Xenomancers**

Marmatag wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Agressors could be great like - if they could go in a land speeder storm.

They have no effective delivery system outside of a Repulsor. Repulsor is just too dang expensive.

Or you take deathwatch (marines that have good rules) and deploy them that way. Really though - in DW you are just better off spamming intercessors IMO.

Aggressors don't need to worry about a delivery system. They're not there to run upfield and dominate, they protect you against anything that wants to be close.

Dark Angels can hand them a 4++ as well. In cover that's a 2+/4++ T5 2W unit... that puts out an expected ~60 shots.

You are really just talking about dead aggressors then.

6 wounds for over 100 points is an absolutely joke for a unit that you are deploying on the battlefield in plain sight because they can't move and shoot twice. They just don't work that way. Even in cover with a 4++ they are easy to kill.

When a shinning spear cost 31 points...How can an agressor be 37?

**Marmatag**

They aren't there to kill shining spears.

And things are always going to look "meh" when you compare them to one of the best units in the entire game.

**Xenomancers**

Marmatag wrote:
They aren't there to kill shining spears.

And things are always going to look "meh" when you compare them to one of the best units in the entire game.

Why are you calling a unit that doesn't compare well to other good units fantastic then? They aren't fantastic. Not at that cost. Not just that - you can expect to see lots of units like shinning spears in competitive play. That makes them even worse.

They do good for me when I buff them with Gman out of a repulsor - but those lists would get wacked in a competitive environment.

**Marmatag**

There is always solid LOS blocking terrain. You can hide them with ease. If you're SW or DW then you don't even need to worry about it.

Shining spears are OP.

Aggressors are good but not OP.

There are shades of grey here in terms of balance.

Let's make a deal, no matter how good Orks become, everyone here will sign a pact saying they'll never use aggressors. Sounds fair?

**Ice_can**

Marmatag wrote:
There is always solid LOS blocking terrain. You can hide them with ease. If you're SW or DW then you don't even need to worry about it.

Shining spears are OP.

Aggressors are good but not OP.

There are shades of grey here in terms of balance.

Let's make a deal, no matter how good Orks become, everyone here will sign a pact saying they'll never use aggressors. Sounds fair?

Why use aggressors when you can just bring more guard

**plark**

I agree with most of this, I don't think people are complaining about soup so much as they are CP battery. Soup isn't the issue, and it's not just Imperium taking advantage of soup. The people complaining are the Xeno players that were shafted by an earlier codex but now that 8th has evolved, those codices haven't been touched to evolve to the way the game is. Codex power creep has always been a thing, but the frustrating thing is that they have a way to deal with it, but they choose not to.

**Marmatag**

Ice_can wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
There is always solid LOS blocking terrain. You can hide them with ease. If you're SW or DW then you don't even need to worry about it.

Shining spears are OP.

Aggressors are good but not OP.

There are shades of grey here in terms of balance.

Let's make a deal, no matter how good Orks become, everyone here will sign a pact saying they'll never use aggressors. Sounds fair?
Why use aggressors when you can just bring more guard

Because aggressors are better shooting, and easier to hide.

Aggressors can enter a building.
Aggressors can fight in melee.

Guardsmen will not stand up to Orks in melee with the codex. Even Catachan guard.