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.

 Peregrine wrote:
In short: ban soup, fix the game. Put the game back to single codex, single FOC like it was in 5th edition.

I agree. Matched Play should be, by nature, more restrictive than the other modes. That works fine for CCGs, has done for years. It's also not like GW haven't done it before (the 1990 40k league was restricted to a small subset of the Space Marine army list, for example; play Orks? Eldar? tough )


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
I will be honest my point of view is from an old fart, I still have the outdated mind set that there should be no allies, no soup, just pick a codex and thats what you have, want allies? get a mate to bring his/her army and play doubles, its the way I still play, but its not for everyone I understand.

That's not an old fart, that's a young whippersnapper and his new-fangled 3rd edition ways. Back when I started, every army could spend a quarter of its points on allies, with no restrictions on the type of allies - Space Marines with a battery of basilisks? or a Seer council? Yeah, why not. Then 3rd edition got rid of them entirely, which was going too far the other way, IMO. The allies matrix in 6th edition was the best way of going about it IMO, although perhaps not implemented as well as it could be.

People in this thread complaining about manticores when basilisks are statistically better point for point in every way... and neither is really competitive anyway. I think they appeared in a single list in the top 20 down there.

You guys have no idea what you're talking about.

ThePorcupine wrote:
People in this thread complaining about manticores when basilisks are statistically better point for point in every way... and neither is really competitive anyway. I think they appeared in a single list in the top 20 down there.

You guys have no idea what you're talking about.

Is it? 143 pts for manticore, 108 for basilisk. About 4 basilisk vs 3 manticore. Thus average shots 3x7 for manticores, 4x4.5 for basilisk. Leaves short. So 3 hits more and S10 vs better AP.

Do more mathhammer. Vs all targets the basilisk does more unsaved wounds per point spent. The one point bump in strength from 9 to 10 makes no difference. The added ap matters vs all targets.

Im at work, but maybe when I come home I'll type up the math.

ThePorcupine wrote:
Do more mathhammer. Vs all targets the basilisk does more unsaved wounds per point spent. The one point bump in strength from 9 to 10 makes no difference. The added ap matters vs all targets.

Im at work, but maybe when I come home I'll type up the math.

Interesting that extra AP would overcome more hits. Not that I distrust. For me it's irrelevant as I don't proxy and I only have 1 manticore so it's either use it or dont' use either. Point costs could be 1 for basilisk and 500 for manticore and only effect would be neither would be on board.

ThePorcupine wrote:
People in this thread complaining about manticores when basilisks are statistically better point for point in every way... and neither is really competitive anyway. I think they appeared in a single list in the top 20 down there.

You guys have no idea what you're talking about.

Have people been complaining about artillery really?

 kastelen wrote:
In my opinion, soup is fine since it can fix holes that certain armies have like daemons needing good shooting and custodes needing guardsmen or skitarii blobs to protect them.

But you shouldn't be able to fix those holes, that's the whole point. Armies are supposed to have strengths and weaknesses, not great units for every role. A melee army like demons should not have good shooting units to negate its weakness in ranged combat. A super-elite army like custodes should not have horde meatshield blobs to negate its weakness in numbers. You've just highlighted exactly why soup needs to die and why the game needs to go back to single-faction lists.

 Peregrine wrote:
But you shouldn't be able to fix those holes, that's the whole point. Armies are supposed to have strengths and weaknesses, not great units for every role. A melee army like demons should not have good shooting units to negate its weakness in ranged combat. A super-elite army like custodes should not have horde meatshield blobs to negate its weakness in numbers. You've just highlighted exactly why soup needs to die and why the game needs to go back to single-faction lists.

Agreed.

The other aspect is that different factions have vastly different options in terms of allies. For example, Imperium is vastly overrepresented, with dozens of different factions/subfactions - enough that they can easily plug any weaknesses. In contrast, Orks and Necrons have absolutely no allies whatsoever. They don't have the option of making a soup list.

The thing is, 8th edition already has other modes of play. Why not leave allies for Narrative and Open Play, and keep Matched Play as single-faction? It's not as if people couldn't just house-rule it anyway, if they wanted to use allies in Matched Play Games.

 vipoid wrote:
The thing is, 8th edition already has other modes of play. Why not leave allies for Narrative and Open Play, and keep Matched Play as single-faction? It's not as if people couldn't just house-rule it anyway, if they wanted to use allies in Matched Play Games.

But by the same token you could house rule to have one battalion off by heart.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
But by the same token you could house rule to have one battalion off by heart.

I genuinely have no clue what "have one battalion off by heart" is supposed to mean.

 vipoid wrote:
The thing is, 8th edition already has other modes of play. Why not leave allies for Narrative and Open Play, and keep Matched Play as single-faction? It's not as if people couldn't just house-rule it anyway, if they wanted to use allies in Matched Play Games.

That adds restrictions to what you can use. GW doesn't want those where avoidable. They want IG player go "hmmm those custodians look cool. Let's buy squad or two plus HQ and use them as ally".

Anything that limits potential sales is bad in GW's books.

 Peregrine wrote:

 kastelen wrote:
In my opinion, soup is fine since it can fix holes that certain armies have like daemons needing good shooting and custodes needing guardsmen or skitarii blobs to protect them.

But you shouldn't be able to fix those holes, that's the whole point. Armies are supposed to have strengths and weaknesses, not great units for every role. A melee army like demons should not have good shooting units to negate its weakness in ranged combat. A super-elite army like custodes should not have horde meatshield blobs to negate its weakness in numbers. You've just highlighted exactly why soup needs to die and why the game needs to go back to single-faction lists.

You just took what worked and ignored what doesn't.

You'll just have the factions with better tools dominating the rest again.

That and it's going to irritate me if I had to lose my daemons in CSM again.

Soup, while indeed a potential problem for balance, also allows more diversity to exist which is highly beneficent to the game in the long run.

Ordana wrote:
Soup, while indeed a potential problem for balance, also allows more diversity to exist which is highly beneficent to the game in the long run.

How does it allow that? It strips away all of the faction identities and replaces them with "the faction that has the best unit for every role" and "those other non-Imperial factions that don't matter". Having a slightly different mix of Imperial units in your soup is not diversity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
You just took what worked and ignored what doesn't.

Sure, and that means you put a list on the table that has clear strengths and weaknesses. You play Tau, you take all the good shooting units and ignore the bad melee units that your faction has access to. Now your opponent knows that they will beat you by using LOS-blocking terrain/locking units in combat/etc to mitigate your shooting while getting into melee ASAP to wipe you off the table. I'd say that accomplishes my goals.

You'll just have the factions with better tools dominating the rest again.

Then don't make factions that have better tools like that.

That and it's going to irritate me if I had to lose my daemons in CSM again.

Don't worry, in my ideal version of 40k demons are removed as a playable army and replaced with a summoning option or two in a CSM army. No more WHFB armies on round bases.

Honestly, from my incredibly biased perspective the biggest problem with soup is that I play an Imperial faction that is rubbish, and people just keep going "well, just add Imperial Guard/Raven Guard/Guilliman/whatever!" and then tell me to suck it up when I explain that I don't want to play Imperial Guard. There's absolutely no incentive to improve the bad parts of the Imperium faction and if you suggest buffs you have to clear the "would this make the soup lists OP?" hurdle in people's minds.

It's not just the non-Imperium factions that suffer, it's all the Imperium factions that aren't whatever is the current goodness. Same as it's always been except there's a bigger pressure to invest in a new army now with the excuse that you can field it as allies to your sub-par army.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

You just took what worked and ignored what doesn't.

But how does the Ally system fix this?

Surely people will just do the exact same thing, but on the larger scale? Instead of taking the best troops for Space Wolves, they instead take the best troops from the entire Imperium.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Honestly, from my incredibly biased perspective the biggest problem with soup is that I play an Imperial faction that is rubbish, and people just keep going "well, just add Imperial Guard/Raven Guard/Guilliman/whatever!" and then tell me to suck it up when I explain that I don't want to play Imperial Guard. There's absolutely no incentive to improve the bad parts of the Imperium faction and if you suggest buffs you have to clear the "would this make the soup lists OP?" hurdle in people's minds.

Reminds me of playing DE in 7th, when most of the advice was basically 'use Eldar instead'.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It's not just the non-Imperium factions that suffer, it's all the Imperium factions that aren't whatever is the current goodness. Same as it's always been except there's a bigger pressure to invest in a new army now with the excuse that you can field it as allies to your sub-par army.

That's a good point.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Honestly, from my incredibly biased perspective the biggest problem with soup is that I play an Imperial faction that is rubbish, and people just keep going "well, just add Imperial Guard/Raven Guard/Guilliman/whatever!" and then tell me to suck it up when I explain that I don't want to play Imperial Guard. There's absolutely no incentive to improve the bad parts of the Imperium faction and if you suggest buffs you have to clear the "would this make the soup lists OP?" hurdle in people's minds.

It's not just the non-Imperium factions that suffer, it's all the Imperium factions that aren't whatever is the current goodness. Same as it's always been except there's a bigger pressure to invest in a new army now with the excuse that you can field it as allies to your sub-par army.

I understand that and I may agree, but the problem is that many imperium factions shouldn't even exist, I mean they should be part of a bigger codex. Custodes don't have cheap troops? Of course, they shouldn't be an independent army made only of custodes, imagine if flash gitz, nobz and meganobz become an independent army, they'll lack too many things to be even remotely viable. That's the problem with those elites armies that shouldn't be real armies but just elites of other armies. Of course if you have only 8-10 units/characters to chose from, that faction would never be viable without some allies.

I think custodes, GK, SoB, inquisition and Ad mech should merge into a single codex. Banning soups is IMHO necessary but only if each faction has a decent amount of options available. That big imperium faction plus AM, generic SM, BA, DA and SW. 5 independent codexes that don't need to pick up units from other books.

Harlequins and Gen Cult are hard to play without allies, and in fact they should be part of the drukhari and the tyranids codexes, simple.

Chaos and daemons should also be two independent factions, but I'd accept Death Guard and T.Sons with their own codex if GW continues to release some new stuff.

I'd accept mixing different chapters or marks that belong to the same codex with some penalties.

GW is never going to go back to making fewer codices but it would be nice if TOs said mono armies only but the following books are considered 1 army (like you suggest GK, SoB, Inq and, Ad Mech or CSM and Chaos Daemons). That would leave the independent armies to be on their own and the support armies could play at the same level.

If I sound grumpy on the subject by the way, it's because ever since I started in 5th edition it's been "well, you've just got a bad Codex this edition, play [Space Wolves/Grey Knights/Khorne/Blood Angels] instead and wait for the next edition, when you'll get a better book!". Here we are four editions later, my army is still a contender for "worst Space Marine Chapter" rules-wise and I'm being told to "just ally in Imperial Guard!" as though that were some sort of panacea.

If it's discouraging to go up against Imperial soup as, say, Dark Eldar, try going up against it as someone who has almost exactly the same units except yours are worse across the board. That's fun.

Soup is fine, leave it as it is. It is actually being beneficial in increasing the variety of lists played.

Soup lists aren't so much better than pure lists that you are forced one choice or the other, we are talking about really really small gains here, if i want to play pure DA without guards i can do perfectly fine.

Soup wise there were 4 problems:

1) Malefic lords
2) Conscripts
3) Infantry squads
4) Dark Reapers

The first 2 has been (over)fixed. If what is rumored here is true, then point 3 is going to be addressed.
Point 4 is going to be addresses without a doubt.

Apart from those models, what is out there that is so good that you are willing to pay the cost of souping (because it doesn't come free) and not doing so makes your army automatically worse?

I can't think of anything right now, except maybe oblits for the chaos factions.

Next codices are not going to add new problematic models because... yeah xenos.

Souping is fine and healthy for both GW and the game. Leave it as it is.

 Blackie wrote:

I understand that and I may agree, but the problem is that many imperium factions shouldn't even exist, I mean they should be part of a bigger codex. Custodes don't have cheap troops? Of course, they shouldn't be an independent army made only of custodes, imagine if flash gitz, nobz and meganobz become an independent army, they'll lack too many things to be even remotely viable. That's the problem with those elites armies that shouldn't be real armies but just elites of other armies. Of course if you have only 8-10 units/characters to chose from, that faction would never be viable without some allies.
.

But what defines what deserves own codex? Size of armies in fluff? On that logic if custodes don't then no marine codex whatsoever deserves codex. After all there's 10x custodians than say ultramarines

ThePorcupine wrote:
Do more mathhammer. Vs all targets the basilisk does more unsaved wounds per point spent. The one point bump in strength from 9 to 10 makes no difference. The added ap matters vs all targets.

Im at work, but maybe when I come home I'll type up the math.

I got you fam.

It's a wash based on perspective (Basilisk variance to Manticore: -14%, +7%,+7.5%). The gains on MEQ and vehicles is lost against GEQ or anything where the armor save is not better than 5+. This also ensures that the Manticore is better against any 3+ vehicle packing a 5++, daemons, etc.

The bigger problem is when the Manticore gets more benefit from Catachan.

GEQ

21 * .5 * .833 = 8.7 18 * .5 * .833 = 7.5 //Manticore wins

MEQ

21 * .5 * .833 * .666 = 5.8 18 * .5 * .833 * .833 = 6.2 //Basilisk wins
PredEQ

21 * .5 * .666 * .666 * 2 = 9.3 18 * .5 * .666 * .833 * 2 = 10 //Basilisk wins

Narrative wise , soup is fine. After all the game exists to serve the hoiibby not the other way around. I do believe there should be some restriction for matched play specifically for imperium and probably Eldar/ Chaos ass well. because the current no holds barred screws over the other xenos races.

But evne soup aside, AM is the one after best performing pure codex at the LVO. And the best one was to my knowledge down to the strength of one unit dark reapers.

Feels like most of the time people are just complaining about imperial soup rather than soup in general as it is really the only soup that has a wide variety of strengths and weaknesses.

I say this as removing Eldar soup(if it even exists tbh) would still not change Ynnari Dark Reapers. They are still a single faction by any definition.

tneva82 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

I understand that and I may agree, but the problem is that many imperium factions shouldn't even exist, I mean they should be part of a bigger codex. Custodes don't have cheap troops? Of course, they shouldn't be an independent army made only of custodes, imagine if flash gitz, nobz and meganobz become an independent army, they'll lack too many things to be even remotely viable. That's the problem with those elites armies that shouldn't be real armies but just elites of other armies. Of course if you have only 8-10 units/characters to chose from, that faction would never be viable without some allies.
.

But what defines what deserves own codex? Size of armies in fluff? On that logic if custodes don't then no marine codex whatsoever deserves codex. After all there's 10x custodians than say ultramarines

I would say that any current codex that offers 3 or less choices in either HQ, Elite, Troop, Fast Attack or, Heavy should not have its own codex just due to lack of choices. It would then be up to GW to determine what would go well with what or if they should just be folded into one of the existing codices.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

I would say that any current codex that offers 3 or less choices in either HQ, Elite, Troop, Fast Attack or, Heavy should not have its own codex just due to lack of choices. It would then be up to GW to determine what would go well with what or if they should just be folded into one of the existing codices.

It amuses me that this would rule out Necrons.

Then Necrons should get a bigger selection of choices if people want a "competitive book. I certainly would not want to see them squatted and think that they have a unique niche in the game. More choices would be appropriate for them.

BTW, I'm a GK player and my standards would eliminate my army as a stand alone. I'm good with that. I'd love to have more options one way or another.

It also rules out the brand new, and rather powerful, thousand sons-as it only has 2 FA units (one of is rather lame duck) and while it technically has 3 elites, the TS helbrute is exactly equal to a legionless helbrute, and therefor not quite a viable choice for TS (or should I say, if you want a helbrute-it should never ever be TS as literally anything else is strictly superior)


Too many people here try to make blanket statements to cover everything, rather than realize that each faction and subfaction deserves it's own unique treatment.

Look at imperials for example.
GK don't need horde units, or snipers, or cheap hq fillers, tank busters or whatnot-they got the IoM soup to work with, and GK themselves are considered, in the grand scheme of the universe, a speciallist force to begin with. they were never actually a stand-alone codex. the became a "stand alone faction" only when allies were a thing, during 5th they actually shared a codex with assassins and inqusition who covered all the bases the knights couldn't

Factions these days can be made with allies and souping in mind.
Custodians are really not stand alone. TS/DG can, but have much value to gain from using their respective daemons.
Heck, daemons! its practically 4 separate armies, but you can mix them up to get a more varied force.



An army SHOULD contain things like a marine force acompanied by a tiny GK detachment to help fight daemons, or IG battalions with some elite marines providing quality pinpoint stikes, or the elite forces of chaos that employ expendable daemons in mass for distraction, and admech detachments that accompany a small knightly household.

Its the xenos that need to be expanded on to match up, not the IoM/chaos that needs to be put down.
Tau has the biggest potential there as you can make a lot of varied tiny factions with ease and they would make sense.
Necrons-mindshackle scarabs? you can make rules for them dominating small number of units from other forces.
Orks, loot everything! you can open a lot of options by expanding upon looted stuff.
Nids-more biomorphs.

Eldar already has their mini-soup. and it works rather well with the exception of two OTT units dominating everything.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Then Necrons should get a bigger selection of choices if people want a "competitive book. I certainly would not want to see them squatted and think that they have a unique niche in the game. More choices would be appropriate for them.

BTW, I'm a GK player and my standards would eliminate my army as a stand alone. I'm good with that. I'd love to have more options one way or another.

Honestly, you could probably just move some other units into Troops. Flayed Ones would work fine as troops. Same goes for Scarabs.

But yeah, Necrons definitely need some more variety in their troop department.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
BTW, I'm a GK player and my standards would eliminate my army as a stand alone. I'm good with that. I'd love to have more options one way or another.

I think the biggest misstep was splitting GKs and Inquisition. The latter provided (amongst other things) cheap HQs and cheap, pseudo-guardsmen troops, in what was otherwise an elite (and expensive) army.

Its the xenos that need to be expanded on to match up, not the IoM/chaos that needs to be put down.

I agree with this statement wholeheartedly.