Switch Theme:

"Soup" lists - "fluffy" or not  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
"Soup" - fluff or flagella
Superhero based armies are the new norm and built into the contemporary 40k fluff, so fluffy and encouraged.
Superhero based armies may be the comptetive fad, and may appear in current 40k storytelling, but should not be the norm in collecting and fielding a typical "daily driver" type army

View results
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot






Canada

Exactly what, if anything, will make people happy with this game? You all hated formations, GW killed formations. You hated allies as they used to work, GW killed that too. You hated deathstars - dead now. So now you all hate characters too? Because, ludicrously, it's not fluffy to see them on the tabletop?

This boils down, once again, to people wanting their opponents to play the game THEIR way. No one is forcing you to play against that opponent playing Guilliman and Celestine in a single list. Fluff reasons are one of the worst offenders when it comes to these whiny threads, and my patience is lost for it. If you don't like playing against people who like powerful characters, either refuse to play that opponent or find a new game.

6000 pts
2000 pts
2500 pts
3000 pts

"We're on an express elevator to hell - goin' down!"

"Depends on the service being refused. It should be fine to refuse to make a porn star a dildo shaped cake that they wanted to use in a wedding themed porn..." 
   
Made in kr
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

Poly Ranger wrote:
mario88826 wrote:
It's just my personal oppinion, but sticking to one faction should give you big enough benefits to be at least stronger/equal than mixed army.

Reason for this is simple - coherency - I can't believe few randoms can fight better together than legion that was fighting using same tactics for goddamn 10 000 years.

This argument is basically unbeatable.

It's like if you get together 11 good players to play football against 11 solid players who play with each other all the time.
They will wreck those good players without breaking a sweat.


Mainly agree, but wouldn't say it's unbeatable. Real world examples include US military forces from different arms beating the Taliban who had fought together for years against Russian Forces; Joint British, Portuguese and Spanish armies beating Napoleonic French Corps who had conqured the majority of Europe over years in the 1800's; Tribes who had fought against each other uniting and overunning Roman Legions in Germannica, Britannica and Judea (amongst other regions) on multiple different occasions; recently united Mongol Tumans overrunning the majority of China, Korea, the Middle East and Eastern Europe and demolishing their standing armies etc.


Superior technology beats inferior technology. Oh, and corrupted overextended empires becoming weak and fighting with indentured servicemen for all the wrong reasons lose to purely motivated men. Actually proves his point as these latter examples are better unified than the empire in front of them for those reasons. A spear points in a single direction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
Exactly what, if anything, will make people happy with this game? You all hated formations, GW killed formations. You hated allies as they used to work, GW killed that too. You hated deathstars - dead now. So now you all hate characters too? Because, ludicrously, it's not fluffy to see them on the tabletop?

This boils down, once again, to people wanting their opponents to play the game THEIR way. No one is forcing you to play against that opponent playing Guilliman and Celestine in a single list. Fluff reasons are one of the worst offenders when it comes to these whiny threads, and my patience is lost for it. If you don't like playing against people who like powerful characters, either refuse to play that opponent or find a new game.


I guess we know how you like to play...



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Jaxler wrote:
I play inquisition, our models from last edition went from our army to three or four other armies, and I want to play inquisition proper I'd need to run

Deathwatch
Grey Knights
Astra telepathica
Sisters of battle
Astra militarum
Assassins
Inquisition

All of the stuff we used to have has been so splintered that an inquisition army done proper has to be soup. Its fluffy yo, because I'm playing an army that used to actually be unified but now I have to pick and choose.


Yeah and Inquisition should continue this way and benefit by it but the point of this thread is actually inspired by a particular twist on the idea that I took from some recent podcasts and articles that were competitive minded and that referred to soup lists as those involving multiple special characters from multiple factions along with supporting units from those various fasctions in order to exploit loopholes in existing rules and win tournaments... Sooooo, not exactly as you are understanding the issue and not exactly as say someone less competitively minded might see things either.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/19 15:16:06


   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
You all hated formations, GW killed formations.


Did we all hate formations? I know I disliked them but I'm pretty sure that at least some people found them appealing.

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
You hated allies as they used to work, GW killed that too.


Er . . . sort of. Given that you can now freely mix and match Imperium armies, Chaos armies and Eldar armies with no penalties I don't think you can say that allies were really removed in any meaningful way.

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
You hated deathstars - dead now.


That's debatable, I think. Regardless, the manner in which deathstars and allies were 'removed' comes across as ham-fisted at best. A lot of characters and such have had their auras or other abilities artificially limited in a way that seems to go against the fluff and often doesn't seem to be serving balance either.

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
So now you all hate characters too? Because, ludicrously, it's not fluffy to see them on the tabletop?


I don't know why you're saying "now", given that I've been saying the same thing since at least 6th edition.

Also, I don't think people are saying that it's not fluffy to see special characters on the tabetop. They're saying it's not fluffy to see them every single game. When even the most minor of SoB armies is led by St. Celestine you start to wonder if the Imperium has managed to clone her several thousand times.

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
Fluff reasons are one of the worst offenders when it comes to these whiny threads, and my patience is lost for it.


Could you maybe cite examples of you showing patience prior to this thread?

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
No one is forcing you to play against that opponent playing Guilliman and Celestine in a single list.
. . .
If you don't like playing against people who like powerful characters, either refuse to play that opponent or find a new game.


So they can have a boring game being forced to play how their opponent wants, or they can have no game at all? Wow, what a thrilling choice. I can't imagine why anyone would be at all disappointed by such a wonderful state of affairs.

 blood reaper wrote:
I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.



 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
Exactly what, if anything, will make people happy with this game? You all hated formations, GW killed formations. You hated allies as they used to work, GW killed that too. You hated deathstars - dead now. So now you all hate characters too? Because, ludicrously, it's not fluffy to see them on the tabletop?

This boils down, once again, to people wanting their opponents to play the game THEIR way. No one is forcing you to play against that opponent playing Guilliman and Celestine in a single list. Fluff reasons are one of the worst offenders when it comes to these whiny threads, and my patience is lost for it. If you don't like playing against people who like powerful characters, either refuse to play that opponent or find a new game.

Well it boils down to there being a lot of different people and opinions being treated as the same. I didn't hate deathstars or formations.

tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam  
   
Made in ca
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot






Baited in to thinking this was a thread about the keyword and ally system, and finding that it's another thread about Special Named Characters...

I wonder why there seems to be a common thought that the more "fluffy" named character-hating posters on the thread seem to have; them questioning why a Chapter Master or Guilliman would show up to every single random battle in the galaxy. A reasonable thought for sure, as they can't be everywhere all the time, all at once. I'm personally in the camp that Named Characters are fine, but will only take them to a certain extent, probably one per list at most because that's how I enjoy building my list...

But on to my point; why does it HAVE to be a random backwater world skirmish in your mind, that Bobby G has shown up to? I'm sure those who love lore and story building can think of a good enough reason as to why some Superhero has shown up. And if that's not satisfactory, I'm sure you can ask other players to not bring them. Or just not play against those particular players.

In my area, there's only one player who doesn't use Special Characters at all, but I would call just about every army that hits the table regularly, to be lore appropriate.

A lot of the disagreements on this matter really do boil down to people wanting other people to play Warhammer the way that they think it should be played. And while it's not the friendliest, happiest everyone-gets-together sort of idea, but if you really don't like the way that other people play, just don't play with them. If there is no middle ground to be achieved, then it's best for both parties involved to just not interact. Agreeing to disagree, in a sense.

Edit: To answer the actual question of the thread: Superfriends lists are unfluffy. Can you take Celestine, Guilliman and Azreal in the same army and they pal around the board bashing the gak out of everything around? Sure you can. But that's one hell of a stretch to achieve in explaining the story reasoning behind it.
Taking one or two Named Characters from the same specific sub-factions? Can be story appropriate.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/20 15:11:42


Skaven - 4500
OBR - 4250
- 6800
- 4250
- 2750 
   
Made in kr
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

 Thadin wrote:
Baited in to thinking this was a thread about the keyword and ally system, and finding that it's another thread about Special Named Characters...
Spoiler:

I wonder why there seems to be a common thought that the more "fluffy" named character-hating posters on the thread seem to have; them questioning why a Chapter Master or Guilliman would show up to every single random battle in the galaxy. A reasonable thought for sure, as they can't be everywhere all the time, all at once. I'm personally in the camp that Named Characters are fine, but will only take them to a certain extent, probably one per list at most because that's how I enjoy building my list...

But on to my point; why does it HAVE to be a random backwater world skirmish in your mind, that Bobby G has shown up to? I'm sure those who love lore and story building can think of a good enough reason as to why some Superhero has shown up. And if that's not satisfactory, I'm sure you can ask other players to not bring them. Or just not play against those particular players.

In my area, there's only one player who doesn't use Special Characters at all, but I would call just about every army that hits the table regularly, to be lore appropriate.

A lot of the disagreements on this matter really do boil down to people wanting other people to play Warhammer the way that they think it should be played. And while it's not the friendliest, happiest everyone-gets-together sort of idea, but if you really don't like the way that other people play, just don't play with them. If there is no middle ground to be achieved, then it's best for both parties involved to just not interact. Agreeing to disagree, in a sense.

Edit: To answer the actual question of the thread: Superfriends lists are unfluffy. Can you take Celestine, Guilliman and Azreal in the same army and they pal around the board bashing the gak out of everything around? Sure you can. But that's one hell of a stretch to achieve in explaining the story reasoning behind it.
Taking one or two Named Characters from the same specific sub-factions? Can be story appropriate.


Again, I just started the thread after reading an article on another forum and listening to a podcast and they both involved how to mix SCs to win tournaments and they called these soup lists ...

I remember when SC were just that, special.
Now they are a daily driver.
So I was surprised by that casual way that these competitive minded people just toss stuff together to break the game, not only exploiting the rules but cheapening the universe...
GW is not without guilt here having encouraged this mindset, but that is beside the point.
The cool difference between this game and CCGs is that we can make our own 'cards' and aren't stuck searching for rares for the win.
But how is it that this game becomes that game?
Is it gw IP nonsense or just a lack of imagination?
Kids can't color outside the lines anymore?
Granted I am an old dude but what the EFF happened?

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 vipoid wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
Superhero armies are...to me, uninteresting, and fly in the face of what 40k. 40k is all about an uncaring, grinding, grim universe where everything is getting worse and nobody cares what happens to you. That's the whole shtick put forth in the intro of every rulebook of every edition.

Bring them out for special games, lets not have Primarch's or Eldrad or Vulkan or whoever else in every...single...game. I can't recall how many times I've killed the latter two characters in particular over the last decade, along with probably a dozen others, and it *really* detracts from their "special"-ness.


I kinda agree, however I think that this is an issue with the rules rather than the players.

In an edition where a lot of stuff has been cut to the bone, special characters are often the only models that bring any interesting rules to the table. Or the only ones who fit certain builds.

For example, if a SoB player wants a flying HQ to accompany some Seraphim, then they have to take St. Celestine. There's literally no other option available. This, to me, smacks of bad rules.

If an IG player wants a more survivable HQ, then he has to take Yarrick. There's literally no way to make a Company Commander or Lord Commissar more survivable, and a Tempestor Prime isn't even allowed an invulnerable save.

If a Necron player wants to use MWBD on Triarch Praetorians, he has to take either Szeras or Anrakyr.

etc.

Honestly, I'd actually like to see special characters become far less special. I'd rather see more options and customisation for regular characters, rather than all the best rules and gear being given to special characters.

Agree with the latter part. Relics were a great start in the right direction, as is the now current ability to choose your Warlord Trait (whereas named characters are going to be stuck with a chosen one), but the ability to pay for another ability or aura would be great.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Damsel of the Lady




 Scott-S6 wrote:
 Galas wrote:
Aren't Soup armies, armies that mix many factions? I think they are a different concept that "superhero" armies that I assume are some kind of Herohammer style of building a list.


I think he meant "supe"


Yeah, this confused me in the beginning and looking at the responses some other posters too (some rail against Soup and some against Supe).

Soup and Super armies are two different things.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 vipoid wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
Superhero armies are...to me, uninteresting, and fly in the face of what 40k. 40k is all about an uncaring, grinding, grim universe where everything is getting worse and nobody cares what happens to you. That's the whole shtick put forth in the intro of every rulebook of every edition.

Bring them out for special games, lets not have Primarch's or Eldrad or Vulkan or whoever else in every...single...game. I can't recall how many times I've killed the latter two characters in particular over the last decade, along with probably a dozen others, and it *really* detracts from their "special"-ness.


I kinda agree, however I think that this is an issue with the rules rather than the players.

In an edition where a lot of stuff has been cut to the bone, special characters are often the only models that bring any interesting rules to the table. Or the only ones who fit certain builds.

For example, if a SoB player wants a flying HQ to accompany some Seraphim, then they have to take St. Celestine. There's literally no other option available. This, to me, smacks of bad rules.

If an IG player wants a more survivable HQ, then he has to take Yarrick. There's literally no way to make a Company Commander or Lord Commissar more survivable, and a Tempestor Prime isn't even allowed an invulnerable save.

If a Necron player wants to use MWBD on Triarch Praetorians, he has to take either Szeras or Anrakyr.

etc.

Honestly, I'd actually like to see special characters become far less special. I'd rather see more options and customisation for regular characters, rather than all the best rules and gear being given to special characters.

Agree with the latter part. Relics were a great start in the right direction, as is the now current ability to choose your Warlord Trait (whereas named characters are going to be stuck with a chosen one), but the ability to pay for another ability or aura would be great.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in ca
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot






 jeff white wrote:

I remember when SC were just that, special.
Now they are a daily driver.
So I was surprised by that casual way that these competitive minded people just toss stuff together to break the game, not only exploiting the rules but cheapening the universe...
GW is not without guilt here having encouraged this mindset, but that is beside the point.
The cool difference between this game and CCGs is that we can make our own 'cards' and aren't stuck searching for rares for the win.
But how is it that this game becomes that game?
Is it gw IP nonsense or just a lack of imagination?
Kids can't color outside the lines anymore?
Granted I am an old dude but what the EFF happened?


I think that's perhaps an issue of expectation on your end. Competitive gamer's and people who build lists for tournament play do not need to, and honestly should not, have to adhere to lore appropriate army set ups to play. As far as I'm concerned, once tournament play is a factor, where players are playing for tangible, monetary prizes, the Lore flies out the window, at the height of competitiveness. That's not to say I saw some wonderfully fluffy lists, beautifully painted and crafted armies at a Local tournament I just placed first in. Creativity and story can still have a place in tournament play. The top table of the tournament was an Ork player with no Special Named characters, just swathes of Grot Artillery and Gorkanauts on the field, vs my Ultramarines-only Guilliman-based Gunline.
Anecdote aside, Competitive play shouldn't be what one looks at for rich story and hand-crafted lore.

One thing that comes to mind, of how one could go about making a competitive environment, with things at stake, but having a story to work towards... why not craft your own Campaign? Run it locally, like a tournament perhaps, or across a few days, week or a month even. Talk with FLGS owners about the idea, make it a big event with rewards, but place stipulations on armies that limit what people can bring, and give a lore reasoning for it. Or, only allow Special Characters for climactic missions, and big battles.

Casual play should be the place for Kids Colouring outside the Lines, as it were. I know that I enjoy that myself; when I'm not running Guilliman on the board, the star of my show is my Fulminator's Chapter Primaris Captain, who's slain a Black Legion Chaos Lord with a timely, well-placed Stalker round, held the tide against raving bands of Emperors Children, and has dueled with Azreal.
I really do believe that there's a few major camps in the Warhammer crowd. I saw that, clear as day after a bunch of the lads went out for drinks after the local tournament was over. Everyone was talking about Warhammer, but there was a seeming divide. A fair number of the people didn't care for the lore behind Warhammer and had expressly said as much; their true enjoyment of the game came from playing a strategy game(I know that even that's debatable), an the modelling and painting aspect of it. That's not to remove nuance from peoples opinions, there is plenty of Inbetween in those two ideologies.

Skaven - 4500
OBR - 4250
- 6800
- 4250
- 2750 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






 jeff white wrote:
 Thadin wrote:
Baited in to thinking this was a thread about the keyword and ally system, and finding that it's another thread about Special Named Characters...
Spoiler:

I wonder why there seems to be a common thought that the more "fluffy" named character-hating posters on the thread seem to have; them questioning why a Chapter Master or Guilliman would show up to every single random battle in the galaxy. A reasonable thought for sure, as they can't be everywhere all the time, all at once. I'm personally in the camp that Named Characters are fine, but will only take them to a certain extent, probably one per list at most because that's how I enjoy building my list...

But on to my point; why does it HAVE to be a random backwater world skirmish in your mind, that Bobby G has shown up to? I'm sure those who love lore and story building can think of a good enough reason as to why some Superhero has shown up. And if that's not satisfactory, I'm sure you can ask other players to not bring them. Or just not play against those particular players.

In my area, there's only one player who doesn't use Special Characters at all, but I would call just about every army that hits the table regularly, to be lore appropriate.

A lot of the disagreements on this matter really do boil down to people wanting other people to play Warhammer the way that they think it should be played. And while it's not the friendliest, happiest everyone-gets-together sort of idea, but if you really don't like the way that other people play, just don't play with them. If there is no middle ground to be achieved, then it's best for both parties involved to just not interact. Agreeing to disagree, in a sense.

Edit: To answer the actual question of the thread: Superfriends lists are unfluffy. Can you take Celestine, Guilliman and Azreal in the same army and they pal around the board bashing the gak out of everything around? Sure you can. But that's one hell of a stretch to achieve in explaining the story reasoning behind it.
Taking one or two Named Characters from the same specific sub-factions? Can be story appropriate.


Again, I just started the thread after reading an article on another forum and listening to a podcast and they both involved how to mix SCs to win tournaments and they called these soup lists ...

I remember when SC were just that, special.
Now they are a daily driver.
So I was surprised by that casual way that these competitive minded people just toss stuff together to break the game, not only exploiting the rules but cheapening the universe...
GW is not without guilt here having encouraged this mindset, but that is beside the point.
The cool difference between this game and CCGs is that we can make our own 'cards' and aren't stuck searching for rares for the win.
But how is it that this game becomes that game?
Is it gw IP nonsense or just a lack of imagination?
Kids can't color outside the lines anymore?
Granted I am an old dude but what the EFF happened?



I disagree with some of these things.

1) SC are special, you can have one of each in your army and only with the same Keywords
2) They are not exploiting the rules, it is very clear you can have multi SC in the same army (Gman and St.Celestine as an example) and other factions can and will do this too.
3) Just like in CCG like you said, aka MTG you can both (you and your opponent) have the same legendary's but only 1 out at a time each, or Planswalkers in your deck, even tho one of each named walker you can still have as many others as you like (unless this has change i stop playing a bit ago)
4) Tournaments =/= local play either, and tournaments are literally made to "big the best list" they are not for players to try and win with subpar list b.c they are "good players" just like in CCG's, have you been to MTG tournaments? they are worst than 40k ones......
5) Before you play with someone you can always ask to not play against certain models if you find them op af, its actually good if you talk it over... what happen to players just talking about the game they ant to play?

Nothing happened, nothing new at all, we have more freedom in list building now, for as long as i can remember there has ALWAYS been those 2-3 top lists in every edition (and they change with new releases), and if you dont want to play against those lists.... dont, just ask to tone it down a bit, its not hard.

   
Made in za
Jovial Plaguebearer of Nurgle





South Africa

Wont lie I barely understood the two options haha

Facts are chains that bind perception and fetter truth. For a man can remake the world if he has a dream and no facts to cloud his mind. 
   
Made in kr
Neophyte Undergoing Surgeries




Seoul, Korea

Bell of Lost Souls has a really short article about this here:

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/09/40k-soup-lists-are-soup-er-fluffy.html



750 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Apocritas wrote:
Bell of Lost Souls has a really short article about this here:

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/09/40k-soup-lists-are-soup-er-fluffy.html




Probably read this and said "I should do a post on it"

   
Made in kr
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Apocritas wrote:
Bell of Lost Souls has a really short article about this here:

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/09/40k-soup-lists-are-soup-er-fluffy.html




Probably read this and said "I should do a post on it"


Yes, I did read that !
And it resonated with a podcast that I had been listening to about the same time,
so I started this thread to encourage discussion on the whole idea.

Lots of good stuff has come out of it,
for example the need to more forcibly distinguish between 'supe' and 'soup' -
I tried to describe what I was referencing in the OP, but I should have made it more clear that I was just using the language that I had taken from these other sources to form the poll, and that I did not come up with this use of 'soup' to describe what we now know as 'supe' ...
It came from these other sources.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apocritas wrote:
Bell of Lost Souls has a really short article about this here:

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/09/40k-soup-lists-are-soup-er-fluffy.html




Yup, that was one of the things that inspired this thread.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/23 03:10:48


   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

The problem with these kinds of soups is that they can be unbeatable lists. Imperium has 2/5 of the indexes, which means almost half the GW catalogue. If you mix the most effective units of 10+ factions you're getting an unbalanced army, too strong.

DE, eldar and harlequins units can be merged into one list but they have 1/100 of the options available compared to the imperium, same for chaos.

All the other factions can only rely on themselves.

A fluffy imperial soup could be even nice to play or to face, but these soups are not built for being fluffy but for being super competitive, this is the problem and why people hate them.

Now I'm not interested about what's happening in tournaments, but if imperial soups start to show up in casual games that's a huge issue. And unfortunately I've already seen some of them outside the competitions.

 
   
Made in us
Thunderhawk Pilot Dropping From Orbit




AZ

I prefer French Onion, with bread and extra cheese.



 
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






All of the codexes are granting solid bonuses for not mixing so I think it's going to take care of itself.
   
Made in kr
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

 Blackie wrote:
The problem with these kinds of soups is that they can be unbeatable lists. Imperium has 2/5 of the indexes, which means almost half the GW catalogue. If you mix the most effective units of 10+ factions you're getting an unbalanced army, too strong.

DE, eldar and harlequins units can be merged into one list but they have 1/100 of the options available compared to the imperium, same for chaos.

All the other factions can only rely on themselves.

A fluffy imperial soup could be even nice to play or to face, but these soups are not built for being fluffy but for being super competitive, this is the problem and why people hate them.

Now I'm not interested about what's happening in tournaments, but if imperial soups start to show up in casual games that's a huge issue. And unfortunately I've already seen some of them outside the competitions.


This nails it IMHO. Exalted.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/23 17:31:06


   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: