Switch Theme:

Soup - Matched or Narrative play?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
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 us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





I think your premise is flawed, there is no hard and fast rule that ensures that factions that can soup are inherently better than those that cannot. While having more options is certainly an advantage, large factions like imperium could be balanced around this advantage against books like Orks, Necrons and Tau that do not.

I think soup is good for sales, and likely will sell. I do think it is poorly implemented, in that its existence essentially makes it universally better than any of the ingredients in said soup.

As for players, good players are good players, it does not matter the restrictions. The same players routinely are at the top of large tournaments year after year, through edition changes. It doesn't matter what you do.

The idea of any changes is to increase the variety in units and armies taken. Right now soup increases the viability of more things than it hurts. IF soup is going to be dealt with I think the best method would be some sort of slight advantage dependent on how focused your army is (Imperium gets one level of Chapter traits/stratagems, all Astra Millitarum gets a slightly increased version, all Cadian gets one more increased level. Basically provide incentives or different playstyles available through army choice.
   
Made in fi
Chaplain with Hate to Spare






Breng77 wrote:
I think your premise is flawed, there is no hard and fast rule that ensures that factions that can soup are inherently better than those that cannot. While having more options is certainly an advantage, large factions like imperium could be balanced around this advantage against books like Orks, Necrons and Tau that do not.

And if 'has more unit options' is an insurmountable balancing issue, then banning the soup is not gonna fix it anyway. Some monofactions have more than twenty times the amount units to choose than others.

Only the insane have strength enough to prosper. Only those who prosper may truly judge what is sane. 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Dankhold Troggoth






Shadeglass Maze

Lots of posts that came close - or outright crossed - the line of civility we ask posters to adhere to on Dakka last page. Going forward in this thread, please note the following:

1. Telling people to "Just go play narrative", unless they are specifically asking about narrative play, will result in a warning/suspension for flamebaiting.

2. Calling people "TFG" in response to something like the above will result in the same. Just hit the yellow triangle - if someone had done so sooner, I could have nipped all that in the bud before it spiraled out of control last page!

Any questions, just PM me - and note the above for further posts in this thread. Thanks all!


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/30 18:35:30


 
   
Made in us
Dusty Skeleton




soup is fine, IMHO. there should just be a penalty. only use stratagems, traits, and relics from the faction that your warlord is from, and your warlord can only be taken from the detachment you have the most points in seems reasonable.

or just limit the number of points per army you can soup in to be about 25% of the army total, and then make an exception for things like castellans or other single models that exceed this.

limiting strats and relic usage would have curtailed the need for the castellan nerf I think.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/30 18:59:44


 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





I'd agree that there are ways to ameliorate the bad taste of soup, but eventually you add so much salt that you have to throw it out and start again :-)

If it has to be a part of matched play, then I'd hope eventually to see it played as two distinct armies. Soup deconstructed, if you will :-)
   
Made in ca
Focused Dark Angels Land Raider Pilot



Canada

Moriarty wrote:
I'd agree that there are ways to ameliorate the bad taste of soup, but eventually you add so much salt that you have to throw it out and start again :-)

If it has to be a part of matched play, then I'd hope eventually to see it played as two distinct armies. Soup deconstructed, if you will :-)


I think that soup can be a part of both Matched and Narrative Play. Narrative Play is more about the missions: the missions are a little less "fair" than those in Matched Play. The narrative comes from the mission, its special rules and victory conditions. The "fluffiness" of the lists can absolutely contribute to the narrative feel, but I also think that "fluffy" is in the eye of the beholder.

Soup is fine with the new FAQ. There were/are a few units and combinations that were/are problematic. For example, the initial Soup Rage was focused on the early 8th Ed Detachment rules with Conscripts mixing in with Guilliman/Celestine etc. Conscripts got nerfed and detachment rules evolved as Codexes came out. The later rage about Loyal 32, Smashcaptains and Castellan was from a few Stratagems and how CP regen was handled. Eldar Soup rage was mostly from the interaction of Farseer/Warlock powers with Drukhari shooting. It looks like all that got fixed. Folks will find a new wombo-combo, it will get popular and then get nerfed. That is true of monodex as well!

I run mono-Dark Angels (no snooping around our HQ) in tournaments, but I happily play against Imperial Soup. I was less happy against Aeldari Soup, but perhaps that is my righteous upbringing on the Rock making me a little biased.






All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in us
Perfect Shot Dark Angels Predator Pilot





Eastern CT

The new FAQs and the Ynarri and Eldar nerfs don't make soup "fine". Soup without some counterbalancing to make mono- lists at least roughly as good is like having a hole in the fence that allows the neighbor's dog to poop all over your lawn. GW's recent actions are the equivalent of cleaning up a couple of the bigger poop piles, but the hole in the fence is still there.

When the current system was implemented, GW should have counterbalanced soup lists with some sort of disadvantage. Doing so now would be a feel-bad move that would be bad for the company, so now the most sensible action would be to buff mono-lists in some way.

Check out my brand new 40K/gaming blog: Crafting Cave Games 
   
Made in ca
Focused Dark Angels Land Raider Pilot



Canada

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
The new FAQs and the Ynarri and Eldar nerfs don't make soup "fine". Soup without some counterbalancing to make mono- lists at least roughly as good is like having a hole in the fence that allows the neighbor's dog to poop all over your lawn. GW's recent actions are the equivalent of cleaning up a couple of the bigger poop piles, but the hole in the fence is still there.

When the current system was implemented, GW should have counterbalanced soup lists with some sort of disadvantage. Doing so now would be a feel-bad move that would be bad for the company, so now the most sensible action would be to buff mono-lists in some way.


Arguably there are disadvantages to Soup based on Detachments, army rules and buff mechanics. If I mix Dark Angels and Blood Angels I am using up my Detachment limits. Character buffs and Strats will not be useable on each other. So while I might gain additional tools I might also sacrifice some flexibility in how I deploy and employ my force.

Is an Astra Militarum and Dark Angels Soup force more "powerful" than a mono-Dark Angels or mono-Astra Militarum force?

It's true that adding a Knight gives a whole new option to my army. Shall we take away the Super-heavies from the Xenos mono-armies?

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





Super heavies, like aircraft, are a problem for some because of scaling. SH destructive power is hobbled to fit the tabletop, as is aircraft speed. I think GW keeps them in 40k for sales, the more pretty models they sell the better. Game wise they might be better depicted as Strategem effects.

Couldn’t say if any particular faction is more effective for souping, depends if they can fill a tactical gap in their Codex effectively. Certainly there are some disadvantages if souping because of Detachment limits.

My problem is with a tournament setting (deliberately avoiding the word competitive, as Narrative games are competitive) and some factions having options not available to others. Whether having those options benefits a particular faction or not is another matter. For me, either everyone has the options, or no one should have.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







Moriarty wrote:
Super heavies, like aircraft, are a problem for some because of scaling. SH destructive power is hobbled to fit the tabletop, as is aircraft speed. I think GW keeps them in 40k for sales, the more pretty models they sell the better. Game wise they might be better depicted as Strategem effects.

Couldn’t say if any particular faction is more effective for souping, depends if they can fill a tactical gap in their Codex effectively. Certainly there are some disadvantages if souping because of Detachment limits.

My problem is with a tournament setting (deliberately avoiding the word competitive, as Narrative games are competitive) and some factions having options not available to others. Whether having those options benefits a particular faction or not is another matter. For me, either everyone has the options, or no one should have.


I think I’ve got Stockholm Syndrome concerning GW’s unequal treatment of factions.

Once upon a time the rules were “If you’re playing Imperials, every Imperial faction and Eldar are your allies. Everybody else is choosing to work alone.” The explanation had nothing to do with balance and everything to do with “it’s thematic”.

When I started catching up on this edition, I fell down in shock when my brother explained to me that the Tyranids have allies. Have they invented Tau Human colony worlds yet for this edition?

Honestly, if you’re interested in avoiding cross-book balance issues, you’re better off starting at a low, fixed number of detachments, and then looking to see what the issues are there. Otherwise you’re just trying to roll mud up hill in the rain.
   
Made in fi
Chaplain with Hate to Spare






Moriarty wrote:

My problem is with a tournament setting (deliberately avoiding the word competitive, as Narrative games are competitive) and some factions having options not available to others. Whether having those options benefits a particular faction or not is another matter. For me, either everyone has the options, or no one should have.

So how you solve the situation where one faction has 200 unit options (Space Marines) and another just a handful (Harlequins.) Do we also ban units until everyone has just as few as the Harlequins?

Only the insane have strength enough to prosper. Only those who prosper may truly judge what is sane. 
   
Made in is
Courageous Beastmaster




Iceland

I think the next months are going to be exciting as we'll see the new changes spread out into the wild. I've never had a problem against soup, even when I play mono-army. What I had problem were specific things like the 3++ on a knight.

Also, Crimson has the right of it. A lot of factions have many times the options of other factions meaning that even if soup was removed there would still be selection and unit advantage purely based on number of available units.

Third, a lot of the soup people were having issues with has been hit hard in the FAQ and the new Ynnari Index. People shouldn't downplay that part. More or less every force multiplier has been taken down(Doom, Jinx, Reveal), and the OP stratagems limited(Rotating Ion Shields).

Cypher | Craftworlds | Drukhari | Dark Angels | Necrons | Emperor's Children(30k/40k) | Tyranids | Orks | Death Guard

Daughters of Khaine | Blades of Khorne | Stormcast Eternals | Flesh-Eater Courts
 
   
Made in ru
Steadfast Grey Hunter




Loyal 32 is still a king, no reason to not take it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/01 10:16:12


 
   
Made in is
Courageous Beastmaster




Iceland

Silver144 wrote:
Loyal 32 is still a king, no reason to not take it.


Are they though? I have played my fair share against Loyal 32 and the biggest problem I had was the Rotating Ion Shield 3++. Even when we had Smash Captains all over I still had less problems with them than Rotating Ion Shields.

Although I do agree that GW should have made CP a static number based on point size.

Cypher | Craftworlds | Drukhari | Dark Angels | Necrons | Emperor's Children(30k/40k) | Tyranids | Orks | Death Guard

Daughters of Khaine | Blades of Khorne | Stormcast Eternals | Flesh-Eater Courts
 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





Even just limiting max two factions per army of 2k pt would curtail the problem alot.

If we were to make an RTS analogy, narrative would be the campaign mode/UMS where as matched play is the ladder. Matched play, IMO, should do its best to evoke a sense of balance and disallow cherry picking the best unit/stratagem amongst multiple armies.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/01 11:41:40


 
   
Made in us
Pulsating Possessed Chaos Marine





 Eldarsif wrote:
I think the next months are going to be exciting as we'll see the new changes spread out into the wild. I've never had a problem against soup, even when I play mono-army. What I had problem were specific things like the 3++ on a knight.

Also, Crimson has the right of it. A lot of factions have many times the options of other factions meaning that even if soup was removed there would still be selection and unit advantage purely based on number of available units.

Third, a lot of the soup people were having issues with has been hit hard in the FAQ and the new Ynnari Index. People shouldn't downplay that part. More or less every force multiplier has been taken down(Doom, Jinx, Reveal), and the OP stratagems limited(Rotating Ion Shields).


Exactly. They didn't fix all the problems with the FAQ, but they fixed some major ones. The other thing that's happening, is some soft mechanics changes to drive people more towards mono-faction lists. I've specifically noticed it as a Chaos player with the new Prayers and psychic Powers, which are all locked to Legion. Fielding multiple different factions, even from within my own codex has become a debate on many of my lists.

"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."  
   
Made in us
Horrific Hive Tyrant




Tampa, FL

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
 Eldarsif wrote:
I think the next months are going to be exciting as we'll see the new changes spread out into the wild. I've never had a problem against soup, even when I play mono-army. What I had problem were specific things like the 3++ on a knight.

Also, Crimson has the right of it. A lot of factions have many times the options of other factions meaning that even if soup was removed there would still be selection and unit advantage purely based on number of available units.

Third, a lot of the soup people were having issues with has been hit hard in the FAQ and the new Ynnari Index. People shouldn't downplay that part. More or less every force multiplier has been taken down(Doom, Jinx, Reveal), and the OP stratagems limited(Rotating Ion Shields).


Exactly. They didn't fix all the problems with the FAQ, but they fixed some major ones. The other thing that's happening, is some soft mechanics changes to drive people more towards mono-faction lists. I've specifically noticed it as a Chaos player with the new Prayers and psychic Powers, which are all locked to Legion. Fielding multiple different factions, even from within my own codex has become a debate on many of my lists.
They need to do more of this. If they aren't going to discourage soup, they need to do more to encourage mono-faction, even mono-subfaction (e.g. one <CHAPTER> rather than <ADEPTUS ASTARTES> but with 2+ chapters ). Soup shouldn't have the benefit of letting you mitigate your weaknesses AND giving extra things (e.g. more CP, more stratagems) on top of it IMHO. Just being able to negate your faction's weaknesses should be enough.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/05/01 14:35:03


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







Wayniac wrote:
 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
 Eldarsif wrote:
I think the next months are going to be exciting as we'll see the new changes spread out into the wild. I've never had a problem against soup, even when I play mono-army. What I had problem were specific things like the 3++ on a knight.

Also, Crimson has the right of it. A lot of factions have many times the options of other factions meaning that even if soup was removed there would still be selection and unit advantage purely based on number of available units.

Third, a lot of the soup people were having issues with has been hit hard in the FAQ and the new Ynnari Index. People shouldn't downplay that part. More or less every force multiplier has been taken down(Doom, Jinx, Reveal), and the OP stratagems limited(Rotating Ion Shields).


Exactly. They didn't fix all the problems with the FAQ, but they fixed some major ones. The other thing that's happening, is some soft mechanics changes to drive people more towards mono-faction lists. I've specifically noticed it as a Chaos player with the new Prayers and psychic Powers, which are all locked to Legion. Fielding multiple different factions, even from within my own codex has become a debate on many of my lists.
They need to do more of this. If they aren't going to discourage soup, they need to do more to encourage mono-faction, even mono-subfaction (e.g. one <CHAPTER> rather than <ADEPTUS ASTARTES> but with 2+ chapters ). Soup shouldn't have the benefit of letting you mitigate your weaknesses AND giving extra things (e.g. more CP, more stratagems) on top of it IMHO. Just being able to negate your faction's weaknesses should be enough.


But what’s the alternative to “bring another book, get access to those stratagems”? Telling people that they can’t use those stratagems won’t work, because part of that faction’s mechanics are built by those stratagems.

You might be able to get tieing command points to the detachment that generated them, and then make up rules for sharing CP that discourages “soup”. But then you get to the big fights about what’s soup and what’s not. And bonuses like “When I started playing, CSM had access to units now spread across five (or more) books. How dare you disparage that by calling it a food product?!?!”

   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





 Crimson wrote:
Moriarty wrote:

My problem is with a tournament setting (deliberately avoiding the word competitive, as Narrative games are competitive) and some factions having options not available to others. Whether having those options benefits a particular faction or not is another matter. For me, either everyone has the options, or no one should have.

So how you solve the situation where one faction has 200 unit options (Space Marines) and another just a handful (Harlequins.) Do we also ban units until everyone has just as few as the Harlequins?


Personally? I’d fold Harlequins into the Eldar Codex on the same basis as Freebooter Flash Gitz - any Eldar army can take them, but they don’t benefit from traits. Sorry if this is speaking from ignorance, I don’t have Aeldari Codexes.

I can see that some factions have more options than others, and that some have been released as playable, stand alone forces where previously they had been auxiliaries. As far as I know, this was done with soup in mind to make them ‘playable’, and GW is growing the game organically, with no overarching plan as to what the final form will take. But for me, GW is in the business of selling stuff, and at the minute see the way to do that is to produce as many types of stuff to sell as possible. It could be that they re-evaluate this, and cut back the number of stand-alone, who knows?

But perhaps using the word ‘faction’ was wrong, and I should have used ‘Codex’ instead? My intention was that, in a tournament, a player used one Codex to pick an army from. I didn’t want to imply they should ‘ban’ anyone’s army.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/02 06:34:53


 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike





 solkan wrote:
But what’s the alternative to “bring another book, get access to those stratagems”? Telling people that they can’t use those stratagems won’t work, because part of that faction’s mechanics are built by those stratagems.

You might be able to get tieing command points to the detachment that generated them, and then make up rules for sharing CP that discourages “soup”. But then you get to the big fights about what’s soup and what’s not. And bonuses like “When I started playing, CSM had access to units now spread across five (or more) books. How dare you disparage that by calling it a food product?!?!”



He already described how it does work. Nothing prevents your from mixing Red Corsairs for CP with Black Legion for Stratagems, Relics and Abbadon and Alpha Legion for units that need protection. It will, however, come to bite you since support characters will only work for their respective legion, unless you bring multiple. Your Master of Possession, Lord Discordant, Greater Possessed or Chaos Lord working for everything in your army rather than just part of it is a decent reason to field a pure army rather than just picking the best legion for every unit.

There is a reason to go for just one legion and there is reason to mix legions, just as it should be.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/02 07:31:12


 Daedalus81 wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Yes, because everyone lines up on the deployment line when facing off against orkz, especially when said orkz are fielding 3 Bonebreakers...which rely exclusively on getting into CC to inflict any kind of actual harm. All of your arguments rely upon your opponent being a brain dead muppet who just lets you maul him.


Yea...that's called board control.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: