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 kr
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

Simple poll to solicit opinions.

I was reading around the forums and have been listening to the podcasts and have come across this idea that so-called "soup" lists are all the new rage and according to pundits are working as gw has intended. The idea is that gw has changed the emphasis from core troops to stackable buffs due characters recruited from related factions, and this has been reflected in the new approach to storytelling with major characters present in every new report and major battle. So the feeling is that it is not only OK to have five different characters in an army and to play it every time out, but that this is to be expected and even what the game is now supposed to be about. I read "Superfriends is dead, long live superfriends" but that now it is not just one group of impossible to defeat buffmanders working side by side, it is the enitre army that works this way.

Anyways, a poll - is this the way that 40k is intended, "fluffy", so there should be no hesitation in building one's collection and in taking such to the local shop for a friendly, or is this marketing meets competitive meta in dual purpose sales meets reliable slaughter, not " fluffy".

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/09/14 02:00:33


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





There's a lot of middle ground to this argument besides those two options.

I would have voted for "Superhero based armies are a fad and just so happen to be supported by some of the recent fluff, if you want to take the fluff that way as justification for your cheese, but you can collect that way if you want to because nobody can tell you how to build your army"
   
Made in ca
Sneaky Lictor



oromocto

I said no.

I can see if you are doing a campaine or something having a bunch of special characters but in regular games you should never see more than one special character and no more than one main faction supported by a close allie.
   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard





Where's my "it doesn't matter if it's fluffy because that is a meaningless term" option? My dislike for soup armies has nothing to do with whether or not it fits ~the lore~ and everything to do with (minor complaint) that the lack of thematic cohesion isn't as pleasing to look at on the table and (major complaint) it creates a massive gap in potential between armies that can soup and armies that can't.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Depends on the soup........... Some yes some no.

   
Made in us
War Walker Pilot with Withering Fire




 Amishprn86 wrote:
Depends on the soup........... Some yes some no.


Agreed. It depends very much on the list and the scenario you're playing.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Lore doesn't drive me to do anything in an army. I play based off of how an army is made to be played. For example, I don't think putting Guilliman in a non-Ultramarines army is correct. I think people who do things to powergame the system are the problem and not the lists they make. I don't care if it's happened in the fluff or not. But at the same time, it's legal so I don't complain about it. I just don't think it should be allowed but I'm not sure how to necessarily solve it to make it fair so it still goes.

Powergaming lists are for competitive play and not for regular knockaround "fun" games. I don't take a super fluffy fun list to a competitive tournament setting and expect to win. I also don't take a powergaming list to a super fluffy fun game and expect to have fun. Both are fine in their own parameters as long as they aren't intermixed. Unless of course your opponent is fine with it beforehand.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




I enjoy characters, but lean heavily towards boots on the ground rather than a few superheroes. I preferred when making your own character fluff was more common and special characters were opponent permission only. As it stands I have BA, an opponent who intends to run Typhus and Mortarion regularly which makes me feel like I need to buy and paint Guilliman and some of the boys in blue. Vicious cycle.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Seems these days that everyone and his dog has an aura that let's you add +1 or re-roll something. Those that don't cause mortal wounds.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Gig Harbor, WA

Fluff is so subjective as to be a pointless thing to talk about.

Is it fluffy to run an all scion force focused on drop plasma that grav chutes in, and then alpha strikes your opponent, while you deploy just enough guardsman drops to get all your scions in deep strike? Yeah I suppose it is.

But does it make for a fun and balanced game?
   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight





None of these answers for your poll go along with the title and seem more repugnant.

Feed the poor war gamer with money.  
   
Made in nz
Stealthy Space Wolves Scout



Auckland, New Zealand

I like Calgar, both terminator and artificer, so he'll make his way into most of my lists, but other than him I don't see much point in spamming characters. I'm sure it could be fun for a one-off event, a thousand points of characters versus a thousand points of plebs, like the Dirty Dozen, but I wouldn't want to play that all the time.


I am Blue/White
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.




I find passive aggressive messages in people's signatures quite amusing. 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

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.

Armies of mixed composition tend to come off more as blatant synergistic hybridizing rather than fluffy thematic army 99% of the time.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/14 04:01:10


IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in kr
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
None of these answers for your poll go along with the title and seem more repugnant.


Wow. "Repugnant"?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 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.

Armies of mixed composition tend to come off more as blatant synergistic hybridizing rather than fluffy thematic army 99% of the time.


Yeah, this is what bothers me most, too.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/14 04:03:25


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Gig Harbor, WA

 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.

Armies of mixed composition tend to come off more as blatant synergistic hybridizing rather than fluffy thematic army 99% of the time.


While I personally am in agreement, not the least of which because most GW superheros have historically (although less so 8th edition) had obnoxious rules, I think this ship has sailed.
   
Made in kr
Fresh-Faced New User




The whole soup armies thing is really going to ruin the meta. Imperium and Chaos has so many factions to choose from and some of the brainfarted rules FW has provided just accelerates the imbalances. Poor Necrons, Orks and Tau who have no allies to soup from. Some of the characters are crazily underpriced such as Roboute Guilliman and Saint Celestine.

I wish being battle-forged would be stricter, just 1 detachment. Sure you can take that other factions crazy undercosted named special character, but then you lose all the special rules of your faction. Enjoy your soup. There should be a penalty for souping up!
   
Made in us
Missionary On A Mission



Eastern VA

I don't mind seeing mixed factions as such - I can easily construct perfectly fluffy scenarios where the Sisters show up to help out beleaguered Guardsmen, or where the Iron Hands arrive just in time to save a platoon of Scions from a Dark Eldar raiding party. Or equally, where the Dark Eldar arrive just in time to help out Craftworld Yme-Loc in their fight against an advancing Ork Waaagh. That, I have no problem with.

Superheroes, OTOH, I have mixed feelings about. I feel like you shouldn't be seeing the same superheroes every single game. I don't mind that they exist - a little nobledark in with all the grimdark helps mitigate the darkness-induced apathy - but they're special. They're super. They shouldn't be putting in an appearance in every single battle.

Trouble is, they're generally so good that you're hamstringing yourself if you don't bring them - or worse, they define a faction to the point that running that faction without them is difficult.

I think keywords have gone a long way toward reining in some of the superfriends stupidity of 7e - but what we get instead is "nasty ball of firepower based around $SUPERHERO, with the chaff units from a different faction because theirs suck less".

I'm not sure what the right fix is. I have a few ideas - maybe most named characters would have a rule saying "A detachment may not include this character unless all units in the same detachment also have the <X> keyword." Also, maybe the Vanguard, Spearhead and Outrider detachments could be made a bit less flexible, remove the LoW Auxiliary detachment, and add restrictions to the Supreme High Command detachment such that it can only be taken if the force also includes at least one Battalion or Brigade detachment with at least one keyword in common. Add something special for Knights such that they can be taken as a Heavy Support or Elite choice under some kind of conditions (I'm not sure what, but the goal here is not to screw over Knights and Baneblades, but rather to make it more difficult to hastily glue some LoW-slot superhero to the side of a force).


(Also, minor peeve here - the Battalion detachment is somewhere between a reinforced platoon and a company, and the Brigade detachment is somewhere between a reinforced company and a small battalion. Why not just call them "Company" and "Battalion"?)

~4500 -- ~4000 -- ~2000 -- ~5000 -- ~5000 -- ~4000 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

See, I'm of two warring minds on this:

1) Herohammer is bad. 40k is about armies, and heroes are of circumstance (a random guardsman finishing off a carnifex with a bayonet stab) rather than plot (i.e. good thing "so-and-so" was here or we'd've lost for sure!).

2) Everyone loves action heroes. Very few people want to roleplay as a 1-hit-point minion in D&D. I can't begrudge people who think Celestine or Guilliman or Mortarion are badass and want to see them on the table!
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






I'm not sure whether your definition of "soup" armies is the same one I've heard. I've described my imperial army as "imperial soup" but it doesn't include a single named character - most frequently, I field an Ordo Xenos task force with a generic inquisitor (who is my own named character), a couple jokaero assistants, a single Deathwatch kill team in a drop pod, and then various elements from my Vostroyan Guard, Admech, and Imperial Assassins. I also have the option of swapping out to Ordo Hereticus with a single squad of Battle Sisters in place of the Deathwatch, for when I play Imperial opponents with the army.

Thematically, I think it makes sense, and I construct the details of my army around what my opponent will be bringing. The paint scheme of all my armies is also all cohesive and matching except for the black armor of the Deathwatch and white armor of the Sisters.

the other "soup" armies I've seen are usually mixes of imperial factions, GSC mixed with Tyranids, Chaos teamups, and all-dar teamups.

But I view "herohammer" the game of using just mostly named characters for overlapping auras and powergaming as an entirely different thing. That, I'm getting very sick of seeing because of just how wacky the new breed of heroes is compared to, say, giant robots and monsters and such. It used to be, even in like 30k where you had primarchs running around, they would be hard pressed to 1v1 something like a knight, but 40k guilliman can go through a titan or take a volcano cannon to the face without even breaking a sweat, while at the same time somehow commanding his army SO WELL that their lascannons are 50% las-ier than your lascannons that you're firing right back at him.

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

the_scotsman wrote:
I'm not sure whether your definition of "soup" armies is the same one I've heard. I've described my imperial army as "imperial soup" but it doesn't include a single named character - most frequently, I field an Ordo Xenos task force with a generic inquisitor (who is my own named character), a couple jokaero assistants, a single Deathwatch kill team in a drop pod, and then various elements from my Vostroyan Guard, Admech, and Imperial Assassins. I also have the option of swapping out to Ordo Hereticus with a single squad of Battle Sisters in place of the Deathwatch, for when I play Imperial opponents with the army.

Thematically, I think it makes sense, and I construct the details of my army around what my opponent will be bringing. The paint scheme of all my armies is also all cohesive and matching except for the black armor of the Deathwatch and white armor of the Sisters.

the other "soup" armies I've seen are usually mixes of imperial factions, GSC mixed with Tyranids, Chaos teamups, and all-dar teamups.

But I view "herohammer" the game of using just mostly named characters for overlapping auras and powergaming as an entirely different thing. That, I'm getting very sick of seeing because of just how wacky the new breed of heroes is compared to, say, giant robots and monsters and such. It used to be, even in like 30k where you had primarchs running around, they would be hard pressed to 1v1 something like a knight, but 40k guilliman can go through a titan or take a volcano cannon to the face without even breaking a sweat, while at the same time somehow commanding his army SO WELL that their lascannons are 50% las-ier than your lascannons that you're firing right back at him.


Yeah the title has nothing to do with the thread. Imperial Soup armies according to your standard (and even in your own example, by the way) are totally fine.

Perchance, since you say you named your Inquisitor (and I assume your little strike force has a name) would you mind sharing fluff notes in a PM? I have fluff for my army but it's always fun to see if they can integrate or at least have met eachother ... or even just to learn awesome fluff.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






I run soup because how else am I supposed to play inquisition when our army is spread over about 5ish armies now?
   
Made in us
Hellish Haemonculus






Boskydell, IL

Personally, I love Herohammer. I think that's the way the game should work.

Welcome to the Freakshow!

(Leadership-shenanigans for Eldar of all types.) 
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




I was reading around the forums and have been listening to the podcasts and have come across this idea that so-called "soup" lists are all the new rage and according to pundits are working as gw has intended. The idea is that gw has changed the emphasis from core troops to stackable buffs due characters recruited from related factions, and this has been reflected in the new approach to storytelling with major characters present in every new report and major battle. So the feeling is that it is not only OK to have five different characters in an army and to play it every time out, but that this is to be expected and even what the game is now supposed to be about. I read "Superfriends is dead, long live superfriends" but that now it is not just one group of impossible to defeat buffmanders working side by side, it is the enitre army that works this way.


Like others have said, "soup" armies have nothing to do with heavily character based armies. "Soup" as the meta/internet defInes it is something like "Imperial Soup" where you have space marines, Astra Militarium and Inquisition in one army, or Chaos soup where you have CSM w/a allied army out of the Demons book (or index right now I suppose). They are absolutely fluffy and help let us play the game the way it tends to get described in a lot of the novels.

As far as "changing the emphasis from core troops to stackable buffs ..." - It's been that way since 6th Edition. It's not really a recent development.

It sounds like you're actually asking about hero-hammer. Personally, I don't mind a handful of named characters in an army (it actually takes a lot for me to even care what's in my opponent's list as long as it's legal). My only concern is if, as the edition grows, we see the true return of Hero-hammer like what we had in 2nd ed where characters simply got outrageously powerful and could be real killjoys. That said, even having multiple named characters in one list CAN be fluffy. Calgar and Bobby G in the same army? That happens something like two or three times in "rise of the Primarch (at least once anyway). Abaddon and Huron in the same list? Abaddon found something Huron wants so he's juts playing ball until he gets it. Really not a big deal.

Things like the old Buffmander super friends lists were way worse.

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






It's fluffy and competitive, so naturally people hate it.


-three orange whips 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




 Arachnofiend wrote:
Where's my "it doesn't matter if it's fluffy because that is a meaningless term" option? My dislike for soup armies has nothing to do with whether or not it fits ~the lore~ and everything to do with (minor complaint) that the lack of thematic cohesion isn't as pleasing to look at on the table and (major complaint) it creates a massive gap in potential between armies that can soup and armies that can't.


Great post, enjoy your exalt.
   
Made in dk
Servoarm Flailing Magos






Metalica

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Where's my "it doesn't matter if it's fluffy because that is a meaningless term" option? My dislike for soup armies has nothing to do with whether or not it fits ~the lore~ and everything to do with (minor complaint) that the lack of thematic cohesion isn't as pleasing to look at on the table and (major complaint) it creates a massive gap in potential between armies that can soup and armies that can't.


I absolutely agree with this, and I'd like to add that it also hurts the armies that can soup, in that they don't always get fully fleshed out, because there's no need for it to specifically have a counter to X, because they can take a counter from another part of the imperium.
I play Ad Mech because I like Ad Mech, and it would be nice if my book was balanced to be its own standalone codex, rather than having glaring holes that are accepted as a part of being an imperium army. I play my army because *that's the army I like.*

That said, it's clearly better to be a part of the imperium than not to be at this point, but I think there are a lot of reasons why the game would be better if each army was its own faction.

 
   
Made in gb
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel






I thought they added superhero story lines to push the sales of the lists tbh... when it comes to things like tyranids and orks then soup lists do make sense but marines it just OP and unfluffy.
   
Made in fi
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant




[Expunged from Imperial records] =][=

Depends...

Soup is (as far as I know) the habit of making your army from multiple factions, as long as they share one faction Keyword. That's perfectly fluffy. For example, Different forces of the imperium fight together all the time. Of course, it's also fluffy to make (for example) a pure Space Marine-army. However, Unbound allows for some truly unfluffy lists. Or what do you think about an army made out of Ultramarines, Tau and Daemons? That's quite different from Guilliman leading a force made out of AdMech and Greyknights. The latter might happen. The former? No chance.

Or do you just mean using special characters all the time? I think there's nothing wrong with that but I kind of miss the days when it was generally agreed that special characters are not cost effective. Still, I've always tended to occassionally use spec chars if I think they do something cool... preferably both in the fluff and on the table. Yet, using multiples special characters in one list is kind of pushing it.

Or is this just the question of using buff auras? Well, that is fluffy. Heroic characters inspire their troops all time in the fluff. Also, it's a rather integral part of the game that the HQs work that way. No one was questioning in WHFB if it's unfluffy for units to use a Hero's Leadership.


"Be like General Tarsus of yore, bulletproof and free of fear!" 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

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.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






 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"
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: