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.

Skaorn wrote:
Except SHUPPET that language changes and ranting about it changing from what it used to be is a waste of energy. Where I grew up the stores that sold booze were called package stores. We had a slang term for it that a lot of people don't use anymore because it sounds the same as a racial slur. If I say "I had a gay old time" at an event, someone unfamiliar with the Flinstones theme might take it differently than intended. The definition of soup in this small culture has already changed from what you except. You already lost.

Sigh. MY point is (and that same point is shared by many I first heard it expressed on Chapter Tactics as well) that the term "soup", which DID made sense to define something as (because it was a short way of saying "Imperium / Aeldari / Chaos detachment with options from multiple dexes inside"), now, as you say, is still being used, but NO LONGER makes sense both in definition and in necessity, as the maximum ingredients you can take is 3, and each have their own detachment, and we already have a word for this. And if you're just taking a single ally - just saying you're taking an ally LOL. If you tell me to my face that your army with 2 separate factions in it, is a soup list, I'm going to spend the next 3 hrs of our game subtly poking fun at you, because some things just invite it.

Really, most instances of Soup I see refer to armies that can field detachments from several books without any loss to things like CP or traits. The detachments themselves are usually called allied detachments, but armies that can freely mix and match remain soup because they can do this without penalty.

Technically a Tau player could take an allied detachment of IG as Guevesa but would then loose out on power ups, unless your opponent is like "great conversions, you can absolutely change their keyword to Tau Empire". Tau are one of the factions that get no soup and are left out in the cold.

You also forget that the 3 detachments only exist as a hard rule in tournaments. GW has only suggested 3, and 2 at very low point totals, for tournaments. The DE get bonus CP if they take 5 patrol detachments, I think. So you have an official rule stating it is possible to take more than 3 detachments and a suggestion that tournament runners limit it, unless I'm mistaken.

Now you might be set on what soup means because you had it different back in 6th and 7th. With all the new players for 8th and those of us returning from periods where the only allies were Daemon and Witch Hunters, who seem to accept soup to refer to a faction that can create a wide variety of armies out of multiple codexes without loss, I think you're out of luck.

Skaorn wrote:


You also forget that the 3 detachments only exist as a hard rule in tournaments. GW has only suggested 3, and 2 at very low point totals, for tournaments. The DE get bonus CP if they take 5 patrol detachments, I think. So you have an official rule stating it is possible to take more than 3 detachments and a suggestion that tournament runners limit it, unless I'm mistaken.

No, I don't forget that at all. If you are taking 5 different factions in your list because you playing casually, go ahead, call your list imperial soup, or whatever. That's not what I'm talking about.

Skaorn wrote:
Now you might be set on what soup means because you had it different back in 6th and 7th. With all the new players for 8th and those of us returning from periods where the only allies were Daemon and Witch Hunters, who seem to accept soup to refer to a faction that can create a wide variety of armies out of multiple codexes without loss, I think you're out of luck.

Nope, I'm quite definitely talking about 8th ed terminology which changed with THE 8TH ED FAQ, and even if I wasn't, the term still would be corny when used to describe an army with 1 or 2 allies.

uh, shuppet, definitions change all the time to match use. If people use "soup" to describe allied detachments then they aren't wrong because their meaning is understood.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Skaorn wrote:
Except SHUPPET that language changes and ranting about it changing from what it used to be is a waste of energy. Where I grew up the stores that sold booze were called package stores. We had a slang term for it that a lot of people don't use anymore because it sounds the same as a racial slur. If I say "I had a gay old time" at an event, someone unfamiliar with the Flinstones theme might take it differently than intended. The definition of soup in this small culture has already changed from what you except. You already lost.

Sigh. MY point is (and that same point is shared by many I first heard it expressed on Chapter Tactics as well) that the term "soup", which DID made sense to define something as (because it was a short way of saying "Imperium / Aeldari / Chaos detachment with options from multiple dexes inside"), now, as you say, is still being used, but NO LONGER makes sense both in definition and in necessity, as the maximum ingredients you can take is 3, and each have their own detachment, and we already have a word for this. And if you're just taking a single ally - just saying you're taking an ally LOL. If you tell me to my face that your army with 2 separate factions in it, is a soup list, I'm going to spend the next 3 hrs of our game subtly poking fun at you, because some things just invite it.

Sooo. What is your credentials for defining The Authoritative Definition to the word? What makes your opinion the right over others?

Lol. If you have to ask such flimsy things as an impossible request like an Oxford style definition of what was clearly game slang, while dismissing an actual logical explanation as to why it the term no longer makes sense, then you know you have a pretty flimsy argument. I understand why you are doing this, you use the word, and you feel attacked by my statements that it looks dumb, but it doesn't change how cringy I find it every single time you do it.

HINT: I'm not claiming the word isn't being USED as it is currently, that's my problem to begin with - that it no longer makes the sense that it originally did, and that people just HAD to hold on to the buzzword and completely warp it into something new just to be part of the in-crowd with that nu-slang lmao

 SHUPPET wrote:

Skaorn wrote:
Except SHUPPET that language changes and ranting about it changing from what it used to be is a waste of energy. Where I grew up the stores that sold booze were called package stores. We had a slang term for it that a lot of people don't use anymore because it sounds the same as a racial slur. If I say "I had a gay old time" at an event, someone unfamiliar with the Flinstones theme might take it differently than intended. The definition of soup in this small culture has already changed from what you except. You already lost.

Sigh. MY point is (and that same point is shared by many I first heard it expressed on Chapter Tactics as well) that the term "soup", which DID made sense to define something as (because it was a short way of saying "Imperium / Aeldari / Chaos detachment with options from multiple dexes inside"), now, as you say, is still being used, but NO LONGER makes sense both in definition and in necessity, as the maximum ingredients you can take is 3, and each have their own detachment, and we already have a word for this.

Hang on. As far as I'm aware, it wasn't possible to use "soup" in the sense you're using it before 8th came out, but in my local store, the term "soup" has been used for armies that took advantage of cross-codex synergies since Taudar became popular in 7th, if not before. Those armies had separate detachments for each codex but were still called soup armies.

It sounds to me like you only heard it after its meaning had warped slightly to accomodate 8th rules and assumed that was the only true definition, which irronically is exactly the behaviour you're mocking other people for.

And if you're just taking a single ally - just saying you're taking an ally LOL. If you tell me to my face that your army with 2 separate factions in it, is a soup list, I'm going to spend the next 3 hrs of our game subtly poking fun at you, because some things just invite it.

So you freely admit you'll be openly rude because someone uses a imprecisely-defined term in a different, but valid, way to you?

And if you're just taking a single ally - just saying you're taking an ally LOL. If you tell me to my face that your army with 2 separate factions in it, is a soup list, I'm going to spend the next 3 hrs of our game subtly poking fun at you, because some things just invite it.

So you freely admit you'll be openly rude because someone uses a imprecisely-defined term in a different, but valid, way to you?

 SHUPPET wrote:

And if you're just taking a single ally - just saying you're taking an ally LOL. If you tell me to my face that your army with 2 separate factions in it, is a soup list, I'm going to spend the next 3 hrs of our game subtly poking fun at you, because some things just invite it.

So you freely admit you'll be openly rude because someone uses a imprecisely-defined term in a different, but valid, way to you?

Making light jokes and having a bit of fun about you being part of the groupthink online , is being openly rude? Okay then I guess, most people would just enjoy themselves and laugh along with it, but whatever. You're deliberately twisting that.

Yes, "poking fun" at someone for repeatedly over three hours just because of how they refer to their army is rude, even if it is intended in jest.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Aelyn wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Skaorn wrote:
Except SHUPPET that language changes and ranting about it changing from what it used to be is a waste of energy. Where I grew up the stores that sold booze were called package stores. We had a slang term for it that a lot of people don't use anymore because it sounds the same as a racial slur. If I say "I had a gay old time" at an event, someone unfamiliar with the Flinstones theme might take it differently than intended. The definition of soup in this small culture has already changed from what you except. You already lost.

Sigh. MY point is (and that same point is shared by many I first heard it expressed on Chapter Tactics as well) that the term "soup", which DID made sense to define something as (because it was a short way of saying "Imperium / Aeldari / Chaos detachment with options from multiple dexes inside"), now, as you say, is still being used, but NO LONGER makes sense both in definition and in necessity, as the maximum ingredients you can take is 3, and each have their own detachment, and we already have a word for this.

Hang on. As far as I'm aware, it wasn't possible to use "soup" in the sense you're using it before 8th came out, but in my local store, the term "soup" has been used for armies that took advantage of cross-codex synergies since Taudar became popular in 7th, if not before. Those armies had separate detachments for each codex but were still called soup armies.

You are either mistaken, or just plain lying, but we can work out which. Find me a three sources of someone using the word soup online dated before the release of 8th (June 17th, 2017). If you can even find a single one, I'll be incredibly impressed. If the term had any sort of established meaning before 8th as you say, this should be easy right? Calling it now, you won't post in this thread again.

I am neither lying nor mistaken, just telling you how the term was used locally. I can't confirm if it was commonly used online at that point (though I can prove it was at least used a little - see below) but my introduction to the term was a campaign hosted by my FLGS in which my second round opponent used a list which was titled "Taudar soup". And I'm not necessarily saying it had a widely-established meaning - that was you putting words into my mouth - just me pointing out that you first hearing it used one way doesn't mean that was the only way it has ever been used.

By the way, I like the way you're allowed to demand written evidence that our usage is correct without being willing to provide written evidence that yours is correct. Nice double standards there.

BTW, I said I could prove some usage prior to 8th: http://forgethenarrative.net/articles/battle-brothers-good-or-bad/

Now we are about 2 years into 40k 7th Edition, which saw an even more dynamic approach to list composition. The chart changed in some cases in ways that made sense (such as eliminating Tau as BB for Eldar and SM alike), but opened the door for what TPM has termed as Imperial Soup, where all of the Space Marines, Imperial Guard, and various other forces of humanity can all be battle brothers.

Aelyn wrote:
I am neither lying nor mistaken, just telling you how the term was used locally. I can't confirm if it was commonly used online at that point (though I can prove it was at least used a little - see below) but my introduction to the term was a campaign hosted by my FLGS in which my second round opponent used a list which was titled "Taudar soup". And I'm not necessarily saying it had a widely-established meaning - that was you putting words into my mouth - just me pointing out that you first hearing it used one way doesn't mean that was the only way it has ever been used.

By the way, I like the way you're allowed to demand written evidence that our usage is correct without being willing to provide written evidence that yours is correct. Nice double standards there.

Huh? I'm entirely willing to prove that this word gained usage in 8th. That's something I could easily do, and all I asked from you was the same for your claims. When you're literally asking for a holy scripture defining how a term is used, you're deliberately trying to discredit my statements by setting a completely unrealistic task, and I never claimed there was a holy scripture defining it, that is not a statement I have to substantiate lol. And, where is the holy scripture written for a definition of game terms like Steel Rain or Death Stars? We don't need to tread into the terms of absurdity, to understand the meaning of a game term lmao.

Aelyn wrote:
BTW, I said I could prove some usage prior to 8th: http://forgethenarrative.net/articles/battle-brothers-good-or-bad/

I'm impressed. You apparently found the one source from pre 8th, from the guy who started the term. Except... if you actually read that article instead of skimming for keywords, you'd have seen that the article was about armies like TauDar, and specifically excluded that from the term, which was for mixing a BUNCH of Imperial armies together. Aka, EXACTLY what I said it was, and the exact opposite of how you claimed the word was being used pre 8th. Why would a 2 faction army be a soup lol? The word is clearly shorthand for mixing a gang of "ingredients" together, just as they said. So there's your definition too - straight from the guy who coined the term, and it's exactly what I claimed it was.


That's a wrap folks.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
I am neither lying nor mistaken, just telling you how the term was used locally. I can't confirm if it was commonly used online at that point (though I can prove it was at least used a little - see below) but my introduction to the term was a campaign hosted by my FLGS in which my second round opponent used a list which was titled "Taudar soup". And I'm not necessarily saying it had a widely-established meaning - that was you putting words into my mouth - just me pointing out that you first hearing it used one way doesn't mean that was the only way it has ever been used.

By the way, I like the way you're allowed to demand written evidence that our usage is correct without being willing to provide written evidence that yours is correct. Nice double standards there.

Huh? I'm entirely willing to prove that this word gained usage in 8th. That's something I could easily do, and all I asked from you was the same for your claims. When you're literally asking for a holy scripture defining how a term is used, you're deliberately trying to discredit my statements by setting a completely unrealistic task, and I never claimed there was a holy scripture defining it, that is not a statement I have to substantiate lol. And, where is the holy scripture written for a definition of game terms like Steel Rain or Death Stars? We don't need to tread into the terms of absurdity, to understand the meaning of a game term lmao.

I never asked for "holy scripture", just evidence that it specifically meant multiple codexes in one detachment as opposed to multiple allied detachments in a single army. You were claiming it had one very specific use, we disagreed, you mocked us for it.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
BTW, I said I could prove some usage prior to 8th: http://forgethenarrative.net/articles/battle-brothers-good-or-bad/

I'm impressed. You apparently found the one source from pre 8th, from the guy who started the term. Except... if you actually read that article instead of skimming for keywords, you'd have seen that the article was about armies like TauDar, and specifically excluded that from the term, which was for mixing a BUNCH of Imperial armies together. Aka, EXACTLY what I said it was, and the exact opposite of how you claimed the word was being used pre 8th. Why would a 2 faction army be a soup lol? The word is clearly shorthand for mixing a gang of "ingredients" together, just as they said. So there's your definition too - straight from the guy who coined the term, and it's exactly what I claimed it was.

That's a wrap folks.

Except it's not what you claimed it was. In this instance, Imperial Soup is being used to described multiple detachments from different Imperial codexes in a single army. In other words, exactly how Stux used it right at the beginning of all this, and exactly what you mocked him for.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Stux wrote:
Wow, you are reading way too much into this!

Soup just means using stuff in your army from multiple books. It's a useful shorthand for that. No more, no less.

lol the fact that you genuinely think that just shows how much of a buzzword it has become

you don't even know what the term means and you are telling others they are reading too far into it while you misuse it, you're everything we were talking about.

Soup was originally to describe a single detachment with a bunch of ingredients from a bunch of armies mixed together, like Imperium detachments for the FAQ. Now it means nothing. If you are taking an ally, just say you have an ally, using "soup" instead gives me that feeling of embarrassment you get for other people.

Face it, you made a mistake, it was pointed out, and instead of accepting it you doubled down and tried to shift the goalposts.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Stux wrote:
Wow, you are reading way too much into this!

Soup just means using stuff in your army from multiple books. It's a useful shorthand for that. No more, no less.

lol the fact that you genuinely think that just shows how much of a buzzword it has become

you don't even know what the term means and you are telling others they are reading too far into it while you misuse it, you're everything we were talking about.

Soup was originally to describe a single detachment with a bunch of ingredients from a bunch of armies mixed together, like Imperium detachments for the FAQ. Now it means nothing. If you are taking an ally, just say you have an ally, using "soup" instead gives me that feeling of embarrassment you get for other people.

I don't really care what you think it means or what it used to mean. The meaning of words change over time based on usage anyway. The current generally accepted usage of soup this edition is broadly what I stated. If you don't want to use it that way then that's entirely on you.

Uhhh... What? Are you really this obtuse or just putting it on to avoid admitting you were wrong?

Stux's definition INCLUDES an army with a single faction + a single ally, as being soup. Which is what we just established is NOT what that definition was.

Follow that quote you just posted. I had made two statements clearly stated just before that, both of them stating that soup isn't an army + an ally, and very little else about the term. Stux's post disagreed with that, and said "no, it's anything that uses stuff from multiple books."


Here's what else I said about Soup.

 SHUPPET wrote:
If you are taking 5 different factions in your list because you playing casually, go ahead, call your list imperial soup, or whatever. That's not what I'm talking about.

The definition you just provided, defined the term as, and I quote,

The chart changed in some cases in ways that made sense (such as eliminating Tau as BB for Eldar and SM alike), but opened the door for what TPM has termed as Imperial Soup, where all of the Space Marines, Imperial Guard, and various other forces of humanity can all be battle brothers.

The quote specifically talks about eliminating certain dual faction battle brothers, but opening a door to something with much more options than just 2, hence, the Imperial Soup.


Because you are mixing a BUNCH of ingredients. Like, you know, a SOUP.




I swear to god, this isn't that hard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stux wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Stux wrote:
Wow, you are reading way too much into this!

Soup just means using stuff in your army from multiple books. It's a useful shorthand for that. No more, no less.

lol the fact that you genuinely think that just shows how much of a buzzword it has become

you don't even know what the term means and you are telling others they are reading too far into it while you misuse it, you're everything we were talking about.

Soup was originally to describe a single detachment with a bunch of ingredients from a bunch of armies mixed together, like Imperium detachments for the FAQ. Now it means nothing. If you are taking an ally, just say you have an ally, using "soup" instead gives me that feeling of embarrassment you get for other people.

I don't really care what you think it means or what it used to mean. The meaning of words change over time based on usage anyway. The current generally accepted usage of soup this edition is broadly what I stated. If you don't want to use it that way then that's entirely on you.

We've been over this, try to keep up. I am aware that the meaning has now changed, and the dispute has never been that "this is not how people use it currently". My only statement was that the word is now a buzzword regurgitated by the groupthink without having any knowledge of it's actual meaning,or putting any thought into why something might have been described as a "soup" lol, as the armies it describes are no longer a "soup" of factions at all. You guys keep circling back around to this after being proved wrong, but it doesn't actually deflect anything I've said yet. Use it all you want, nobody can stop you, I just said how it looks to me, and every subsequent post has been me having to respond against some nonsense telling me how it doesn't, lol.

I actually enjoyed reading this thread until the pissing contest over the definition of soup totally derailed it.

Could you guys please take your petty argument to private message so the conversation can resume?

 SHUPPET wrote:
Uhhh... What? Are you really this obtuse or just putting it on to avoid admitting you were wrong?

Stux's definition INCLUDES an army with a single faction + a single ally, as being soup. Which is what we just established is NOT what that definition was.

Follow that quote you just posted. I had made two statements clearly stated just before that, both of them stating that soup isn't an army + an ally, and very little else about the term. Stux's post disagreed with that, and said "no, it's anything that uses stuff from multiple books."

The definition you just provided, defined the term as, and I quote,

all of the Space Marines, Imperial Guard, and various other forces of humanity can all be battle brothers.

It specifically stands ASIDE from 2 faction armies mentioned earlier in the article like TauDar, definitively because you are mixing a BUNCH of ingredients. Like, you know, a SOUP.

I swear to god, this isn't that hard.

Okay, this is a great example of what I mean by moving the goalposts.

Earlier, you said:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Soup was originally to describe a single detachment with a bunch of ingredients from a bunch of armies mixed together, like Imperium detachments for the FAQ. Now it means nothing. If you are taking an ally, just say you have an ally, using "soup" instead gives me that feeling of embarrassment you get for other people.

You mocked people who used it in other ways.

I have proven that it was NOT originally used for a single detachment with a bunch of choices from other armies, to demonstrate how the definition has changed, how it didn't have just a single way of being used with all other definitons being wrong.

And now you're trying to claim that I'm wrong for saying your prior statement was incorrect, even though in the same post you are also tacitly admitting it was incorrect.

I'm not saying that "soup" necessarily means "two detachments" or "three detachments" or anything else specifically. All I'm saying is that it has been used in different ways over the years and that your specific definition was not the be-all and end-all, as you seemed to believe (but are now backing away from).

If you're now claiming it means an army containing three or more sources / codexes, that's a different position than the one you started from, and that's not a problem. I would tend to say that it's more of a judgement call based on the army composition than a hard-or-fast rule, and that's also not a problem. We just use the term slightly differently, and that's okay because it's not a clearly defined term.

Are you really still arguing over this?

Aelyn wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Uhhh... What? Are you really this obtuse or just putting it on to avoid admitting you were wrong?

Stux's definition INCLUDES an army with a single faction + a single ally, as being soup. Which is what we just established is NOT what that definition was.

Follow that quote you just posted. I had made two statements clearly stated just before that, both of them stating that soup isn't an army + an ally, and very little else about the term. Stux's post disagreed with that, and said "no, it's anything that uses stuff from multiple books."

The definition you just provided, defined the term as, and I quote,

all of the Space Marines, Imperial Guard, and various other forces of humanity can all be battle brothers.

It specifically stands ASIDE from 2 faction armies mentioned earlier in the article like TauDar, definitively because you are mixing a BUNCH of ingredients. Like, you know, a SOUP.

I swear to god, this isn't that hard.

Okay, this is a great example of what I mean by moving the goalposts.

Earlier, you said:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Soup was originally to describe a single detachment with a bunch of ingredients from a bunch of armies mixed together, like Imperium detachments for the FAQ. Now it means nothing. If you are taking an ally, just say you have an ally, using "soup" instead gives me that feeling of embarrassment you get for other people.

You mocked people who used it in other ways.

I have proven that it was NOT originally used for a single detachment with a bunch of choices from other armies

I ALREADY outright stated, well before you started posting in here and arguing with, that the point of my post wasn't about whether or not it's specifically a detachment or specifically an army, that's not what I'm saying at all, and that my point is here that it's a BUNCH OF ARMIES in one list. Here:

 SHUPPET wrote:
If you are taking 5 different factions in your list because you playing casually, go ahead, call your list imperial soup, or whatever. That's not what I'm talking about.

Why are you reading selectively? I struggle to believe you missed this considering how many times you've gone back through this thread to source gak?

my point stands exactly the same as it did before you started posting, I'm not backing off it even slightly, it seems that I've simply had to repeat it ad nauseum till you started to acknowledge what I'm actually saying.

You mocked people who used it in other ways.

I "mocked" the person that was specifically arguing that 2 armies count as a soup. Nothing else.

These are the same donkey-caves who spent all of 7th arguing over the term 'decurion' being used "improperly".

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
I actually enjoyed reading this thread until the pissing contest over the definition of soup totally derailed it.

Could you guys please take your petty argument to private message so the conversation can resume?

CapRichard wrote:
Are you really still arguing over this?

Yeah, my apologies. I hadn't noticed until I re-read just how obvious it was that Shuppet was angling for an argument. I'll bow out to try and stop this going further.

I think everyone is sick of this argument, most of all me from like the 3rd post onwards, I made a single offhand comment and I should have realised how butthurt it would have made a lot of people. Please stop quoting me to argue it, I made a single comment and literally everything else since has been me responding against the neckbeard army who didn't like me laughing at it. Tell yourself that I don't genuinely find it corny, or my reasons for feeling that are misled, if it helps you sleep better at night. But this argument itself has begin to match that same idiocy I was initially talking about, which shouldn't really be a surprise considering the demographic I was discussing I guess and those likely to react to it. Let it lie, and adios.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aelyn wrote:

Yeah, my apologies. I hadn't noticed until I re-read just how obvious it was that Shuppet was angling for an argument. I'll bow out to try and stop this going further.

My man. You literally came in here and quoted me over and over to start arguing with me over an argument you know I wasn't making, and now you act as though you're the bigger guy by bowing out the instant you get proven undeniably wrong.

HOW BIG OF YOU.

Hey, perhaps you can spend the next couple of pages arguing over who started the argument!

Shuppet please give it a rest man.

 SHUPPET wrote:
I think everyone is sick of this argument, most of all me from like the 3rd post onwards, I made a single offhand comment and I should have realised how butthurt it would have made a lot of people.

Well if you can't see how your original post was pretty insulting out of nowhere, and instead blame others for being insulted, then there really is no point continuing this.

Not to mention that you've just stated you mocked me for saying two armies can make a soup, when that is clearly how many people use the term now.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
Shuppet please give it a rest man.

Find me one post other than my first, that isn't a direct response to someone telling me how wrong I am.

Can't? Then tell others to give it a rest, don't target me because you also disagree with me, I asked you to stop, this gak is just extending it.


Turns out after all that, I was right from the start, so who would have thought.

I love coming into threads late to see an argument, and noting one poster who is catastrophically in over their head. What a bizarre hill to die on.

 Elbows wrote:
I love coming into threads late to see an argument, and noting one poster who is catastrophically in over their head. What a bizarre hill to die on.

Hilariously, you prove my point with posts like this, while logic escapes you.

Strength in numbers doesn't make an argument any less wrong. Your perspective was proven hopelessly wrong in the argument that you guys INSISTED on having, contributing far more posts combined arguing against me than I did to defending, and largely just re-explaining my argument for those who insisted on rewriting it on my behalf, and now that this has failed, you envision that you see that flimsy arguments will be disproven, both evidence and logic is on my side, and without any other avenue to turn down it results in posts like this and the above. It's transparent, but fully expected too.

No more discussion of the "soup" tangent, or any other definitions. If you want to continue this, take it to PM.

This topic is about "Currently most broken units". Let's return to this. Tangent posts going forward after this warning may be deleted, and suspensions issued if necessary.

Dark Angels Hellblasters are pretty strong. Not sure if broken (probably not) but they're good.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Dark Angels Hellblasters are pretty strong. Not sure if broken (probably not) but they're good.

Dark Angels main here!

They definitely aren't broken. The thing is that one of the big strengths of Hellblasters over devs is their mobility, and if you're moving them you aren't using the chapter tactic. They are still nice in Dark Angels due to Weapons of the Dark Age and stacking auras with Azrael and a Dark Shroud, which is awesome but is still not going to be making waves at tournaments.

Wow, I missed a lot.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Dark Angels Hellblasters are pretty strong. Not sure if broken (probably not) but they're good.

Even if they are, I think the brokenness would come from the combo and not the unit, unless hellblasters were broken to begin with.