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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Should there be a downside to souping?

Souping is the status quo of the game right now, so I'm not really sure why it needs downsides. It's the expected, desired outcome.

The down side to souping is that you dont get to benefit from built in benefits like auras (for the most part)

its also too easy to add in additional detachments to avoid losing other benefits like chapter tactics and stuff.

the only real option outside of rehauling the detachment rules is to limit events to 1-2 detachments or a specific detachment that everyone must build into.

Why is souping bad?

Its not inherently bad. its when people start cherry picking that it could potentially become a problem with list diversity.

 Desubot wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Should there be a downside to souping?

Souping is the status quo of the game right now, so I'm not really sure why it needs downsides. It's the expected, desired outcome.

The down side to souping is that you dont get to benefit from built in benefits like auras (for the most part)

its also too easy to add in additional detachments to avoid losing other benefits like chapter tactics and stuff.

the only real option outside of rehauling the detachment rules is to limit events to 1-2 detachments or a specific detachment that everyone must build into.

Why is souping bad?

Its not inherently bad. its when people start cherry picking that it could potentially become a problem with list diversity.

Does that problem exist and need solving, or is it a phantom problem made up by people afraid of souping for... reasons.

Dunno Haus. i never said it was bad. was pointing out that souping has some downsides but it can in general be really easy to get around via detachment shenanigans.

 Desubot wrote:
Its not inherently bad. its when people start cherry picking that it could potentially become a problem with list diversity.

I'm not sure that's entirely fair, copycats will exist in every format, I submit this has nothing to do with souping and more to do with obviously good combos are obviously good, this has always been the case. Also, cherry picking happens, limiting armies to one codex isn't likely to reduce unit spam, if anything I suspect it would increase it, since bad units are bad and don't get fielded because they are bad and should feel bad, locking someone to a single book isn't going to change that.

I think soup has created more diverse lists, you're starting to see some interesting combos getting pulled out from less obvious sources. Pink Horrors and Pox Walkers wouldn't exist without soup (for example), and in my mind, that lack of experimentation would make the game a little more sad.

Also, soup sells models, get used to it, it's not going anywhere.

Make armies lost all specific benefits if they are mixed, instead of being a Detachment thing. So an Imperium army can't have blood angel stratagems, or chapter tactics, etc...

Boom. Soup fixed.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Its not inherently bad. its when people start cherry picking that it could potentially become a problem with list diversity.

I'm not sure that's entirely fair, copycats will exist in every format, I submit this has nothing to do with souping and more to do with obviously good combos are obviously good, this has always been the case. Also, cherry picking happens, limiting armies to one codex isn't likely to reduce unit spam, if anything I suspect it would increase it, since bad units are bad and don't get fielded because they are bad and should feel bad, locking someone to a single book isn't going to change that.

I think soup has created more diverse lists, you're starting to see some interesting combos getting pulled out from less obvious sources. Pink Horrors and Pox Walkers wouldn't exist without soup (for example), and in my mind, that lack of experimentation would make the game a little more sad.

Was thinking more along the imperial side where a bunch of marine lists of whatever color takes a bunch of mortar imperial guardsmen to all act as cheap and affordable bubble warp.

not all but it does happen. also not saying its not fluffy.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Should there be a downside to souping?

Souping is the status quo of the game right now, so I'm not really sure why it needs downsides. It's the expected, desired outcome.

IMO it does (or not doing so needs an upside which is the same thing essentially), I want both styles to be viable, right now there is 0 reason not to soup.

Galas wrote:Make armies lost all specific benefits if they are mixed, instead of being a Detachment thing. So an Imperium army can't have blood angel stratagems, or chapter tactics, etc...

Boom. Soup fixed.

I do love it when my Ultramarines fight as Ultramarines on battlefield A of the Campaign, and my Tallarn fight like Tallarn on Battlefield B. But god forbid you put both of them on battlefield C. It's chaos! Ultramarines forget their mental indoctrination, Tallarn stumbling all over themselves instead of advancing swiftly...

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Should there be a downside to souping?

Souping is the status quo of the game right now, so I'm not really sure why it needs downsides. It's the expected, desired outcome.

IMO it does (or not doing so needs an upside which is the same thing essentially), I want both styles to be viable, right now there is 0 reason not to soup.

Why is that a problem? It is certainly 'viable' not to soup - I don't think that mono-Imperial Guard or mono-BA is in a cripplingly bad spot like you make it seem.

Ynnari units having access to CWE stratagems (because you brought a non-Ynnari CWE detachment) could be considered an abuse of "souping"

Most lists seem to be including the minimum it takes to have some Ynnari (Yvraine + whatever units you wish to have SfD) and the rest of the list CWE (usually even the Ynnari units themselves)
This allows you to use CWE stratagems on Ynnari units that are themselves also CWE.

-

My only real issue with it is just how uneven it is. Imperium have a massive selection to choose from, Chaos has a good amount, the eldars have a decent selection, Tyranids is okay... And everyone else gets nothing.

Now, it's impossible to be completely unbiased, especially when my largest army is one of those that gets nothing, but I don't necessarily begrudge the Imperium their options. Hell, as it is now I'm currently in the process of building a heavily souped army because doing so allows me to field an army who's rules follow a theme I write like, where I intend to have all the models be conversions.

However... It's entirely unfair when one side can bring units in from outside their codex to cover weaknesses when another can't.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Why is that a problem? It is certainly 'viable' not to soup - I don't think that mono-Imperial Guard or mono-BA is in a cripplingly bad spot like you make it seem.

Well looking at it it looked like a mono BA did ok in the last one. i dont recall how mono IG did.

 Galas wrote:
Make armies lost all specific benefits if they are mixed, instead of being a Detachment thing. So an Imperium army can't have blood angel stratagems, or chapter tactics, etc...

Boom. Soup fixed.

Or, just have people declare a primary faction, and every detachment must be this faction, save one Patrol, which can be allied.

So you could have 2 BA detachments and 1 guard detachment as your allied detachment. I'd be fine with this. This army for ITC scoring purposes would be "Imperium."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Why is that a problem? It is certainly 'viable' not to soup - I don't think that mono-Imperial Guard or mono-BA is in a cripplingly bad spot like you make it seem.

Well looking at it it looked like a mono BA did ok in the last one. i dont recall how mono IG did.

They had 1 guy do well, yes. He had favorable matchups, it's hardly indicative of a new mono-BA meta.

IG is so inexpensive across the board, it's incredibly easy to soup. The second an imperial guard player adds even *one* assassin, or Celestine, it becomes IG-soup. And they ALWAYS have the points to do this. If you discount tiny changes, mono-IG were definitely dominant in the event, they just get outclassed by Eldar - like everyone else - right now.

Deadawake1347 wrote:My only real issue with it is just how uneven it is. Imperium have a massive selection to choose from, Chaos has a good amount, the eldars have a decent selection, Tyranids is okay... And everyone else gets nothing.

Now, it's impossible to be completely unbiased, especially when my largest army is one of those that gets nothing, but I don't necessarily begrudge the Imperium their options. Hell, as it is now I'm currently in the process of building a heavily souped army because doing so allows me to field an army who's rules follow a theme I write like, where I intend to have all the models be conversions.

However... It's entirely unfair when one side can bring units in from outside their codex to cover weaknesses when another can't.

This may be fixed, or it may not. I'm not sure it's that "unfair" as un-souped armies are doing fine. There's a ton of mono-armies in the top 100 of LVO.

Galef wrote:Ynnari units having access to CWE stratagems (because you brought a non-Ynnari CWE detachment) could be considered an abuse of "souping"

Most lists seem to be including the minimum it takes to have some Ynnari (Yvraine + whatever units you wish to have SfD) and the rest of the list CWE

This is outright intended by the rules writers as demonstrated by the Death Guard Codex FAQ.

It comes down to as players, do we want pure armies or do we want soup?

Soup isnt bad, but it might not be what players want to see.



I personally play more pure, but will have a small detachment sometimes, just b.c i like the armies i pick. I like DE, i dont like CWE no where near as much. But i do like some CWE models, i like powers, sometimes i'll use a Farseer and Shiny Spears.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
It comes down to as players, do we want pure armies or do we want soup?

Soup isnt bad, but it might not be what players want to see.



I personally play more pure, but will have a small detachment sometimes, just b.c i like the armies i pick. I like DE, i dont like CWE no where near as much. But i do like some CWE models, i like powers, sometimes i'll use a Farseer and Shiny Spears.

Why wouldn't players "want to see it?"

It's fluffy and it makes armies look neater, so if it's balanced, why's it bad?

Deadawake1347 wrote:
My only real issue with it is just how uneven it is. Imperium have a massive selection to choose from, Chaos has a good amount, the eldars have a decent selection, Tyranids is okay... And everyone else gets nothing.

Tyranids can add GSC, but GSC is essentially Tyranids. They're an efficient way to deliver genestealers but at a greater cost. Genestealer cults really shouldn't even be separate from Tyranids in the first place. The lore and fluff are neat but from a tabletop perspective, they should just be the same army. Neither Tyranids NOR GSC should be able to add a detachment of Guard. That's stupid imho.

 Desubot wrote:
Was thinking more along the imperial side where a bunch of marine lists of whatever color takes a bunch of mortar imperial guardsmen to all act as cheap and affordable bubble warp.

not all but it does happen. also not saying its not fluffy.

Absolutely, and honestly, it's something they've needed for a long time. Just like CSM needed Cultists and garbage Daemon units. I think it's just the nature of the game, for the past several editions, that elite armies need flesh and flak to make them work a lot of times. Occasionally someone will put together a really solid elite list, but they tend to require things go smoothly, every failed roll is amplified in elite armies in a way that is just not reflected in armies with large model counts. Likewise the necessary recovery is much more difficult for the elite army than it typically is for the horde, mostly because the model count difference doesn't reflect the disparity in success numbers when rolling the dice.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Galas wrote:Make armies lost all specific benefits if they are mixed, instead of being a Detachment thing. So an Imperium army can't have blood angel stratagems, or chapter tactics, etc...

Boom. Soup fixed.

I do love it when my Ultramarines fight as Ultramarines on battlefield A of the Campaign, and my Tallarn fight like Tallarn on Battlefield B. But god forbid you put both of them on battlefield C. It's chaos! Ultramarines forget their mental indoctrination, Tallarn stumbling all over themselves instead of advancing swiftly...

Thats the same logic as when you put Ultramarines and Tallarn in the same detachment. You can have unrestricted soup, or you can have balance. Chose. For everything else, Narrative.

 Galas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Galas wrote:Make armies lost all specific benefits if they are mixed, instead of being a Detachment thing. So an Imperium army can't have blood angel stratagems, or chapter tactics, etc...

Boom. Soup fixed.

I do love it when my Ultramarines fight as Ultramarines on battlefield A of the Campaign, and my Tallarn fight like Tallarn on Battlefield B. But god forbid you put both of them on battlefield C. It's chaos! Ultramarines forget their mental indoctrination, Tallarn stumbling all over themselves instead of advancing swiftly...

Thats the same logic as when you put Ultramarines and Tallarn in the same detachment. You can have unrestricted soup, or you can have balance. Chose. For everything else, Narrative.

Why is having soup less balanced than having not-soup?

Is me bringing an Inquisitor with my IG army going to make it immensely stronger?

Or a bunch of Custodes bikers instead of Hellhounds?

Is a Supreme Command of Tech-Priest Enginseers from codex Adeptus Mechanicus making my army vastly more powerful than bringing 3 Enginseers from Codex: Astra Militarum?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
It comes down to as players, do we want pure armies or do we want soup?

Soup isnt bad, but it might not be what players want to see.



I personally play more pure, but will have a small detachment sometimes, just b.c i like the armies i pick. I like DE, i dont like CWE no where near as much. But i do like some CWE models, i like powers, sometimes i'll use a Farseer and Shiny Spears.

Why wouldn't players "want to see it?"

It's fluffy and it makes armies look neater, so if it's balanced, why's it bad?

"it might not be" =! all players, showing you a different persons take doesnt mean its all players pov.

IDK why everytime an example is given people think it means everyone. "Some" players like Pure armies, "Some" players like fluff "Some" players dont care.

Go to other forums where the top lists are posts and see how many hate those lists due to, "to much soup"

I'll say I'd actually prefer "soup" to the old Allie Matrix rules, which allowed you take basically take whatever with whoever with almost no downside
I won several local tournies in early 7E in which I used an Eldar CAD with scatterbikes and a WK alongside 2 Necron Canoptek harvest formations full of Wraiths.
All I had to do was deploy over 12" away and keep out 6" for the game. An easy feat when all you units have 12" move.

I would never play that in a friendly game and it was clearly tourney list that should never have been allowed by the rules (because fluff mostly)

-

Essentially what you're saying is this:

More dice = less variance / better confidence.

A horde army plays similarly game to game. An elite army will be very swingy and fluctuate wildly.

I am not saying one is more or less skill to play than the other, simply that horde based armies, in combat and shooting, are absolutely more predictable in their outcomes.

Consider:
190 points of Grand Master Voldus versus a Wraithknight. He expects to deal 6.07 damage in one round of combat. But his standard deviation is 1.6, meaning 67% of the time he'll fall between ~4.5 and ~7.7. And, 1/3 of the time, he'll fall outside that range. To create an 95% confidence interval, we see Voldus damage range falls between ~3.2 and ~9.3. That's a very wide range of possible outcomes.

190 points of Genestealers versus a Wraithknight. They expect to deal 7.04 damage, but with a standard deviation of 0.79. So 67% of the time they'll fall between ~6.3 and ~7.83. 95% of the time, they'll fall between ~5.5 and ~8.62.

At the end of the day you're paying the same points for relatively equivalent damage *strictly limited to melee, please don't make this example more complicated, I am aware Voldus brings other utility, can shoot, provides a buff radius, casts 3 powers, etc*. However, the Genstealers damage is far more predictable than Voldus. Voldus could spike and deal 9+ damage, or fall flat and deal 3 damage. The odds of the Genestealers dealing less than 5 damage is minuscule, but the odds of them dealing more than 8.5 damage is also minuscule.

This doesn't make the horde army more easy to play, but it does mean that you can plan more effectively for specific outcomes. If the Wraithknight has 5 wounds remaining, you could charge it with your Genestealers and have extreme confidence they'd eliminate it. You would not have the same level of confidence with Voldus. Although you'd still be fairly confident he could finish the job, it's entirely possible that he fails to do so.

My only real problem is how Codex's dont have their own special Detachment that encourages you to take less soup armies.

Like DE for an example

Raider Detachment (all units must be from codex Drukhari)
Hq 2-3
Court 1-2
Elites 0-2
Troops 2-4
Fast 3-6
Heavys 0-2

Gain 3CP

Basically a Outrider with a twist on Battalion and gets 3CP compare to 1.

Why is this not a thing?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Should there be a downside to souping?

Souping is the status quo of the game right now, so I'm not really sure why it needs downsides. It's the expected, desired outcome.

the issue is that armies are still designed, balanced, showcased, released, and organized as self contained forces. Armies are intentionally good at some things and worse at others, and allies basically tosses that all out the window.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Why is this not a thing?

Because it is eerily similar to the 7E snowflake detachments and formations that players complained about.

-

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Should there be a downside to souping?

Souping is the status quo of the game right now, so I'm not really sure why it needs downsides. It's the expected, desired outcome.

the issue is that armies are still designed, balanced, showcased, released, and organized as self contained forces. Armies are intentionally good at some things and worse at others, and allies basically tosses that all out the window.

I think what's missing from this discussion is how they playtest. If GW is playtesting with soup in mind, then let's leave souping alone and hope they realize some factions are a bit overperforming. If they're NOT playtesting with soup in mind, wtf is wrong with them, eliminate souping or balance around it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Galas wrote:Make armies lost all specific benefits if they are mixed, instead of being a Detachment thing. So an Imperium army can't have blood angel stratagems, or chapter tactics, etc...

Boom. Soup fixed.

I do love it when my Ultramarines fight as Ultramarines on battlefield A of the Campaign, and my Tallarn fight like Tallarn on Battlefield B. But god forbid you put both of them on battlefield C. It's chaos! Ultramarines forget their mental indoctrination, Tallarn stumbling all over themselves instead of advancing swiftly...

Thats the same logic as when you put Ultramarines and Tallarn in the same detachment. You can have unrestricted soup, or you can have balance. Chose. For everything else, Narrative.

Why is having soup less balanced than having not-soup?

Because factions were designed as stand alone forces. Cultists were worse Guardsmen because they where chaff in a "elite" army as Chaos Space Marines. Imperial Guard had bad meele units because they weren't a meele army.
When Space Marines can take Imperial Guard as chaff and Imperial Guard can take Blood Angels as meele units, the game is less balanced.

And its even worse when you have macro factions like Imperium, Chaos or even Aeldari, and then you have poor Necrons, Orks or Tau.

 Galef wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Why is this not a thing?

Because it is eerily similar to the 7E snowflake detachments and formations that players complained about.

-

Basicly that.

they could of done more with "formation" based strats like kill shot and line bombardment.

which is kinda like old formations but are restricted by CP.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Should there be a downside to souping?

Souping is the status quo of the game right now, so I'm not really sure why it needs downsides. It's the expected, desired outcome.

the issue is that armies are still designed, balanced, showcased, released, and organized as self contained forces. Armies are intentionally good at some things and worse at others, and allies basically tosses that all out the window.

 Galas wrote:
Because factions were designed as stand alone forces. Cultists were worse Guardsmen because they where chaff in a "elite" army as Chaos Space Marines. Imperial Guard had bad meele units because they weren't a meele army.
When Space Marines can take Imperial Guard as chaff and Imperial Guard can take Blood Angels as meele units, the game is less balanced.

And its even worse when you have macro factions like Imperium, Chaos or even Aeldari, and then you have poor Necrons, Orks or Tau.

Do you have any evidence for this?

I have plenty of evidence for armies being designed to cooperate together, such as Celestine buffing Guard, AM Techpriests repairing Guard vehicles, Custodes banners that work on all Imperium infantry, Inquisitors that buff all Imperium units... there's a large amount of evidence suggesting the armies are, in fact, designed to be mixed.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Should there be a downside to souping?

Souping is the status quo of the game right now, so I'm not really sure why it needs downsides. It's the expected, desired outcome.

the issue is that armies are still designed, balanced, showcased, released, and organized as self contained forces. Armies are intentionally good at some things and worse at others, and allies basically tosses that all out the window.

Do you have any evidence for this?

I have plenty of evidence for armies being designed to cooperate together, such as Celestine buffing Guard, AM Techpriests repairing Guard vehicles, Custodes banners that work on all Imperium infantry, Inquisitors that buff all Imperium units... there's a large amount of evidence suggesting the armies are, in fact, designed to be mixed.

All of thats is pure 8th rules. The core principle of the factions is still to be stand alone forces.

And as I said. I'm not opposed to souping. I play a mixed imperial faction. But it should have is downsides. In AoS you can play Grand Alliance (Chaos, Death, Order, Destruction) and min and max whatever you like, or you can play a faction and have all the bonuses to compete agaisn't Grand Alliance armies.
Theres too a 20% max points in allies that don't dissallow you from your bonuses. That would be what Marmatag said of 2 Detachments of your primary army and 1 Detachment of allies. I wouldn't be opposed with that.