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.

 greyknight12 wrote:
The problem with soup lists gameplay-wise is really is just the ability to share army-specific benefits. GW was initially heading back down the slippery slope to 7th (everyone can use their allies' strategems/auras/psychic powers!) but seems to have reigned it back a bit. There is an inherent unfairness to xenos as well when imperium lists can patch holes in their army with another army, but if each army has enough valid options to stand alone then it will be less of a problem.

Of course they reined it only for chaos daemons. For others it's still strategems etc works cross book.

I started playing 40k in the heady days of 3rd edition, when FoC was gospel, left for a decade, and came back towards the end of 7th, when formations ruled, and now, of course, we have detachments. And while I don't like everything about 8th (I don't know why the game has overwatch, for example), I can honestly say that I think detachments are a stroke of genius, and the best thing about the game at the moment. They allow for 1000x more army building flexibility than the stringent FoC, while avoiding all of those excesses that came from formations.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 supreme overlord wrote:
Keep soup! Allow my inquisition army to be as fluffy and soupy as they're supposed to be!

This. My Ordo Hereticus army loves the soup. I really enjoy mixing in an extra 500pts of another faction just for a bit of a change up. The FOC can go jump off a cliff

I played against an army that had all of the following factions:

IG
SoB
GK
BT
IF

That is pretty crazy if you ask me.

tneva82 wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
The problem with soup lists gameplay-wise is really is just the ability to share army-specific benefits. GW was initially heading back down the slippery slope to 7th (everyone can use their allies' strategems/auras/psychic powers!) but seems to have reigned it back a bit. There is an inherent unfairness to xenos as well when imperium lists can patch holes in their army with another army, but if each army has enough valid options to stand alone then it will be less of a problem.

Of course they reined it only for chaos daemons. For others it's still strategems etc works cross book.

Yes. But the keyword situation with daemons was also particularly inelegant mess, with Daemon being both a keyword and a faction keyword.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Primark G wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 supreme overlord wrote:
Keep soup! Allow my inquisition army to be as fluffy and soupy as they're supposed to be!

This. My Ordo Hereticus army loves the soup. I really enjoy mixing in an extra 500pts of another faction just for a bit of a change up. The FOC can go jump off a cliff

I played against an army that had all of the following factions:

IG
SoB
GK
BT
IF

That is pretty crazy if you ask me.

In how many detachments?

We nee comp scores not foc's

The current iteration is great and allows for armies to be used in their best state. Take for example Custodes and Grey Knights. Both are FAR better when used as a detachment to another force than a strict solo army. Then you have armies like Ynnari that are DESIGNED to use other codexes. Multiple armies coming together to fight as a cohesive unit is still even fluffy. I don't get the hate other than people mad that their solo armies get beat by armies with multiple detachments. The issue isn't detachments, the issue is that some units are better for their price than others and you can add them into an existing army as a separate detachment. That's a unit balance problem more than anything.

 Primark G wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 supreme overlord wrote:
Keep soup! Allow my inquisition army to be as fluffy and soupy as they're supposed to be!

This. My Ordo Hereticus army loves the soup. I really enjoy mixing in an extra 500pts of another faction just for a bit of a change up. The FOC can go jump off a cliff

I played against an army that had all of the following factions:

IG
SoB
GK
BT
IF

That is pretty crazy if you ask me.

Why is that crazy? Most of those factions are barely factions in the first place and have more or less been dropped by GW. They're largely non-optimal and lack the versatility to support 2000 points of worthwhile models and I'd be really, really surprised if they were topping the podium at any large event. They're even largely fluff coherent.

So what's the issue other than it doesn't fit into your definition of what a "faction" is?

 Mmmpi wrote:
I like the multi-detachment lists. I don't remember chaos player complaining back in 3rd and 4th ed when they could have marines, demons, and traitor guard all in the same list.

You don't remember because you couldn't. Allies did not exist then (barring =][= ones for Imperium armies and Kroot mercs to an extent). CSM and Daemons were in one codex and Traitor Guard didn't exist until later into 4th ed. Closest you could get was LATD which had limited selections of available CSM and Daemon units.

I like the new detachment system, it's much better than the formations of 7th.

I just want the codices to have their own detachment system printed in them. The ones I've leafed through seem to leave you unable to actually write a list unless you have the BrB and the detachments contained therein.

WAAC-players will always find a way to abuse (and break) the system. They do now with souplists and they did back with the old FOC after GW introduced allies.

The issue is the players, not the current detatchment-system.

Edit: Altough the formations of 7th really pushed me out of the hobby. I pray that gak never come back.

I can definitely see some points for (and against) FOC returning.

I don't dislike the Detachment system, per se, but it is definitely way more open to abuse. Soup armies, spamming a billion of a single "herp de derp!" model in the traditional WACC playstyle...

Again, I get this is a game, but how happy are you with playing against a "Death Guard" army thats 800 points DG, 700 points demons, and 500 points chaos because they want to pick and choose the "best" units from several codices, and use the strategems together?

Many Ordos players like this, and I get it; ordos usually is a few models, not a full-on army.

I guess where I'm going is its pretty asinine to say the game is healthy when people can grab one or two models from a few factions to patch holes in their main faction. Yes, I like that I can pick up, buy, and play basically anything in my army that can align with it. But shouldn't there be SOME restriction? Even if GW does nothing, should we (the gamers) do something to combat this?

Many games balance themselves, or shift the balance, through patches and expansions. However, very few games give you the pure breadth of choice we get with 40k... I'd just like to see more choice and varied armies. I do like that GW is patching and fixing stuff on the fly, adjusting points, and adding (or subtracting) things from units that are detrimental. I just think soup lists shouldn't be essentially the only thing people should be able to play and win in competition.

Yeah, FOC won't fix it, I guess it was rose tinted thinking

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
I like the multi-detachment lists. I don't remember chaos player complaining back in 3rd and 4th ed when they could have marines, demons, and traitor guard all in the same list.

You don't remember because you couldn't. Allies did not exist then (barring =][= ones for Imperium armies and Kroot mercs to an extent). CSM and Daemons were in one codex and Traitor Guard didn't exist until later into 4th ed. Closest you could get was LATD which had limited selections of available CSM and Daemon units.

"CSM and Daemons and Traitor Guard didn't exist" right before "Closest you could get was LATD (Lost and the Damned, traitor guard ) with Daemon and Chaos units..."

So yes, you could mix daemons, chaos, and traitor guard...

 Amishprn86 wrote:
We nee comp scores not foc's

There ya go

I'd rather see additional CP given to armies that are monobuild. Then, would you rather pick and choose the best units from multiple armies and soup them or get the additional CP for stratagems, rerolls, etc.?

By the God Emperor, the new detachment system is so much better.

I mean, the only real argument for the old FoC would be that you don't need as many HQ's and troops to make up your army, but from what I've seen most armies want to be fielding their troops choices for their own sake and not as a tax anyway.

It's not like the old 2/6/3/3/3 organization chart ever made me bring Celestians or Repentia just because I had slots for them.

The new system allows armies to be built more effectively around a specific unit or strategic theme, which makes the game more diverse and more fun.

Hoodwink wrote:
I'd rather see additional CP given to armies that are monobuild. Then, would you rather pick and choose the best units from multiple armies and soup them or get the additional CP for stratagems, rerolls, etc.?

I like that idea.

 kronk wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:
I'd rather see additional CP given to armies that are monobuild. Then, would you rather pick and choose the best units from multiple armies and soup them or get the additional CP for stratagems, rerolls, etc.?

I like that idea.

Especially given that the major reason my Custodes end up being soup is that there's no other way to get them enough Command Points to do anything...

Hoodwink wrote:
I'd rather see additional CP given to armies that are monobuild. Then, would you rather pick and choose the best units from multiple armies and soup them or get the additional CP for stratagems, rerolls, etc.?

See, this is a great idea... GW lurkers, pay attention.

Finding ways to I guess award people for mono-builds may be a good way to offset the obvious power differences.... herm.

 Asmodai wrote:
The current detachments are fine, you just shouldn't get a Chapter (Craftworld, Regiment, Hive World, etc.) trait unless all models in the army (instead of the detachment) have that Chapter keyword.

That way there's an actual decision to be made about whether its worth losing your specialization bonus for the flexibility to take units from outside that specialization.

So my chaos marines who its very fluffy for them to work alongside daemons have to lose their legion trait to bring along their daemons allies the fack?

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
By the God Emperor, the new detachment system is so much better.

I mean, the only real argument for the old FoC would be that you don't need as many HQ's and troops to make up your army, but from what I've seen most armies want to be fielding their troops choices for their own sake and not as a tax.

It's not like the old 2/6/3/3/3 organization chart ever made me bring Celestians or Repentia just because I had slots for them.

That is true. I guess I was just looking at ideas to address soup and super spam lists

 darkcloak wrote:
I like the new detachment system, it's much better than the formations of 7th.

I just want the codices to have their own detachment system printed in them. The ones I've leafed through seem to leave you unable to actually write a list unless you have the BrB and the detachments contained therein.

The main ones you'll be using aren't hard to memorise though.

You have you core Battalion (2 HQs, 3 troops minimum. Max 6 Troops and Elites, 3 for everything else) and all the rest are 1 HQ and minimum 3 of a specific slot except Supreme Command which is 3 HQs.

 Zid wrote:

Again, I get this is a game, but how happy are you with playing against a "Death Guard" army thats 800 points DG, 700 points demons, and 500 points chaos because they want to pick and choose the "best" units from several codices, and use the strategems together?

Because otherwise I'm facing 2000 points of the "best" units from the Death Guard codex and rather than facing an interesting and diverse army, I'm dealing with one or two problematic options spammed as many times as possible?

Personally though, I'm happy because its way more interesting to me. I've always HATED the divide between marines and guard. One of the things I've always hated about the game compared to the setting is that the sameness of model typing within a codex often reduces the battle on the table to marines vs spikey marines. What's way more awesome to me? A bunch of power armored heroes defending a huge crowd of normal humans against a legion of corrupt super soldiers backed by the demonic horrors they serve.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Zid wrote:

Again, I get this is a game, but how happy are you with playing against a "Death Guard" army thats 800 points DG, 700 points demons, and 500 points chaos because they want to pick and choose the "best" units from several codices, and use the strategems together?

Because otherwise I'm facing 2000 points of the "best" units from the Death Guard codex and rather than facing an interesting and diverse army, I'm dealing with one or two problematic options spammed as many times as possible?

Personally though, I'm happy because its way more interesting to me. I've always HATED the divide between marines and guard. One of the things I've always hated about the game compared to the setting is that the sameness of model typing within a codex often reduces the battle on the table to marines vs spikey marines. What's way more awesome to me? A bunch of power armored heroes defending a huge crowd of normal humans against a legion of corrupt super soldiers backed by the demonic horrors they serve.

This, basically. If I am going to get trashed by an army, I'd rather it be Grey Knights deep striking in with massive suits of armour to save some beleaguered guardsmen (or whatever) [this is 8th edition GK] than just eighteen individual paladins led by Draigo [this is fifth edition GK].

 Zid wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
By the God Emperor, the new detachment system is so much better.

I mean, the only real argument for the old FoC would be that you don't need as many HQ's and troops to make up your army, but from what I've seen most armies want to be fielding their troops choices for their own sake and not as a tax.

It's not like the old 2/6/3/3/3 organization chart ever made me bring Celestians or Repentia just because I had slots for them.

That is true. I guess I was just looking at ideas to address soup and super spam lists

I like "spam lists". A list should consist of a core of 1-2 units brought in great quantity supported by specifically specialized units brought in small quantity.

As a general rule, you have to have auxiliary units, because your core units can't do everything by themselves, or the supporting units add effectiveness to your core units.

What's great about the new force chart is that anything can be the core of your army if you want, and you can build your army about it.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Zid wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
By the God Emperor, the new detachment system is so much better.

I mean, the only real argument for the old FoC would be that you don't need as many HQ's and troops to make up your army, but from what I've seen most armies want to be fielding their troops choices for their own sake and not as a tax.

It's not like the old 2/6/3/3/3 organization chart ever made me bring Celestians or Repentia just because I had slots for them.

That is true. I guess I was just looking at ideas to address soup and super spam lists

I like "spam lists". A list should consist of a core of 1-2 units brought in great quantity supported by specifically specialized units brought in small quantity.

As a general rule, you have to have auxiliary units, because your core units can't do everything by themselves, or the supporting units add effectiveness to your core units.

What's great about the new force chart is that anything can be the core of your army if you want, and you can build your army about it.

I agree with this. It makes thematic sense to me that armies would deploy detachments built around a core of similar, if not identically equipped, units. (E.G. An Imperial Armoured Regiment built around Hellhounds instead of Leman Russ tanks is now possible, for example).

For every person playing their fluffy inquisition list there is another person when brings nothing but dark reapers and farseers. It's the latter group that bothers me. Spam is boring to play and this edition is the epitome of spammability.

fithos wrote:
For every person playing their fluffy inquisition list there is another person when brings nothing but dark reapers and farseers. It's the latter group that bothers me. Spam is boring to play and this edition is the epitome of spammability.

The other side of the coin is that those players probably don't enjoy the way you play. In the end, everyone needs to respect how other people play as long as they are playing within the defined ruleset. This isn't a remark to you specifically, but it's something that needs to be said in general because a lot of people get super offended when others don't play the game the way they want.

fithos wrote:
For every person playing their fluffy inquisition list there is another person when brings nothing but dark reapers and farseers. It's the latter group that bothers me. Spam is boring to play and this edition is the epitome of spammability.

A possible solution? Don't play vs. overly competitive players.

I have about 10-15 active/semi-active 40k-players in my area.
Over the years I've stopped playing against half of them because I quite simply don't enjoy playing with them.
They're not "bad people" and I have no issues hanging out with them, but I simply don't play wargames with them because their idea of a "fun/cool list" is vastly different from mine.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
I think the new detachments are a fine addition, it’s just that Command Points and Strategms have got out of control and certain units haven’t been well-tested for how they operate in allied armies.

Honestly, a way to fix the issue of Command Points and Stratagems would be to have more elite armies/unit choices take up multiple FOC slots.
It cuts down on soup a bit more while at the same time allowing for those armies when fielded as 'pure' choices to catch up with the lesser armies for CP/Stratagem usage.


With regards to 'certain units', I wonder how much of that might have to do with weird combinations popping up that might not have been expected or just in general how people still seem to play wildly different to how GW themselves do.

I saw somewhere someone suggest that CP should be done in the inverse of how it is now.
For example:
You start with X CP per 1,000pts,
Each Detachment you take reduces the number. (With the bigger detachments taking away less than the smaller ones)
Then "Souping" costs command points rather than gets you more.

And for "fluff reasons" it can be explained as the bureaucracy in high command between the different groups (Who's in overall charge, logistic issues with different army groups etc.)

I came back to the game under the promise that all my minis would be usable, and for the most part that is true. Remember, originally a Rogue Trader army could have almost any Imperial forces in it. Now, they haven't had a Rogue Trader Army list (that I know of) since Book of the Astronomicon.