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.

I like the idea that if the army all has the same army trait you get a bonus CP.

Because lets be honest. the Original FoC is pretty much similar to the detatchments. Almost everyone fits in a Battalion somewhere to get CPs

WHY? Because this edition is all about the Strategems and you need a CP bank to do that.

Give a bonus to armies with a mono-faction (ie read: codex) or a penalty to armies with several army traits/units.

Sorry Inquisitors....your Sisters are salty about that Marine Scout sgt, The Guard are too busy ooglinging the girls. and The Marines wonder why these half inept officers are in charge let alone taking forever to implement orders. Marines know this stuff...they don't have this slow as snail teamwork. They don't even have to communicate with the Battle Brothers as they already know the 'play'.

Ulthwe and Beil-tan are just as likely to try to upstage each other or do their 'own way'

Soup armies need toned down. Legal yes....but a codex army should always have the better synergies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Look at any Pro Bowl, All Star Game etc.

You take the best of the best an put them together and rarely do you get the teamwork of a really good team.

Same with Soup vs a well crafted list.

The easy solution is to require a Patrol, Battalion, and/or Brigade in any force. Then you can add detachments at will.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 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...

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...not in the way you're really pointing at?

Lost and the Damned wasn't "You can mix anything and everything!".
The Chaos Horde Army List:
HQ Arch Heretic(Chaos Lieutenant/Sorcerer), Chaos Space Marine Aspiring Champions(in the Eye of Terror book), Greater Daemons
Elites Big Mutants(Eye of Terror book unit), Possessed, Daemon Packs
Troops Traitors(Eye of Terror book), Mutants(including Plague Zombies--all of these in the Eye of Terror book), Gibbering Hordes(counts as Nurglings--from CSM book)
Fast Attack Chaos Hounds(Eye of Terror book), Daemonic Beasts, Traitor Recon(Sentinels, Roughriders, Hellhounds--all from the Guard book)
Heavy Support Defiler, Chaos Spawn(Eye of Terror book), Traitor tank(LRBT or Basilisk--from the Guard book. Also required a 1:1 ratio of tank to Traitor units)

You could further include 0-1 HQ, Elite, and Fast Attack and 0-2 Troop choices from the Chaos Space Marines book and if units had a Mark of Chaos they were always an Elite choice. Those units could not fulfill compulsory choices on the FOC.

 admironheart wrote:
I like the idea that if the army all has the same army trait you get a bonus CP.

Because lets be honest. the Original FoC is pretty much similar to the detatchments. Almost everyone fits in a Battalion somewhere to get CPs

WHY? Because this edition is all about the Strategems and you need a CP bank to do that.

Give a bonus to armies with a mono-faction (ie read: codex) or a penalty to armies with several army traits/units.

Sorry Inquisitors....your Sisters are salty about that Marine Scout sgt, The Guard are too busy ooglinging the girls. and The Marines wonder why these half inept officers are in charge let alone taking forever to implement orders. Marines know this stuff...they don't have this slow as snail teamwork. They don't even have to communicate with the Battle Brothers as they already know the 'play'.

Ulthwe and Beil-tan are just as likely to try to upstage each other or do their 'own way'

Soup armies need toned down. Legal yes....but a codex army should always have the better synergies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Look at any Pro Bowl, All Star Game etc.

You take the best of the best an put them together and rarely do you get the teamwork of a really good team.

Same with Soup vs a well crafted list.

This is also a really good idea.

 auticus wrote:
GWs game design is all about and has been for many years now all about all the perks with no drawbacks. Because drawbacks aren't fun.

That might have flown better if GW didn't just release an army with huge drawbacks, ie: Custodes. They have a small model count, unimpressive shooting, and no psychers, which seems like a lot of drawbacks for a company that has stepped away from drawbacks. Besides without faction specific strengths and weaknesses you lose a lot of the tactical portions of the game.

Sorry. I often get what people will normally play at competition levels even in casual games and their overall platform.

You are right. They do produce armies that have drawbacks. You don't typically see those armies though in the wild, at least after their first month or two, because they aren't strong tournament lists.

Strong tournament lists focus in on the elements that have no drawbacks. So I misspoke.

 Zid wrote:

It almost feels like you need a competitive ruleset for the WAAC players, and a ruleset for the people who want a tactically challenging game that is varied and interesting.

These are not mutually exclusive qualities of a ruleset. Plenty of better game systems have managed to provide both.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sfshilo wrote:
The easy solution is to require a Patrol, Battalion, and/or Brigade in any force. Then you can add detachments at will.

Are people not already doing this? A list without a Battalion seems like it generates a miserable amount of CP.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Zid wrote:

It almost feels like you need a competitive ruleset for the WAAC players, and a ruleset for the people who want a tactically challenging game that is varied and interesting.

These are not mutually exclusive qualities of a ruleset. Plenty of better game systems have managed to provide both.

I don't disagree, I played Warmahordes competitively for two years back in MACH 2. It was great the way the game felt, each army was varied and unique, and even the most bizarre units found a way into certain characters lists. I only quit because the tournament scene was rife with cheaters; there was no shortage of games where you'd catch someone doing something illegal and have to call them out, even cost me a few games because "i called it too late" according to the TO.

You can have an interesting game that is competitive. Its just in its current state, 8ths competitive scene is not interesting.

 Zid wrote:

You can have an interesting game that is competitive. Its just in its current state, 8ths competitive scene is not interesting.

I'd argue it never has been and at some level, the core engine makes it unlikely to ever be.

 Grimgold wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That's more the point of certain units being too good rather than the FOC being an issue. Prove me wrong

Your central premise is that every unit needs to be balanced against every other unit in the game, which is faulty. How do you balance a tomb spyder against a warp talon, or Roboute Guilliman against a dark reaper? There is no magic formula to perfectly balance individual units, because there are so many aspects to a models stat lines, and those aspects are advantageous in certain combinations but not universally so (a unit with power weapons and slow movement will underperform in any linear comparison). In addition there are incomparables such as how many points is a reroll aura worth? Instead GW tries to balance factions against each other, and point units based on analogs in other armies after roughly adjusting for incomparables.

One of the tools used to balance factions is that every Faction has things they are good at, and things they are not good at. Which brings us to the rub, Being able to patch one's flaws while effectively giving up nothing destroys faction identity, and imbalances the game. For instance you'll never see monofaction custodes do well in the current competitive environment, and that's not because the custodes are lacking over the top units, it's because they are the ultimate elite army, and that comes with tradeoffs. Soup armies don't have tradeoffs, it's all upside for them. The lack of Chapter tactics and stratagems were supposed to be the balance for soup armies, but it's comically easy to make an end run around those through the use of multiple detachments.

Take drukari as an example, why would you ever run them monofaction, they don't have psychers, and they don't have any staying power. Both of those can be easily addressed by adding CE.

Then there are monofaction armies like Necrons, Tau, and Orks. If you balance them to be able to compete with soup armies they will be more powerful than the single faction armies you see in casual play, if you don't they will never see the light of day in a competitive meta.

1. Easy. Compare point costs and the damage the units cause, and potential abilities. And if the point costs are THAT far apart for most targets and the abilities of the unit don't make it worth it, you fix the issue.

It isn't rocket science.

2. You're building a list to ignore weaknesses anyway. Allies and different types of detachments never changed this.

3. Therefore, if point costs are correct in the first place, it doesn't matter what you're plugging in.

 Primark G wrote:
Maybe when all of the codices have been released GW will ban soup lists. I don’t like them much either.

And finally GW managed to squat the inquisition

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That's more the point of certain units being too good rather than the FOC being an issue. Prove me wrong

Your central premise is that every unit needs to be balanced against every other unit in the game, which is faulty. How do you balance a tomb spyder against a warp talon, or Roboute Guilliman against a dark reaper? There is no magic formula to perfectly balance individual units, because there are so many aspects to a models stat lines, and those aspects are advantageous in certain combinations but not universally so (a unit with power weapons and slow movement will underperform in any linear comparison). In addition there are incomparables such as how many points is a reroll aura worth? Instead GW tries to balance factions against each other, and point units based on analogs in other armies after roughly adjusting for incomparables.

One of the tools used to balance factions is that every Faction has things they are good at, and things they are not good at. Which brings us to the rub, Being able to patch one's flaws while effectively giving up nothing destroys faction identity, and imbalances the game. For instance you'll never see monofaction custodes do well in the current competitive environment, and that's not because the custodes are lacking over the top units, it's because they are the ultimate elite army, and that comes with tradeoffs. Soup armies don't have tradeoffs, it's all upside for them. The lack of Chapter tactics and stratagems were supposed to be the balance for soup armies, but it's comically easy to make an end run around those through the use of multiple detachments.

Take drukari as an example, why would you ever run them monofaction, they don't have psychers, and they don't have any staying power. Both of those can be easily addressed by adding CE.

Then there are monofaction armies like Necrons, Tau, and Orks. If you balance them to be able to compete with soup armies they will be more powerful than the single faction armies you see in casual play, if you don't they will never see the light of day in a competitive meta.

1. Easy. Compare point costs and the damage the units cause, and potential abilities. And if the point costs are THAT far apart for most targets and the abilities of the unit don't make it worth it, you fix the issue.

It isn't rocket science.

2. You're building a list to ignore weaknesses anyway. Allies and different types of detachments never changed this.

3. Therefore, if point costs are correct in the first place, it doesn't matter what you're plugging in.

The problem with that is supporting/buffing units are near-impossible to cost when they can affect more than a single set amount of units. For example, do you cost a KFF Mek assuming that he’s bubbling a trukk? 30 orks? 3 Lobbas? You can theoretically daisy-chain squads totaling hundreds of points in range of the bubble, but he won’t always be bubbling hundreds of wounds, so how do you cost the force field? Similarly do you cost razorbacks with the cost of a Guilliman buff calculated in or not?

 gnome_idea_what wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That's more the point of certain units being too good rather than the FOC being an issue. Prove me wrong

Your central premise is that every unit needs to be balanced against every other unit in the game, which is faulty. How do you balance a tomb spyder against a warp talon, or Roboute Guilliman against a dark reaper? There is no magic formula to perfectly balance individual units, because there are so many aspects to a models stat lines, and those aspects are advantageous in certain combinations but not universally so (a unit with power weapons and slow movement will underperform in any linear comparison). In addition there are incomparables such as how many points is a reroll aura worth? Instead GW tries to balance factions against each other, and point units based on analogs in other armies after roughly adjusting for incomparables.

One of the tools used to balance factions is that every Faction has things they are good at, and things they are not good at. Which brings us to the rub, Being able to patch one's flaws while effectively giving up nothing destroys faction identity, and imbalances the game. For instance you'll never see monofaction custodes do well in the current competitive environment, and that's not because the custodes are lacking over the top units, it's because they are the ultimate elite army, and that comes with tradeoffs. Soup armies don't have tradeoffs, it's all upside for them. The lack of Chapter tactics and stratagems were supposed to be the balance for soup armies, but it's comically easy to make an end run around those through the use of multiple detachments.

Take drukari as an example, why would you ever run them monofaction, they don't have psychers, and they don't have any staying power. Both of those can be easily addressed by adding CE.

Then there are monofaction armies like Necrons, Tau, and Orks. If you balance them to be able to compete with soup armies they will be more powerful than the single faction armies you see in casual play, if you don't they will never see the light of day in a competitive meta.

1. Easy. Compare point costs and the damage the units cause, and potential abilities. And if the point costs are THAT far apart for most targets and the abilities of the unit don't make it worth it, you fix the issue.

It isn't rocket science.

2. You're building a list to ignore weaknesses anyway. Allies and different types of detachments never changed this.

3. Therefore, if point costs are correct in the first place, it doesn't matter what you're plugging in.

The problem with that is supporting/buffing units are near-impossible to cost when they can affect more than a single set amount of units. For example, do you cost a KFF Mek assuming that he’s bubbling a trukk? 30 orks? 3 Lobbas? You can theoretically daisy-chain squads totaling hundreds of points in range of the bubble, but he won’t always be bubbling hundreds of wounds, so how do you cost the force field? Similarly do you cost razorbacks with the cost of a Guilliman buff calculated in or not?

You cost the fighters without the buffer, and then you cost the buffer as though they're buffing anything they feel like. Obviously some buffs don't work in certain areas as well (a Chaplain is better off with Vanguard and a Librarian is better off powering up Centurions compared to both doing something to a Tactical Squad), so you NEED to be sure you're doing that correctly.

Delete pls*

Delete pls*

Sorry i didn't read all the thread, i will answer to OP:

 Zid wrote:
Hello all,

Recent discussion in a lot of forums seems like a vast majority of people are pretty sick of "soup" lists that seem to be everywhere. Even "pure" lists are soup in a way, for example, Chaos running Alpha Legion + one other legion to get the best rules on the best units, or Innari running multiple units from various Eldar sects in a "single" army. It also seems that people are pretty peeved that many lists revolve around spamming a few units to win, such as the PBC list that seems popular, Obliterator spam, etc.

I get it, its a game, and people can play how they want. I don't disagree.

However, I will say, in my own personal opinion, it makes the game extremely un-interesting; many of the "competitive" battle reports are pretty stale, unless its one guy testing new models or a unique strategy. Even many of the top LVO lists were based around bending or breaking the rules in some way.

I hear a lot of proposed fixes, and a lot of them are pretty great. In my opinion though... why not bring back the old FOC model?

For those of you who haven't been around for a while, the FOC model was thus:
You could have a Max of two HQ's, Three Elites, Three Fast Attack, Six Troops, and Three Heavy Support in your army.

The caveat to this model was that some armies would bend these rules to fit their playstyle. So, for example, some armies could have multiple HQ's in a single slot (like IG), some armies could make elite's into troops (Deathwing Terminators), etc.

While there were obvious problems with this system still, it worked. Each slot had its "optimal" models, but it took a lot more thinking and strategy to make your army work when working within limitations. You could even go so far as to have an "auxiliary FOC" for detachment armies, so for example your Ultramarines would use a normal FOC, but you can take one aux FOC for a small IG contingent.

I guess I'm just sentimental; I really liked the old FOC model, and I still build my armies more or less in the same manner. What are some of your thoughts? Do you like detachments, or do you feel there is a better way to do it?

I totally agree with you. Bring back the FOC, of course. Yes. Please.

The FOC never should had been retired in the first place...

It seems that GW has managed to destroy Warhammer Fantasy and has ruined 40k between the beginning of 40k 5th edition and now. I played a lot in 3rd and 4th edition and only a little bit at the beginning of the 5th edition, and things were radically differents. It seems that insanity has gain reign in GW and they only want to push sales more and more, and any hint of game balance is right out the window now. I don't really know what the fok happened, but as is right now, 8th edition is not 40k. That people claim that is better than before (7th ed?) is really discouraging...

I think that the game need to be re-thinked and brought back to its essence. What is really the purpose of 40k? It is a game, that is true, but what makes it special? Not the rules, there are much better rulesets out there, nor the models, there are much much better miniatures elsewhere... Its the back story, background and the 40k universe. That is the unique thing that differenciates 40k from everything else. And I think that 40k as a game should be a representation of said stories and background. As it is right now, it is not. Is a "bring all you have!!" mess...

Please, explain to me, what is the point to have different battle roles if there are all sorts of detachments to include all the slots of each role you want? What is the point of having a Heavy Support role, if you have a detachment in which you can include all the slots "Heavy Support"? It makes no sense at all. There are no restrictions or limitations or anything whatsoever. The battle roles concept is meaningless in 8th edition. It baffles my mind.

But... Wait. Maybe, maybe if you can only include one detachment it would be some sort of balancing resort... But no... You can include all the detachments that you wish! So you can have one detachments with all slots "Heavy Support", another with all the slots "Elites", another one with all the slots "HQ"... What is the point of the different unit roles? Really? Am I the only one that think this?

Above all those things, then it comes the worst of all. You have different codexes and index books... At first glance, the same as before, a good old codex with certain rules and characteristics for a certain 40k army... But then, you look at the damn "keyword" thingy and it is clear that in reality, you can mix and match all the units you see fit, without disadvantages, because the basic "factions" are so wide that in the end, those make the codexes utterly meaningless. Combined with the detachments and useless battle roles, you have that you can take everything you want no matter what, and still be a "battle forged" army... "Do you want an army of all Chaos lords and Greater demons? You can have it!" "Do you want an army of all Baneblades?" You can have it" "All Obliterators and bloodletters?" "Here! Have it!" "Free for all!"... Absolutely insane... It is absurd. What's the point, really?

What is the point of the OPEN game then? If the "Matched play" rules allow you to make army lists of whatever you want, no restrictions, no disadvantages... Why anybody would play "open play" then? I don't understand. Either GW is completely and utterly incompentent and unable to make proper balanced rules to their universe, or GW is purportedly doing the rules badly to sell models as they want people buy them... I don't know wich one is worse...

So, it is all an absurd huge meaningless mess.

I think it would be much more fun and a much more rewarding experience for competitive players if the codexes and rules would be a lot more restrictives and tight, allowing only certain amount of certain units and enforcing a FOC or a similar organization rules to make armies as close as their background counterparts as possible. Think about this, if the rules and codexes would be more balanced and restricted, it would win the best player on the table, and not the one that made the more abominable list (as it is happening right now).

But it's big difference does one buff 1 or 4. If you cost it as 4 then you overpay with 1 and reverse

*Sorry, i don't know why my previous post was sent 3 times, if any mod could please delete the wrong ones, i already edited and deleted its contents, thanks!

Sorry again, Please continue with the thread topic.

I remember when people played a more restrictive codexes/games. Those were indeed the glory days. One could spam Wave Serpents, Scatter Bikes, Flying Croissants, and Wraiths to name a few. Ye olde days of Starcannons, how I miss thee.

The FOC kept things simple, and you could just spam that single OP unit as much as you wanted. These were the good old days where everyone was happy, full of joy, and just itching to have their units mowed down by whatever thing was in fashion.

Why can't we have nice things? Why can't we have a single FOC detachment games where we could easily just forfeit a game because we knew the bastard in front of us was wielding the flavor of the month that nothing could stand against? It gave us more time to paint!

This single faction spam also kept the flavor god damn flavorful! Everyone knows Necrons are just a bunch of flying Croissants and that Craftworlds are just their serpents and scatter lasers. The flavor, the lore, the history, was so rich with this beautiful setup. It was indeed the best timeline.

"Do you want an army of all Chaos lords and Greater demons? You can have it!" "Do you want an army of all Baneblades?" You can have it" "All Obliterators and bloodletters?" "Here! Have it!" "Free for all!"... Absolutely insane... It is absurd. What's the point, really?

Although you might disagree with it, the point is to have fun.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I remember when people played a more restrictive codexes/games. Those were indeed the glory days. One could spam Wave Serpents, Scatter Bikes, Flying Croissants, and Wraiths to name a few. Ye olde days of Starcannons, how I miss thee.

The FOC kept things simple, and you could just spam that single OP unit as much as you wanted. These were the good old days where everyone was happy, full of joy, and just itching to have their units mowed down by whatever thing was in fashion.

Why can't we have nice things? Why can't we have a single FOC detachment games where we could easily just forfeit a game because we knew the bastard in front of us was wielding the flavor of the month that nothing could stand against? It gave us more time to paint!

This single faction spam also kept the flavor god damn flavorful! Everyone knows Necrons are just a bunch of flying Croissants and that Craftworlds are just their serpents and scatter lasers. The flavor, the lore, the history, was so rich with this beautiful setup. It was indeed the best timeline.

You understand that all of this is still true, and in fact made worse by the free for all army construction rules we have now, right?

"Do you want an army of all Chaos lords and Greater demons? You can have it!" "Do you want an army of all Baneblades?" You can have it" "All Obliterators and bloodletters?" "Here! Have it!" "Free for all!"... Absolutely insane... It is absurd. What's the point, really?

Although you might disagree with it, the point is to have fun.

And you also understand that people have fun with restrictions, right? Its kind of the whole idea behind a ruleset for a game. We could do whatever we want with our models, but we enjoy playing with a restricted set of rules that tell us what we can and can't do when playing the game.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I remember when people played a more restrictive codexes/games. Those were indeed the glory days. One could spam Wave Serpents, Scatter Bikes, Flying Croissants, and Wraiths to name a few. Ye olde days of Starcannons, how I miss thee.

The FOC kept things simple, and you could just spam that single OP unit as much as you wanted. These were the good old days where everyone was happy, full of joy, and just itching to have their units mowed down by whatever thing was in fashion.

Why can't we have nice things? Why can't we have a single FOC detachment games where we could easily just forfeit a game because we knew the bastard in front of us was wielding the flavor of the month that nothing could stand against? It gave us more time to paint!

This single faction spam also kept the flavor god damn flavorful! Everyone knows Necrons are just a bunch of flying Croissants and that Craftworlds are just their serpents and scatter lasers. The flavor, the lore, the history, was so rich with this beautiful setup. It was indeed the best timeline.

You understand that all of this is still true, and in fact made worse by the free for all army construction rules we have now, right?

"Do you want an army of all Chaos lords and Greater demons? You can have it!" "Do you want an army of all Baneblades?" You can have it" "All Obliterators and bloodletters?" "Here! Have it!" "Free for all!"... Absolutely insane... It is absurd. What's the point, really?

Although you might disagree with it, the point is to have fun.

And you also understand that people have fun with restrictions, right? Its kind of the whole idea behind a ruleset for a game. We could do whatever we want with our models, but we enjoy playing with a restricted set of rules that tell us what we can and can't do when playing the game.

It's strictly not a free-for-all as there are actual limitations, but the current system is not worse despite people's claim. That is conjecture based on people being mad at Imperial Soup and/or very specific army bonuses I would argue should not be in the game(like the army-wide -1 to hit) to begin with. The game is still restricted. It's just not restricted like you specifically want it.

I have fun with restrictions. It is called the 8th edition and I have had a blast with it besides some issues(armywide -1 to hit as I have mentioned), but restricting the FoC further has little to no effect except giving us back the whining about troop taxing and having the designers add special rules for HQ to move units around in slots. This idea that we should all use 4th,5th or whateverth FoC chart is just nostalgia that has no bearing on the actual fun of the game. I mean, technically you can still play those editions if you really want. Enjoy all the balance of those editions and all.

Here is the thing: The designers did their best to break those FoC limitations for years. They gave us units that moved between slots and they gave us formations(which could be fun, but were mostly horribly implemented in my opinion). By restricting the FoC further you are just arguing to get that back and it more or less is doing the same thing people are complaining about. Now, I'll admit I am biased since I play Saim-Hann, Deathwing, and Ravenwing armies and this old FoC nostalgia is basically saying I shouldn't be able to play anything but Guardians, Dire Avengers, and TAC marines for the most part.

When I read over the complaints about "soup" I just see mostly people complaining about units and rules that would STILL be a problem even if we were to remove soup. This is ignoring the idea that the only real soup is Imperial as a faction. Ynnari with Drukhari and Craftworlds would still exist and Dark Reapers and Shining Spears would still exist. None of that would be removed for example by removing soup so at the end it just feels like people want restriction for sake of restriction and imagine that by having it forced would somehow make the game more balanced.

The game was imbalanced for decades despite all the restrictions and people complained and complained and complained, but as soon as a new edition comes people suddenly start to think positively about the old editions for some reason.

One problem with soup is also value of units depends so much on rest of army. It makes just balancing things even less close to balance. Unit can be balanced more or less within it's own army but part of soup it becomes even better. So how to balance it? Part of soup? Becomes bad as stand alone. Stand alone? Soup becomes too good.

Signs of that already visible

 Eldarsif wrote:


It's strictly not a free-for-all as there are actual limitations, but the current system is not worse despite people's claim. That is conjecture based on people being mad at Imperial Soup and/or very specific army bonuses I would argue should not be in the game(like the army-wide -1 to hit) to begin with. The game is still restricted. It's just not restricted like you specifically want it.

Worse or better is based on what people want, but its ludicrous to claim that the issues with 5th (spamming problem units) are the same or better now that we have less restrictions. It is a complete falsehood. If you have issues in 5th with people spamming 3 squads of Dark Reapers, then the ability to take as many as the points will allow (minus the HQ taxes for the detachments) is even more problematic.

I have fun with restrictions. It is called the 8th edition and I have had a blast with it besides some issues(armywide -1 to hit as I have mentioned), but restricting the FoC further has little to no effect except giving us back the whining about troop taxing and having the designers add special rules for HQ to move units around in slots. This idea that we should all use 4th,5th or whateverth FoC chart is just nostalgia that has no bearing on the actual fun of the game. I mean, technically you can still play those editions if you really want. Enjoy all the balance of those editions and all.

Bringing back a more restrictive army building system would fix a number of hotly debated and commonly complained about aspect with soup lists or being able to spam even more of a single unit type.

Here is the thing: The designers did their best to break those FoC limitations for years. They gave us units that moved between slots and they gave us formations(which could be fun, but were mostly horribly implemented in my opinion). By restricting the FoC further you are just arguing to get that back and it more or less is doing the same thing people are complaining about. Now, I'll admit I am biased since I play Saim-Hann, Deathwing, and Ravenwing armies and this old FoC nostalgia is basically saying I shouldn't be able to play anything but Guardians, Dire Avengers, and TAC marines for the most part.

If I had my way, I'd include more fluffy abilities to swap in troop choices, but a more restrictive army building criteria would make the game more interesting, rather than less. People would have to think about what they're willing to take and sacrifice, rather than just add more detachments when they run out of the slot they want.

When I read over the complaints about "soup" I just see mostly people complaining about units and rules that would STILL be a problem even if we were to remove soup. This is ignoring the idea that the only real soup is Imperial as a faction. Ynnari with Drukhari and Craftworlds would still exist and Dark Reapers and Shining Spears would still exist. None of that would be removed for example by removing soup so at the end it just feels like people want restriction for sake of restriction and imagine that by having it forced would somehow make the game more balanced.

You are aware that you could remove soup and address the balance issues, right? Soup is still a problem even if every unit is more or less balanced because it completely nullifies the individual aspects of each faction (not to mention Imperium, Chaos, and Eldar are the only real beneficiaries) by being able to pick and choose the best of each slot/unit type from whatever book you want.

The game was imbalanced for decades despite all the restrictions and people complained and complained and complained, but as soon as a new edition comes people suddenly start to think positively about the old editions for some reason.

Gee, its almost as though each edition didn't actually fix anything, just simply changed a bunch of stuff that didn't address many of the complaints. Not to mention there is more than one person complaining, so, yeah, different people will complain at different times for different reasons. Might be a bit of a shock, I know, but I disliked many aspects of 5th, but the solution wasn't to burn it to the ground and replace it with the dumpster fire that was 6th/7th.

TL;DR properly done restrictions make the game interesting, and would address a number of issues involving 'souping' and allies, but would still obviously need a balance pass simultaneously.

The point of Eldarsif is that you are taking this as a black or white situation with the present situation being "No restrictions" and the past situation being "Restrictions".

When the reality is that the past situation was a more restrictive system that was always ignored in favour of special rules to allow people to play the armies they want with units changing places and forcing you to take units that you don't want in tactical roles that you don't want because it was mandatory, and the present situation is an acknowledgement by the designers that people actually want a simple and easy system to make their armies as they want inside a organized sistem with limitations.

8TH is a different system. It is not, objetively, a worse system. If you prefer the old system thats fine, but this dichotomy, presenting the old 5th edition FOC has more strategic, interesting, etc... is a falsehood. Maybe it was more interesting for YOU, but thats not an objetive value on itself.

The need for souping wouldn't exist if proper balance existed in the first place.

If you take care of that, THEN you can see if there's a need to eliminate allies. Allies were meant to be a compliment, not a crutch, but it only became that because of balance. Take away soup and people are still going to run the strongest mono-faction (no souping doesn't stop Eldar and never has).

In another post i said 7ths rules with 8ths detatchments would be golden. Because 7th rules tones down all the units causing problems now because 8ths rules are too spammable.

This edition is not about spamming a unit because its good. Its spamming a unit that takes advantage of a rule or loophole in the rules.

And where the OPs idea is to bring everyone down to one type of detachment for equality it wont work because some armies can feild better units in every section where some armies have to rely on one unit type just to not get crushed.

Right now the rules need a major overhaul to bring more equality to matched play.

vaurapung wrote:
In another post i said 7ths rules with 8ths detatchments would be golden. Because 7th rules tones down all the units causing problems now because 8ths rules are too spammable.

This edition is not about spamming a unit because its good. Its spamming a unit that takes advantage of a rule or loophole in the rules.

And where the OPs idea is to bring everyone down to one type of detachment for equality it wont work because some armies can feild better units in every section where some armies have to rely on one unit type just to not get crushed.

Right now the rules need a major overhaul to bring more equality to matched play.

I can see this. PBC spam is effective because everything auto-hits, many of the characters used break rules or abuse rules, etc.

 Galas wrote:
The point of Eldarsif is that you are taking this as a black or white situation with the present situation being "No restrictions" and the past situation being "Restrictions".

When the reality is that the past situation was a more restrictive system that was always ignored in favour of special rules to allow people to play the armies they want with units changing places and forcing you to take units that you don't want in tactical roles that you don't want because it was mandatory, and the present situation is an acknowledgement by the designers that people actually want a simple and easy system to make their armies as they want inside a organized sistem with limitations.

8TH is a different system. It is not, objetively, a worse system. If you prefer the old system thats fine, but this dichotomy, presenting the old 5th edition FOC has more strategic, interesting, etc... is a falsehood. Maybe it was more interesting for YOU, but thats not an objetive value on itself.

Bingo.

 Galas wrote:
The point of Eldarsif is that you are taking this as a black or white situation with the present situation being "No restrictions" and the past situation being "Restrictions".

Except that I'm distinctly not treating this as a black and white issue. I explicitly stated that a 5th edition structure with more fluffy troop swaps would be right up my alley; I'm also for a more structured (restricted) allied system so that we can't just take 7 codices worth of units freely.

When the reality is that the past situation was a more restrictive system that was always ignored in favour of special rules to allow people to play the armies they want with units changing places and forcing you to take units that you don't want in tactical roles that you don't want because it was mandatory, and the present situation is an acknowledgement by the designers that people actually want a simple and easy system to make their armies as they want inside a organized sistem with limitations.

Yes, the 5th ed system had issues. The solution wasn't to throw it all away and just let people take virtually any army they wanted, it was to allow for interesting troops and HQ to customize the core of the army, while still restricting the amount of certain units you could spam in each slot. Plus, the 5th ed system is significantly simpler and easier, so the new system is a failure if the designers actually wanted something simpler and easier.

8TH is a different system. It is not, objetively, a worse system. If you prefer the old system thats fine, but this dichotomy, presenting the old 5th edition FOC has more strategic, interesting, etc... is a falsehood. Maybe it was more interesting for YOU, but thats not an objetive value on itself.

I literally acknowledged that the new system being better or worse was up to individual preference. But having a stricter system that forces someone to actually decide what they want to bring does make it more strategic compared to a system where you can literally take any number of any type of unit you want with unlimited detachments. You may not place value on that, but I do.

The need for souping wouldn't exist if proper balance existed in the first place.

If you take care of that, THEN you can see if there's a need to eliminate allies. Allies were meant to be a compliment, not a crutch, but it only became that because of balance. Take away soup and people are still going to run the strongest mono-faction (no souping doesn't stop Eldar and never has).

Exactly.