In defense of soup.

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.

**Table**

Blackie wrote:
Farseer_V2 wrote:
Blackie wrote:
In competitive games yes, because chosing from more books is unfair since several factions can only choose from a single codex.

Then GW should endeavor to make those books better, not take away options from other people.

I'd never said "take away options", but only to reward lists that are made by using a single codex.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crimson wrote:

But not all books have the same amount of units anyway, so even if you could use only one book, it would still be similarly unfair.

You're right, in fact factions that only have a few units should never had their codex. Inquisition, grey knights, custodes, SoB etc should be part of the same codex.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Blackie wrote:
Maybe people will start buying full armies instead. If they can get away with just a few boxes to add to their already existing collection, why should they buy something more?

Building a business plan on potentially abandoning customers that are generating revenue should probably be based on something more substantial than maybe.

How many people want the soup? And how many of them are collecting soups only for fluff reasons? I bet most of them do so for being more competitive. Reward one book armies and the majority of those customers will not abandon the hobby, they'll just adjust their current lists.

Makes hordes armies very competitive and lots of people will buy them. If GW guys want to make money just promote units that have kits that are not extremely recent. Sell those boxes, then promote something else among the old kits. New stuff will always sell.

It really is a crap shoot on what GW promotes. They have been buffing old units for a while but there seems to be no rhyme or reason on what they pick. But new models will always be promoted over old. Look at the recent drama with the Thousand Gors codex.

**Sim-Life**

Blackie wrote:

How many people want the soup? And how many of them are collecting soups only for fluff reasons? I bet most of them do so for being more competitive.

You'd probably lose that bet.
The WH4K community is more than just the sperglords you see online. If you think the Dakka community is an accurate representation of the playerbase you're very mistaken.

**Blackie**

Sim-Life wrote:
Blackie wrote:

How many people want the soup? And how many of them are collecting soups only for fluff reasons? I bet most of them do so for being more competitive.

You'd probably lose that bet.
The WH4K community is more than just the sperglords you see online. If you think the Dakka community is an accurate representation of the playerbase you're very mistaken.

I don't think that. In fact I've never met in my life a single dude that wanted to play a soup list for fluff reasons. Only on dakkadakka.

All those players that I've met or I've seen playing or even heard about them played soups only for being more competitive.

**Sgt. Cortez**

Well, I play "Soup" - DG + Nurgle Daemons + Nurgle Renegades. Nurgle renegades because those were DG units last edition and have been thrown out of the DG-Codex. And Nurgle Daemons because it's very fitting as a support for the marines. Most of them are even in the DG-Codex.
So, I use Soup only for fluff reasons, I don't care if it's competitive. Dakka tells me it's not, my opponents say otherwize, but none of their factions have a codex yet.

**Techpriestsupport**

Soup actually makes sense from the inperium's POV. The imperium's. Military is broken up into a dozen paranoid pieces for fear of another 'warmaster' taking power. Inefficient, disorganized and crippled but necessarily so due to the imperium's fear of betrayal. So the fleet, the marines, the IG, etc are all separate and unintegrated.

But the IG is still the most numerous force in the imperium, and it is definitely a fodder force. The ability to add on, temporarily, small, professional, elite forces to stiffen it, serve as strike forces, tide turners, spearheads, etc, but remain under non IG control. This makes it hard for an IG commander to go rouge since other, more dedicated forces will be watching him.

**Reemule**

TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Reemule wrote:
Hey you first, you started down this road with assurances of your credentials. Put some details down supporting your anecdotal evidence.

I give it 75% chance that FLG does something about Soup in the next year. 40% chance on GW doing something. Nothing to back it, just a feel.

Sure, 15 years, over a dozen shipped titles, I have never made it through a development cycle without having that discussion with marketing and sales. While that is still technically anecdotal evidence, it's a lot more than a feeling. It also jibes with discussions I've had with every person I have ever worked with in the games industry (especially marketing and sales, who have jobs that depend on that sort of thing), which number in the hundreds, again, anecdotal, but very consistent, still going out on the "more than a feeling" limb.

FLG will address Ynnari if GW doesn't. GW has already indicated they intend to adjust Ynnari. This fatuous belief that somehow there is going to be some grand coming to Jesus moment when GW walks out tearfully offering mea culpas for their terrible sins and how they've been trying to make money off their customers, while telling everyone they can only use what's in their codex, is just as silly as it sounds.

And I've got lots of years in gaming, gaming stores, building metas, and playing GW games. As long as we agree we just have anecdotal evidence.

Twinpoletheory you have no consistency.

You say this: (in reference to soup and a GW fix)
My point is that it won't be fixed as it reduces revenue streams.

Then you say this:
GW has already indicated they intend to adjust Ynnari.

My position is pretty consistent. Soup is going to be adjusted. Most likely nerfed, and maybe something where stuff that isn't soup is augmented. I think its most likely that its nerfed in CP.

Once you pick a position, perhaps it can be argued.

**Daedalus81**

Techpriestsupport wrote:
This makes it hard for an IG commander to go rouge since other

Not trying to be a jerk - just poking fun...

...sorry I couldn't help myself.

**Wolf_in_Human_Shape**

“Soup” is awesome. I love it, couldn’t care less about the nerd rage. Play how you want to play, no need to justify anything or get anyone’s approval unless it matters (tourney with rules for composition or whatever).

**Reemule**

Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
“Soup” is awesome. I love it, couldn’t care less about the nerd rage. Play how you want to play, no need to justify anything or get anyone’s approval unless it matters (tourney with rules for composition or whatever).

Playing a game is a social contract between 2 people. The contract we are going to do a mutually awarding activity, and it is ultimately self-governing.

You might say play what you want, but if you can’t find a way to fit into the bounds of reasonableness, quickly you will find you have changed from playing what you want to playing with yourself.

Don’t be the guy playing with yourself.

**Xenomancers**

Is Ynnari really soup? I mean - in many cases its the exact same models with just a different army trait. In any case it is much less egregious than imperial soup lists which pull from 5 or more totally different codex and forgeworld.

**Elbows**

Ynnari is a stupid half-realized idea that even GW don't know what to do with.

Personally I don't mind "soup", but that's because I don't do tournaments and I choose who I play games with. My games are aimed at being fun and narrative, so when a narrative player uses soup to make a nice fluffy army - all the better.

The fact that (at least early in the edition) "soup" means Roubote Guilliman and Celestine leading 200 guard conscripts around the board...doesn't impact me. I think it's stupid, but I don't have to encounter it, so it doesn't really impact me.

**Crimson**

Reemule wrote:

Playing a game is a social contract between 2 people. The contract we are going to do a mutually awarding activity, and it is ultimately self-governing.

You might say play what you want, but if you can’t find a way to fit into the bounds of reasonableness, quickly you will find you have changed from playing what you want to playing with yourself.

Don’t be the guy playing with yourself.

Sure. I just think that the people who do not try to tell other people what sort of armies they should play are the reasonable ones.

**Xenomancers**

I propose a new tournament setting. 3 Detachment max. Only 1 faction allowed. (Or in other words - 1 codex). If you wish to take allies - you can do so in an AUX support detachment for -1 CP (you can only use stratagems from your primary detachment).

This gets rid of the silly cross codex stratagem use. Also the silly min maxing with faction rules for different units. This would be a step in the right direction to improving the tournament setting for most people.

**Farseer_V2**

Xenomancers wrote:
I propose a new tournament setting. 3 Detachment max. Only 1 faction allowed. (Or in other words - 1 codex). If you wish to take allies - you can do so in an AUX support detachment for -1 CP (you can only use stratagems from your primary detachment).

This gets rid of the silly cross codex stratagem use. Also the silly min maxing with faction rules for different units. This would be a step in the right direction to improving the tournament setting for most people.

Define most.

**TwinPoleTheory**

Reemule wrote:

You say this: (in reference to soup and a GW fix)
My point is that it won't be fixed as it reduces revenue streams.

Then you say this:
GW has already indicated they intend to adjust Ynnari.

My position is pretty consistent. Soup is going to be adjusted. Most likely nerfed, and maybe something where stuff that isn't soup is augmented. I think its most likely that its nerfed in CP.

Once you pick a position, perhaps it can be argued.

Seriously, you think these positions are mutually exclusive?

Please explain and show your work. Because they have almost nothing to do with one another.

The only thing Ynnari need to be adjusted is Soulburst, which should have never been triggered in it's current manner. Honestly, nothing else needs to change about Ynnari.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crimson wrote:
Sure. I just think that the people who do not try to tell other people what sort of armies they should play are the reasonable ones.

Sir, this type of reasonable discourse has no place on these boards.

**Primark G**

Really hoping GW pulls the plug on Ynnari this month with the upcoming FAQ.

Soup - good things - you can build unique and fluffy armies... bad things - WAAC wet dream.

**Crimson**

Xenomancers wrote:
I propose a new tournament setting. 3 Detachment max. Only 1 faction allowed. (Or in other words - 1 codex). If you wish to take allies - you can do so in an AUX support detachment for -1 CP (you can only use stratagems from your primary detachment).

This gets rid of the silly cross codex stratagem use. Also the silly min maxing with faction rules for different units. This would be a step in the right direction to improving the tournament setting for most people.

I propose they nerf the Guard and Dark Reapers, and possibly place some restrictions on cross-codex stratagem use. Adjusting Ynnari rules so that they benefit a larger Ynnari army/detachment rather than just buffing one unit would be welcome too. And I also propose you stop trying to effectively get other people's armies banned and try learning to play instead. This would be a step in the right direction.

**Wolf_in_Human_Shape**

Crimson wrote:
Reemule wrote:

Playing a game is a social contract between 2 people. The contract we are going to do a mutually awarding activity, and it is ultimately self-governing.

You might say play what you want, but if you can’t find a way to fit into the bounds of reasonableness, quickly you will find you have changed from playing what you want to playing with yourself.

Don’t be the guy playing with yourself.

Sure. I just think that the people who do not try to tell other people what sort of armies they should play are the reasonable ones.

Yes, my thoughts exactly. If someone can't handle playing against World Eaters, Daemons of Khorne, and Renegades & Heretics at the same time, I guess we'll just have to agree to find someone else to play.

**Xenomancers**

Crimson wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
I propose a new tournament setting. 3 Detachment max. Only 1 faction allowed. (Or in other words - 1 codex). If you wish to take allies - you can do so in an AUX support detachment for -1 CP (you can only use stratagems from your primary detachment).

This gets rid of the silly cross codex stratagem use. Also the silly min maxing with faction rules for different units. This would be a step in the right direction to improving the tournament setting for most people.

I propose they nerf the Guard and Dark Reapers, and possibly place some restrictions on cross-codex stratagem use. Adjusting Ynnari rules so that they benefit a larger Ynnari army/detachment rather than just buffing one unit would be welcome too. And I also propose you stop trying to effectively get other people's armies banned and try learning to play instead. This would be a step in the right direction.

What about my proposal bans an army? It just restricts the number of allies you can bring. Much like the allied detachment in 7th.

**Reemule**

Crimson wrote:

Sure. I just think that the people who do not try to tell other people what sort of armies they should play are the reasonable ones.

Who is telling you what to play? Play what you want as long as the rules allow it.

Now do we all have a right to hope the rules on certain oversights get changed? That is going to keep happening.

**Xenomancers**

Farseer_V2 wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
I propose a new tournament setting. 3 Detachment max. Only 1 faction allowed. (Or in other words - 1 codex). If you wish to take allies - you can do so in an AUX support detachment for -1 CP (you can only use stratagems from your primary detachment).

This gets rid of the silly cross codex stratagem use. Also the silly min maxing with faction rules for different units. This would be a step in the right direction to improving the tournament setting for most people.

Define most.

Well - most people aren't running soup - not even at tournaments. That is the point I am driving here.

**Crimson**

Xenomancers wrote:
Crimson wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
I propose a new tournament setting. 3 Detachment max. Only 1 faction allowed. (Or in other words - 1 codex). If you wish to take allies - you can do so in an AUX support detachment for -1 CP (you can only use stratagems from your primary detachment).

This gets rid of the silly cross codex stratagem use. Also the silly min maxing with faction rules for different units. This would be a step in the right direction to improving the tournament setting for most people.

I propose they nerf the Guard and Dark Reapers, and possibly place some restrictions on cross-codex stratagem use. Adjusting Ynnari rules so that they benefit a larger Ynnari army/detachment rather than just buffing one unit would be welcome too. And I also propose you stop trying to effectively get other people's armies banned and try learning to play instead. This would be a step in the right direction.

What about my proposal bans an army? It just restricts the number of allies you can bring. Much like the allied detachment in 7th.

Your proposal allows bringing two allied units max. That is basically banning the soup.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Xenomancers wrote:

Well - most people aren't running soup - not even at tournaments.

Why is the soup a problem then? Not everyone want's to construct their army same way as you do. Just deal with it.

**Formosa**

Xenomancers wrote:
Farseer_V2 wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
I propose a new tournament setting. 3 Detachment max. Only 1 faction allowed. (Or in other words - 1 codex). If you wish to take allies - you can do so in an AUX support detachment for -1 CP (you can only use stratagems from your primary detachment).

This gets rid of the silly cross codex stratagem use. Also the silly min maxing with faction rules for different units. This would be a step in the right direction to improving the tournament setting for most people.

Define most.

Well - most people aren't running soup - not even at tournaments. That is the point I am driving here.

I'll go one further and say the vast majority of 40k players don't run soup, playing all over the country as I do quite often it's relatively rare to see proper soup armies.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crimson wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Crimson wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
I propose a new tournament setting. 3 Detachment max. Only 1 faction allowed. (Or in other words - 1 codex). If you wish to take allies - you can do so in an AUX support detachment for -1 CP (you can only use stratagems from your primary detachment).

This gets rid of the silly cross codex stratagem use. Also the silly min maxing with faction rules for different units. This would be a step in the right direction to improving the tournament setting for most people.

I propose they nerf the Guard and Dark Reapers, and possibly place some restrictions on cross-codex stratagem use. Adjusting Ynnari rules so that they benefit a larger Ynnari army/detachment rather than just buffing one unit would be welcome too. And I also propose you stop trying to effectively get other people's armies banned and try learning to play instead. This would be a step in the right direction.

What about my proposal bans an army? It just restricts the number of allies you can bring. Much like the allied detachment in 7th.

Your proposal allows bringing two allied units max. That is basically banning the soup.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Xenomancers wrote:

Well - most people aren't running soup - not even at tournaments.

Why is the soup a problem then? Not everyone want's to construct their army same way as you do. Just deal with it.

So do you propose that the majority bow to the minority ?

Sure some people want to run soup, some don't, that's fine, things like inquisition, ynarri etc. Should just have their own books with a few units from several codexs in it, like they used to.

**Reemule**

I stick by my original idea. If you’re not a single craftworld/dept/chapter/Clan, you don’t qualify as battleforged. This isn’t an insurmountable hardship. -3 CP isn’t going to break forces. But it does give a nice incentive to those that do qualify.

Note. This isn’t a Ban soup. This isn’t a don’t play X. If you want to run all allies, run all allies.

I do feel some of the rule on what strategems are available to allies forces needs to be examined. But I don’t have any suggestions in that area.

**Crimson**

Formosa wrote:

So do you propose that the majority bow to the minority ?

No, because I am not demanding that non-soup armies should be banned.

Sure some people want to run soup, some don't, that's fine, things like inquisition, ynarri etc. Should just have their own books with a few units from several codexs in it, like they used to.

There is no point in repeating units from other codices (yes, it already silly that some SM codices do it.) It is perfectly fine to have mini factions that are mainly intended to be used as allies.

**Xenomancers**

Reemule wrote:
I stick by my original idea. If you’re not a single craftworld/dept/chapter/Clan, you don’t qualify as battleforged. This isn’t an insurmountable hardship. -3 CP isn’t going to break forces. But it does give a nice incentive to those that do qualify.

Note. This isn’t a Ban soup. This isn’t a don’t play X. If you want to run all allies, run all allies.

I do feel some of the rule on what strategems are available to allies forces needs to be examined. But I don’t have any suggestions in that area.

Well - a lot of times people are running soup just as a command point generator. So it's obvious where the push-back comes from there.

**Crimson**

Reemule wrote:
I stick by my original idea. If you’re not a single craftworld/dept/chapter/Clan, you don’t qualify as battleforged. This isn’t an insurmountable hardship. -3 CP isn’t going to break forces. But it does give a nice incentive to those that do qualify.

Considering that matched requires army to be battle-forged, it is a ban. And of course not being battle-forged means losing all the army special rules as well.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Xenomancers wrote:

Well - a lot of times people are running soup just as a command point generator. So it's obvious where the push-back comes from there.

That's not a soup problem, that's an IG problem. They can fill slots insanely cheaply.

**Xenomancers**

Crimson wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Crimson wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
I propose a new tournament setting. 3 Detachment max. Only 1 faction allowed. (Or in other words - 1 codex). If you wish to take allies - you can do so in an AUX support detachment for -1 CP (you can only use stratagems from your primary detachment).

This gets rid of the silly cross codex stratagem use. Also the silly min maxing with faction rules for different units. This would be a step in the right direction to improving the tournament setting for most people.

I propose they nerf the Guard and Dark Reapers, and possibly place some restrictions on cross-codex stratagem use. Adjusting Ynnari rules so that they benefit a larger Ynnari army/detachment rather than just buffing one unit would be welcome too. And I also propose you stop trying to effectively get other people's armies banned and try learning to play instead. This would be a step in the right direction.

What about my proposal bans an army? It just restricts the number of allies you can bring. Much like the allied detachment in 7th.

Your proposal allows bringing two allied units max. That is basically banning the soup.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Xenomancers wrote:

Well - most people aren't running soup - not even at tournaments.

Why is the soup a problem then? Not everyone want's to construct their army same way as you do. Just deal with it.

Soup is a problem when a small minority of players abuse soup to gain advantage. Beit through command point generation/ stratagem abuse/ covering an armies weakness.

There is more than one way to fix the problem. The one I prefer has my own personal bias - I like to see mono armies taking each other on. If armies could only be mono though all of the abuses of soup would be gone.

Another way to fix the problem is to change the way command points work in regards to detachments (IE command points can't leave their detachment)/ stratagems not crossing between units of different codex/ ect.)

I would fully support ether change if people could decide to get behind one of them.

**TwinPoleTheory**

Reemule wrote:
I stick by my original idea. If you’re not a single craftworld/dept/chapter/Clan, you don’t qualify as battleforged. This isn’t an insurmountable hardship. -3 CP isn’t going to break forces. But it does give a nice incentive to those that do qualify.

Again, this is an idea whose ramifications have not been fully thought out.

Why don't you go and look at everything that is tied to being battle-forged and note what breaks?

But hey, CSM and Daemons don't work together, let's make it so they can't even be in the same army. Sorry, this is just dumb on several levels, fluff (since CSM have had daemonic units in their armies since 1st edition) and rules (since CSM kind of have Daemons in their own codex, that by your reasoning they couldn't use).

**Xenomancers**

Crimson wrote:
Reemule wrote:
I stick by my original idea. If you’re not a single craftworld/dept/chapter/Clan, you don’t qualify as battleforged. This isn’t an insurmountable hardship. -3 CP isn’t going to break forces. But it does give a nice incentive to those that do qualify.

Considering that matched requires army to be battle-forged, it is a ban. And of course not being battle-forged means losing all the army special rules as well.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Xenomancers wrote:

Well - a lot of times people are running soup just as a command point generator. So it's obvious where the push-back comes from there.

That's not a soup problem, that's an IG problem. They can fill slots insanely cheaply.

Lets be honest here - when people mean soup - they are mostly talking about IG. That is 90% of soup.