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.

Your acting like -3 CP breaks the army. Please stop that silliness.

Stratagems are the biggest offender to me. Forcing players to choose a primary detachment and only generating Stratagems from that detachment's faction that only work on other detachments with the same faction is a strong start. For example, I can play a DG and CSM force, but I can only choose to get DG or CSM stratagems, which in turn will only work on the faction I selected.

If I were going to go a step further, I would also add a limit to the amount of allies which could be used as a percentage of the total cost of points, such as 30% or 40%. This still allows for allies, but ensures your primary faction should be just that, primary.

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.

Right. Good you realise your bias. I have to say I detest any sort of bans to fix a problem, was it about soup or FW. Just identify the actual problem areas and fix those.

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.)

Some limitations of stratagem usage might make sense. However, as I said, the command point generation is not a soup problem, it is an IG problem. They're just too good at it. I've been playing my little Inquisitoiral task force consisting of Primaris marines, IG and some Inquisition stuff, sometimes assassins. And sure, the IG generates command points that can be used by the marines, but the fact is the marines do not really have many good stratagems, and the army would be more powerful if I'd just ditched the other elements and turned it into a pure IG force. And this is before considering any house rules about losing some CP or stratagem usage due the soup.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Yes! So address the real problem, the IG!

Reemule wrote:
Your acting like -3 CP breaks the army. Please stop that silliness.

You're really not getting it are you. Maybe you should comment on rules you actually know.

Reemule wrote:
Your acting like -3 CP breaks the army. Please stop that silliness.

Most tournaments I've seen require you to play a battle forged army. Going to have to change your wording.

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.

This doesn't work/I don't think you understand what battle-forged means. You cannot play a non battle forged army in matched play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:
Your acting like -3 CP breaks the army. Please stop that silliness.

Again please read the rules. This effectively bans all soup from matched play. If I take a Ynnari Detachment and Craftworld detachment by your rules it is illegal for matched play.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
So that's great for the soup haters, but it means that all those soup sales will dramatically reduced. Which is contrary to the business goals of GW.

Not really. If you take that super cynical approach, the best thing is to add soup (people starting buying a little models from every army) then remove soup (people need to buy new models to make new armies now that they cannot use all the model they previously bought together) then add it back, then remove it back and so on.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Not really. If you take that super cynical approach, the best thing is to add soup (people starting buying a little models from every army) then remove soup (people need to buy new models to make new armies now that they cannot use all the model they previously bought together) then add it back, then remove it back and so on.

Or you do things like steadily increase the soup options for various armies. For example, Eldar soup, Tyranid soup (which is relatively new) and continue to expand single codex lists to cater to painters that want a consistent visual aesthetic.

Also, business is cynical, seriously, welcome to capitalism.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Or you do things like steadily increase the soup options for various armies. For example, Eldar soup, Tyranid soup (which is relatively new) and continue to expand single codex lists to cater to painters that want a consistent visual aesthetic.

Indeed. I want more soup options, not less. Imperium and Chaos obviously have a good selection of soup ingredients, and the Eldar have it pretty good as well, and their family could easily be further expanded by Exodites and (properly supported) Corsairs. Tyranids have the Genestealer Cult and the Tau with all their allied races are obviously a good building ground for a new soup family (and there was already rumours about a separate Kroot codex, so perhaps this is indeed the direction we're heading.) This leaves only Orks and Necrons, completely without allies. Orks could be expanded by a stand alone Gretchin army or even Diggas (kinda Ork GS Cult equivalent) and Necrons... Well, I've got nothing for Necrons, but no one likes them anyway; screw those guys. (Perhaps someone can think of something for them.)

I know I come from the strange and quite literally dead world of Warhammer Fantasy, so I know what I am about to suggest is heresy to 99.5% of 40k players, but there is a super easy solution to soup that works for both sides of the isle on the topic... Comp. Fantasy had a bunch of different comp solutions, each one with its pluses and minuses, but the one thing all of them did was create diversity in army composition and quickly and efficiently compensate for GW's competitive failings in a way nothing else can do.

Whether that is the low comp solutions I see proposed in these forums a lot, like lowering a soup army's CP (that are still comp no matter how much of a dirty word it is). Or the more effective comp systems that effectively limit your ability to create OP Redundancies, or just take the 3 best units from 3 different imperial factions similar to how most fantasy comp systems used to do it. Look I know most in the 40k community hate this idea and have always hated it, so I am not even sure why I am posting this, but I have to, because from personal experience I can tell you if the community buys in and is proactive about it, it works really well.

The biggest complaint I hear about Comp is that it just creates a different set of OP builds, and while to a very limited extent this is true, what it does is encourage army diversity and as it tends to be much more proactive then GW Faqs ever are, it also creates a more fluid meta that rewards experimentation and doesn't feel stale, or like things are a foregone conclusion. It also makes it much more difficult for the power gamers to just buy their way into wins if the meta is constantly adapting.

Also when you get multiple comp systems going you can get some really diverse tournaments, where you can see a lot of different cool builds from one to another. I think its a great competitive play solution, and really wish the 40k community was more okay with it.

tripchimeras wrote:
I know I come from the strange and quite literally dead world of Warhammer Fantasy, so I know what I am about to suggest is heresy to 99.5% of 40k players, but there is a super easy solution to soup that works for both sides of the isle on the topic... Comp. Fantasy had a bunch of different comp solutions, each one with its pluses and minuses, but the one thing all of them did was create diversity in army composition and quickly and efficiently compensate for GW's competitive failings in a way nothing else can do.

Whether that is the low comp solutions I see proposed in these forums a lot, like lowering a soup army's CP (that are still comp no matter how much of a dirty word it is). Or the more effective comp systems that effectively limit your ability to create OP Redundancies, or just take the 3 best units from 3 different imperial factions similar to how most fantasy comp systems used to do it. Look I know most in the 40k community hate this idea and have always hated it, so I am not even sure why I am posting this, but I have to, because from personal experience I can tell you if the community buys in and is proactive about it, it works really well.

The biggest complaint I hear about Comp is that it just creates a different set of OP builds, and while to a very limited extent this is true, what it does is encourage army diversity and as it tends to be much more proactive then GW Faqs ever are, it also creates a more fluid meta that rewards experimentation and doesn't feel stale, or like things are a foregone conclusion. It also makes it much more difficult for the power gamers to just buy their way into wins if the meta is constantly adapting.

Also when you get multiple comp systems going you can get some really diverse tournaments, where you can see a lot of different cool builds from one to another. I think its a great competitive play solution, and really wish the 40k community was more okay with it.

I like this idea

I dont think you need to defend soup. I love my orks and have never played anything else. It is a matter of what you want in the game. Do you want to be competitive then play a competitve game. If not then dont I think it is pretty simple. I would love to play my ork army agianst your soup and then tell the tale of how the battle went down!

There are several major problems with soup armies.

1: Soup is more powerful than non-soup. Now, doubtless if you're not trying to build a list for power, you can make soup lists that aren't particularly more powerful than single-source lists, but you can also make much more powerful lists than single-source lists. 40K is designed around the idea of asymmetrical symmetry - that each individual army has unique strengths and weaknesses, but on a whole are balanced against each other. GW's implementation of this idea hasn't been what anyone would call perfect, or even historically very good, but that's the idea. Soup lists let a player cover one armies intended, in-built weaknesses by taking units from another army. For example, we'll pick on the new guys, Custodes. They are an army of very powerful individual models, and so they're expensive. They can't field a lot of bodies for board control and objective sitting. However, they can soup in some Imperial Guard for masses of cheap bodies. Weakness covered.

2: The game does not reward not playing soup. The rules contain no incentive to not play soup to balance out the above incentive to play soup. If there was some incentive to play single-source to balance out the incentive to play soup, I don't think people would mind soup so much. Their reward for playing single-source would counterbalance the advantages one reaps from playing soup.

3: Not all armies soup well. If you're an Imperium player, you've got a lot of potential ingredients for your soup, and Chaos and Eldar have a respectable amount of options as well. Nids, on the other hand, have very limited soup options, and Necrons, Orks, and Tau have none at all. That gives players who have good soup options an unfair advantage over players who don't.

4: Aesthetics. I've been arguing since the 6th ed allies rules broke that multi-source lists don't look nearly as good on the table as single-source lists. One thing GW does very well is model design, and all the units of a particular army are tied together with a common aesthetic, so they look like a cohesive whole on the table. Soup lists, by their very nature, lack that advantage, and as a result don't look anywhere near as good on the table as single-source lists.

What do you guys think of this?
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/02/40k-big-tourney-says-no-imperial-chaos-soup-for-you.html

 chimeara wrote:
What do you guys think of this?
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/02/40k-big-tourney-says-no-imperial-chaos-soup-for-you.html

I think Eldar will win.

This hurts Chaos a bit, but it really hoses all of the Imperial Splinter factions worse. If you're playing AM/SM you'll probably be ok, and if you're playing Eldar or Tyranids you must be absolutely thrilled.

Actually, re-read it, only prevents use of those faction keywords in the creation of battle-forged detachments, this would actually have no effect on my current tourney lists.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
There are several major problems with soup armies.

1: Soup is more powerful than non-soup. Now, doubtless if you're not trying to build a list for power, you can make soup lists that aren't particularly more powerful than single-source lists, but you can also make much more powerful lists than single-source lists. 40K is designed around the idea of asymmetrical symmetry - that each individual army has unique strengths and weaknesses, but on a whole are balanced against each other. GW's implementation of this idea hasn't been what anyone would call perfect, or even historically very good, but that's the idea. Soup lists let a player cover one armies intended, in-built weaknesses by taking units from another army. For example, we'll pick on the new guys, Custodes. They are an army of very powerful individual models, and so they're expensive. They can't field a lot of bodies for board control and objective sitting. However, they can soup in some Imperial Guard for masses of cheap bodies. Weakness covered.

2: The game does not reward not playing soup. The rules contain no incentive to not play soup to balance out the above incentive to play soup. If there was some incentive to play single-source to balance out the incentive to play soup, I don't think people would mind soup so much. Their reward for playing single-source would counterbalance the advantages one reaps from playing soup.

I’ve been advocating for a while that there is a simple solution to this small enough to fit on a single page in the next Chapter Approved. It involves providing an incentive for playing a Pure army, to balance the Soup army’s ability to cherry pick and plug weaknesses. You could come up with all sorts of incentives, but that takes a lot of work and opens up a whole new avenue for imbalances. Better, instead, to use rules that already exist.

All Codexes have a paragraph that details (for example) an Imperial Fists Detachment as a Detachment containing only units with the Imperial Fists keyword, and allows that Detachment to make use of Imperial Fists Chapter Tactics, Stratagem, Relic and Warlord Trait. The change here is simply to amend that to ‘An Imperial Fists Army - that is, an army with all models containing the Imperial Fists keyword - may make use of Imperial Fists Chapter Tactics, Stratagem, Relic and Warlord Trait.’

A simple change with no new rules and straightaway there’s an incentive for playing a Pure army rather than a Soup one - you get your subfaction traits/Stratagem/Relic/Warlord Trait. Now I’ve had people bemoan the idea that ‘why should my Raven Guard stop being sneaky just because they brought some Imperial Guard along?’ Well, first of all, it’s a small abstraction to make the game function. Second, that already happens - if you include a single Imperial Guard model in your Raven Guard Detachment under the current rules, your Raven Guard stop being sneaky. Third, those bonuses do not solely define Raven Guard - unit selection and and general strategy do too. And fourth, you could sort of justify it by fluff anyway - it’s no stretch to imagine that working with another force will put a drag on any army’s usual tactics.

There would need to be a few armies with exceptions for mini-factions like Inquisition and Harlequins, but this just seems like the simplest solution.

 Crimson wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Or you do things like steadily increase the soup options for various armies. For example, Eldar soup, Tyranid soup (which is relatively new) and continue to expand single codex lists to cater to painters that want a consistent visual aesthetic.

Indeed. I want more soup options, not less. Imperium and Chaos obviously have a good selection of soup ingredients, and the Eldar have it pretty good as well, and their family could easily be further expanded by Exodites and (properly supported) Corsairs. Tyranids have the Genestealer Cult and the Tau with all their allied races are obviously a good building ground for a new soup family (and there was already rumours about a separate Kroot codex, so perhaps this is indeed the direction we're heading.) This leaves only Orks and Necrons, completely without allies. Orks could be expanded by a stand alone Gretchin army or even Diggas (kinda Ork GS Cult equivalent) and Necrons... Well, I've got nothing for Necrons, but no one likes them anyway; screw those guys. (Perhaps someone can think of something for them.)

So you're basically hoping for splitting up xenos units that are already part of the same codex into different ones to justify the imperium and chaos soups I'd go for the opposite: merge multiple books into a single one in order to let the smaller factions to build a balanced list but banning the mix of the best units of the major factions. I'd say SM of all kinds, AM and scions, and anything else in a third codex. Chaos marines and daemons, just two books for chaos with some of the chaos daemons that would still be included into the chaos codex like horrors are already included in the TS codex. Simple.

Gretchins are part of the ork army, they're not allied.

I don't think any of the major faction needs the possibility of getting allies, the ork index is already full of units. I fear the chance to get allies is the excuse to let 90% of the units underpowered and/or overcosted because at the same time a new allied is promoted as the new "must buy".

PS: I definitely prefer necrons over 90% of the chaos or imperium factions, especially the disgusting new models

 Blackie wrote:


So you're basically hoping for splitting up xenos units that are already part of the same codex into different ones to justify the imperium and chaos soups I'd go for the opposite: merge multiple books into a single one in order to let the smaller factions to build a balanced list but banning the mix of the best units of the major factions. I'd say SM of all kinds, AM and scions, and anything else in a third codex. Chaos marines and daemons, just two books for chaos with some of the chaos daemons that would still be included into the chaos codex like horrors are already included in the TS codex. Simple.

Ultimately I don't care in how many books the stuff is, as long as I can use them together. (And rolling marines in one codex would be my preferred option.) Furthermore, it was not to 'justify' Imperial soup, I think such faction families would be a good thing itself. Of course this would require that the new factions would be expanded into full fledged forces.

Gretchins are part of the ork army, they're not allied.

I was not thinking about removing Gretchin from the Ork codex, but I think Gorkamorka Rebel Grots style force could work as a new army.

I don't think any of the major faction needs the possibility of getting allies, the ork index is already full of units. I fear the chance to get allies is the excuse to let 90% of the units underpowered and/or overcosted because at the same time a new allied is promoted as the new "must buy".

Well, we agree on something. Most soup problems are caused by bad unit balance, not by the soup by itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kombatwombat wrote:


I’ve been advocating for a while that there is a simple solution to this small enough to fit on a single page in the next Chapter Approved. It involves providing an incentive for playing a Pure army, to balance the Soup army’s ability to cherry pick and plug weaknesses. You could come up with all sorts of incentives, but that takes a lot of work and opens up a whole new avenue for imbalances. Better, instead, to use rules that already exist.

All Codexes have a paragraph that details (for example) an Imperial Fists Detachment as a Detachment containing only units with the Imperial Fists keyword, and allows that Detachment to make use of Imperial Fists Chapter Tactics, Stratagem, Relic and Warlord Trait. The change here is simply to amend that to ‘An Imperial Fists Army - that is, an army with all models containing the Imperial Fists keyword - may make use of Imperial Fists Chapter Tactics, Stratagem, Relic and Warlord Trait.’

A simple change with no new rules and straightaway there’s an incentive for playing a Pure army rather than a Soup one - you get your subfaction traits/Stratagem/Relic/Warlord Trait. Now I’ve had people bemoan the idea that ‘why should my Raven Guard stop being sneaky just because they brought some Imperial Guard along?’ Well, first of all, it’s a small abstraction to make the game function. Second, that already happens - if you include a single Imperial Guard model in your Raven Guard Detachment under the current rules, your Raven Guard stop being sneaky. Third, those bonuses do not solely define Raven Guard - unit selection and and general strategy do too. And fourth, you could sort of justify it by fluff anyway - it’s no stretch to imagine that working with another force will put a drag on any army’s usual tactics.

There would need to be a few armies with exceptions for mini-factions like Inquisition and Harlequins, but this just seems like the simplest solution.

Removing all the traits, and particularly stratagems is a death sentence.

 Crimson wrote:
Removing all the traits, and particularly stratagems is a death sentence.

Good. Soup needs to die. If you're the rare fluff-focused player who absolutely must have a soup army to represent their fluff idea then the fact that your army is bad at winning shouldn't matter.

Alternatively, require that each detachment in your army share a "codex" keyword (IOW, "Imperial Guard", not "Imperium"), ban the use of the patrol detachment unless it is the only detachment in your army, and do not allow buffs to apply to models outside of the detachment the buff source is in. If you want to take allies for your main army you can do so, but you have to take them as a legitimate additional force with a HQ and 3+ units. No taking single models/units in a "best of everything" detachment, and no taking powerful buff models out of every faction to stack up modifiers.

A pure IG army is usually is more powerful than most soup combos. It is pretty obvious when you start adding IG allies to the marines, if you want competitive, you're better off ditching the marines altogether, even without any soup nerfs. If we want to ban peoples armies, then just ban IG, most soup problems will be fixed and the game will be more balanced overall.

Reemule wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
No reason for FLG to make a change - they're still a retailer who benefits from the added sales.

I'm expecting them to do something about it in their tournaments, a place they have made clear they do make changes in.

That might solve the problem for anyone going to a Warhammer World event, but what about everywhere else?

 Blackie wrote:
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.

That's because you're in Italy and I'm not.

I think one or more of following changes might fix it:

1) Only the detachment that contains your warlord gets that faction's stratagems; this prevents taking for example a Death Guard detachment with an Alpha Legion detachment and getting access to the CSM stratagems. It does kind of hurt mono-god (I could not deepstrike 30 Plaguebearers anymore with this). Could potentially be stricter to include traits as well, so only 1 detachment gets the traits.

2) Remove Imperium and Chaos from counting as Battle-forged for an army (not per detachment). This would require that assassins, sisters of silence, inquisitors and maybe others have a special rule to let them not count against this, but would kill soup deader than a doornail. This might not fix all problems though as Chaos could still mix legions with <Heretic Astartes>, which can be a problem with extreme filth lists.

3) Change how command points work fundamentally to remove gaming soup lists to maximize command points. Not 100% sure how to do this, maybe everyone starts with X command points based on the game size. Maybe go so far as to limit/restrict detachments.

Maybe a combination of 1 and 2?

Personally, I like soup. I've never been in a tournament but I think it adds in a really good flexibility to how I have always liked to play and how my vast collection of models that i've built up over 20 years work together (I play Chaos). I want to take Abaddon at the head of a mixed force of Death Guard, Thousand Sons, World Eaters, Daemons etc; not just Black Legion and I don't think there should be any penalties for doing it. I would love an army with Magnus and Mortarion, both leading the 1Ksons and DG in an alliance. Soup isn't the issue, it's the way in which several things can be used in soup that's the problem.

What needs to be done is to bring the ability to create forces more in line with the fluff, as in the frequency of which Primarchs, Chapter Masters and perhaps even Greater Daemons/Daemon Lords are available. Someone has suggested removing the super heavy detachment and adding it into a Battalion. I agree with this and adding them to the larger version. I'd also say take the SH option from a Supreme Command detachment too (and instead replace it with Elites).

There used to be old rules that prevented certain characters from existing in certain sized armies (I recall Abaddon only being usable in 2K+ at one point) - this would also be a good alternative as a basis for another type of control. Say that Mortarion can only be included in a DG detachment of 1500 pts or more, same with Magnus. Knights can only be taken in games of 1500pts or more unless they're the only detachment. Chapters masters/Abby/GD's/Avatars 1k and so on and then at least you've also got decent grounds in buffing some of these units a little as they have a 1.5k 'tax' atop them. It's not as if Death Guard and Thousand Sons are NOT competitive and it's not as if this change would prevent soup or be a complicated rule to understand. In addition there is an existing detachment limiter (2 max up to 2k points and then 3 or more after isn't it? Something like that) Seems to me like it should just be 2 detachments and 1 more for each 1k points you're playing up to (so 3 for 2k points, 4 for 3k points and so on). This would be good ways of stopping Mortarion turning up with a load of Alpha Legion khorne berserkers or Helbrecht, the Emperor's Champion and another BT unit rocking up with an army of Grey Knights, Sisters of Battle, Blood Ravens and Ultramarines. Not all of these things are un-fluffy but both exaples are certainly unlikely.

Maybe on the other side of this, certain character traits can allow soup (Abaddon would be an excellent example, maybe Chaos undivided, Ynnari, Gulliman, SIlent King etc)

So ultimately it's not necessarily soup that's the problem as an idea, it's perhaps more just the freedom by which we have using it. I appreciate NO SOUP EVER is the easiest fix but it's also the least fun and the best way to grind the most people.

Crimson wrote:
Removing all the traits, and particularly stratagems is a death sentence.

I believe kombatwombat wasn't advocating for the loss of all strats, just the subfaction-specific ones. In his example, if you soup with Imperial Fists, you'd get access to the generic Space Marine strats, relics, warlord traits, etc. What you wouldn't have access to are the Imperial Fist specific strats/relics/warlord traits/etc. At least, that's how I understood it.

Crimson wrote:A pure IG army is usually is more powerful than most soup combos. It is pretty obvious when you start adding IG allies to the marines, if you want competitive, you're better off ditching the marines altogether, even without any soup nerfs. If we want to ban peoples armies, then just ban IG, most soup problems will be fixed and the game will be more balanced overall.

I think a lot of players are allying in Celestine with their IG armies.

Abusing ally rules is much harder in this edition thanks to the keyword system, but I do not deny that there still may be some issues. I would just prefer identifying the actual problem areas and addressing those, rather than blanket limitations that hurt already less competitive builds.

So, there appears to be a couple definitions of soup going on:

1) Mixed detachments, Space Marines filling out Battalions with IG (saving 75 points! we'll get back to that) or Chaos Space Marines filling out Battalions with Brims (saving a whopping 30 points!) or Chaos Undivided Daemons (a codex option...).

2) Detachment Mixing, pure detachments from multiple codices, allowing strats from multiple codices. Interestingly, the BSB tournament posted earlier, completely allows for this, while banning option 1.

Option 1 - So people are losing their gak over SM lists that have managed to recoup 75 points to fill a battalion or CSM lists that have managed to recoup 30 points to fill a battalion. I'm not even going to dignify the bitching about Chaos Undivided since it's a codex option and quite frankly, you can all take a long walk as they say. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page with what's being complained about, you are complaining that giving SM 75 more points to play with or CSM 30 more points to play with makes it overpowered.

Option 2 - Detachment mixing. So the concern is mixing stratagems. So most signature stratagems specify what they will work on, for example, I can't use Forward Operatives on World Eaters Berzerkers because FO specifies Alpha Legion infantry. One of the rare exceptions is Tide of Traitors, which can be used on any Chaos Cultists, ultimately, cultists are cultists in pretty much every list, recycling one is the same as recycling another. I can't use Daemon strats on anything other than Daemon codex units, so that's not the issue.

Single codices soup their different traits together, but apparently this doesn't count as soup, despite the fact that this 'soup' provides the option for significantly different playstyles and mechanics to be combo'd together, just like everyone else's soup. We won't mention there's absolutely no fluff to support Tyranid Hive Fleets teaming up for campaigns, "Shaolin shadow boxing and the Wu Tang sword style, if what you say is true, the Shaolin and the Wu Tang could be dangerous...".

So at this point, I understand everyone's gak is all emotional (hail President Camacho), but I'm curious, what are the strats that are really causing people to lose it? What strat pissed in your cheerios?

Or does this reaction all boil down to "but that guy has more"? I mean, as an American I can understand that, it's our national motto after all.

 chimeara wrote:
What do you guys think of this?
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/02/40k-big-tourney-says-no-imperial-chaos-soup-for-you.html

Yeah. I called this several posts ago. Its unfortunate that some people couldn't see this was coming and spent half the thread saying trying to deny this was going to be a reality.

Its also frustrating as its sure not the fix I wanted. While I can say that my idea of removing battleforged wasn't the best, the core idea that it wasn't a soup ban but a penalty/bonus for using soup/not using soup would have been a better fix.

Ahh well. Cya soup players. Should have been more reasonable.

Reemule wrote:

 chimeara wrote:
What do you guys think of this?
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/02/40k-big-tourney-says-no-imperial-chaos-soup-for-you.html

Yeah. I called this several posts ago. Its unfortunate that some people couldn't see this was coming and spent half the thread saying trying to deny this was going to be a reality.

Its also frustrating as its sure not the fix I wanted. While I can say that my idea of removing battleforged wasn't the best, the core idea that it wasn't a soup ban but a penalty/bonus for using soup/not using soup would have been a better fix.

Ahh well. Cya soup players. Should have been more reasonable.

Please, as if you had the slightest clue what you were talking about.

You realize that the rules they have in place for that tournament change absolutely nothing right? You realize that the rules in that tournament are precisely this, and this only, a 75 point tax on Space Marine players. Good job! That'll teach them!

Crimson wrote:[ution.
Removing all the traits, and particularly stratagems is a death sentence.

Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
I believe kombatwombat wasn't advocating for the loss of all strats, just the subfaction-specific ones. In his example, if you soup with Imperial Fists, you'd get access to the generic Space Marine strats, relics, warlord traits, etc. What you wouldn't have access to are the Imperial Fist specific strats/relics/warlord traits/etc. At least, that's how I understood it.

Crimson wrote:Abusing ally rules is much harder in this edition thanks to the keyword system, but I do not deny that there still may be some issues. I would just prefer identifying the actual problem areas and addressing those, rather than blanket limitations that hurt already less competitive builds.

Grand Master Raziel has the right of it. You’re losing access to exactly one bonus rule, one Stratagem, one Warlord Trait, and one Relic. Crimson, if you think an army that loses those but gains the ability to ally away their deliberate structural weaknesses immediately catastrophically collapses out of useability then... I simply don’t know how to help you.

Unfortunately you can’t balance units like Guard Infantry Squads to be equally useful to a Pure Guard army as they are to a Guilliman/Custodes/Guard Soup by fiddling with the unit itself. You must balance them by considering their interactions.

So are Custodes-Guilliman-Guard soups routinely beating pure Guard lists?