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.

bananathug wrote:
Chaos soup is a little different. That needs to be dealt with by not allowing cross god factions. Mono god/mark armies, feel free to combine codexes.

At least my 2c

What about the well known multi-god factions?

Yeah, the multi-god factions are a fluffy but being able to mix and match marks, strats, demons and psychic powers is a crunch problem which I'm not sure how to balance.

Limit the god parings in those armies to the gods that hate each other the least? Slaanesh + Tzeench okay, khorne + Tzeench/slaanesh a no go? I don't think this helps enough but it could be a fluffy justification.

Maybe some old school animosity rule? Failed LD check you shoot/move towards different marked/aligned ally w/in 18 inches? BL and WE get bonuses to these rules?

In this forum there have often been debates about balance, and often there has been a sentiment expressed that ultra competitive WAACs are just ruining the fun for everyone by their demands for changes to improve balance. I have always found that sentiment laughable, and defended the idea that balanced game is good fro everyone. However, for once I think that sentiment is justified, there are bunch of people here who basically want to ban people's armies for the sake (their perception) of balance.

kombatwombat wrote:
This is what I’m saying - you can’t just tell me it’s a fallacy because you disagree and expect to convince anyone, least of all me. I have tried to show above an example of why a unit can’t be balanced both in a Pure context and a Soup once simultaneously if you are going to have armies with native strengths and weaknesses.

I point out logical fallacies because you can't even begin a discussion objectively without starting from a functional logical basis, which quite frankly, you all fail to do horribly.

Furthermore, look up the idea of proving a negative.

Without getting into some math argument, you're only argument against this is, "It's too hard..."

Seriously? We put a man on the moon, we calculate the start of the universe, but balancing variables in 40k is too hard?

There are a few squishy variables in 40k that can't just be run against one another, those are the ones that will be ironed out through play and community feedback.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:


I point out logical fallacies because you can't even begin a discussion objectively without starting from a functional logical basis, which quite frankly, you all fail to do horribly.[i][u]

 Peregrine wrote:
Of course there is. If you're going to have different sides/units/etc in your game then those things should be different. If a king and a pawn have different rules then they should actually play differently. If IG and space marines are different armies with their own rules then they should play differently. That's the whole point of having different choices instead of just different colors for your pieces. Otherwise what's the point of having different rules for IG and space marines? Just give them the same rules and let people pick whichever aesthetic choices they prefer.

To clarify, the basis of your argument here is a false equivalency between chess and 40k? Because chess does it, it must be a universal principle? I just want to make sure I understand what your premise is on this, because this doesn't actually detail a principle in some scientific manner, it infers a principle based upon a false equivalency between two radically different games.

 Peregrine wrote:
And I'll also point out that this faction identity principle is something that GW has benefited considerably from in the past. If I say "space marine army" you immediately have a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about rules-wise and how it will play on the table. If I say "ork army" you have an entirely different picture, but one that is just as clear. That's how you get iconic images/units/etc that stand out in a potential customer's mind, not an over-homogenized mess of generic stuff.

This is a red herring logical fallacy that has nothing to do with the discussion.

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

Yes. Absolutely. All three major flavors of soup ("eldar soup" here being the """""""""Single""""""" faction Ynnari) are routinely outperforming all non-allied armies at major tournament events. And a lot of it is due to the very distinction being discussed here: Ynnari for example can take a single unit of Shining Spears from Saim-Hann to splash in and get the Saim-Hann stratagem, and a detachment of pure Alaitoc outside their Ynnari detachment to get the -1 to hit trait on the stuff they want.

You can either acccept the natural weaknesses of an army in order to get the strengths....oooor you can choose to play soup, which costs absolutely nothing!

the_scotsman wrote:

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

Yes. Absolutely. All three major flavors of soup ("eldar soup" here being the """""""""Single""""""" faction Ynnari) are routinely outperforming all non-allied armies at major tournament events. And a lot of it is due to the very distinction being discussed here: Ynnari for example can take a single unit of Shining Spears from Saim-Hann to splash in and get the Saim-Hann stratagem, and a detachment of pure Alaitoc outside their Ynnari detachment to get the -1 to hit trait on the stuff they want.

You can either acccept the natural weaknesses of an army in order to get the strengths....oooor you can choose to play soup, which costs absolutely nothing!

That's not how they gain access to the Saim-Hann stratagem. If they did not have the pure alatioc detachment they wouldn't get the saim-hann strat. I point this out because I see things like this pretty often where people don't fully understand how soup works other than they just have a gut feeling its bad. To be clear I'd be fine with some more limits on soup. Some things I think that might be appropriate:

-A CP bonus for taking a 'pure' army. Something like 'Battle Brothers - an army composed of detachments that are all composed of only units from the same codex gain 3 extra Command Points'.
-Place the Chaos Demons stratagem limit on all armies - effectively stratagems can only be used on that specific army. This would take care of the forewarned ynnari reapers, saim-hann ynnari spears, etc.
-Limit access to relics to your WL's faction, effectively remove access to the extra relic strat for any faction that isn't your WL.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

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

Yes. Absolutely. All three major flavors of soup ("eldar soup" here being the """""""""Single""""""" faction Ynnari) are routinely outperforming all non-allied armies at major tournament events. And a lot of it is due to the very distinction being discussed here: Ynnari for example can take a single unit of Shining Spears from Saim-Hann to splash in and get the Saim-Hann stratagem, and a detachment of pure Alaitoc outside their Ynnari detachment to get the -1 to hit trait on the stuff they want.

You can either acccept the natural weaknesses of an army in order to get the strengths....oooor you can choose to play soup, which costs absolutely nothing!

That's not how they gain access to the Saim-Hann stratagem. If they did not have the pure alatioc detachment they wouldn't get the saim-hann strat. I point this out because I see things like this pretty often where people don't fully understand how soup works other than they just have a gut feeling its bad.

I know how the rules work for unlocking stratagems. The fact remains that it's just goofy to have subfaction rules that are intended to allow your army to specialize in one particular area of strength but there's absolutely nothing in place stopping you from just taking another detachment to get all the strengths of another faction/subfaction.

I agree that banning Chaos/Imperium detachments does absolutely nothing to address the problem. Banning Ynnari detachments does somewhat, but also just totally bans a faction, which is always a subpar non-solution (but boy oh boy is it simple, clear cut, and easy for people to kneejerk off too. YEAH! BAN THE THING I DONT LIKE! BAN IT! JUST MAKE IT GONE RIGHT NOW!)

The idea of only giving out all subfaction benefits (Unique strat, warlord trait, subfaction trait and relic) if your whole army consists of only a single subfaction is somewhat a better starting point IMO. And I say starting point, because obviously along with stuff like Regimental Advisors, etc that already exists with rules that don't break your subfaction but don't give them the benefits of it, you need to have rules for the "dedicated ally" units. Inquisitors should be freely add-able. Same with assassins. I'd pick a liberal swathe of fluffy choices and give them a "Mercenary" style rule that allows them to be freely added in in limited quantities without breaking the benefits of some army or another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:


-Limit access to relics to your WL's faction, effectively remove access to the extra relic strat for any faction that isn't your WL.

This only helps if you're not splashing in for the relic and the WL trait at the same time, like with the current most abusive iteration of that, the "super strategery" IG commander.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:


-Limit access to relics to your WL's faction, effectively remove access to the extra relic strat for any faction that isn't your WL.

This only helps if you're not splashing in for the relic and the WL trait at the same time, like with the current most abusive iteration of that, the "super strategery" IG commander.

Which is a fair point but it would still mean you don't have access to say the BA relic for no overwatch or the 3++ save from Custodes (two of the other most common ingredients in the Imperial soup). It isn't major but I think its a far limit.

 Peregrine wrote:

It's not at all the same. The anti-FW arguments were ridiculous complaints based on which piece of paper a particular set of rules was printed on, assuming that somehow FW rules weren't "real GW" or whatever. The anti-FW crowd would have been fine with the exact same rules (and, in many cases, was fine with them) if they were printed in a book with the magic "codex" word on the cover, or even in one of the non-codex sources they arbitrarily decided were ok. The argument against soup is based on entirely different reasons, related to fundamental game design principles.

It is based on exact same reason: being able to choose units from multiple books is an unfair benefit. Now you're the one who is bizarrely basing an argument on which piece of paper the set of rules is printed on: GW book & FW book = fine and dandy, two GW books = bad.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

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

Yes. Absolutely. All three major flavors of soup ("eldar soup" here being the """""""""Single""""""" faction Ynnari) are routinely outperforming all non-allied armies at major tournament events. And a lot of it is due to the very distinction being discussed here: Ynnari for example can take a single unit of Shining Spears from Saim-Hann to splash in and get the Saim-Hann stratagem, and a detachment of pure Alaitoc outside their Ynnari detachment to get the -1 to hit trait on the stuff they want.

You can either acccept the natural weaknesses of an army in order to get the strengths....oooor you can choose to play soup, which costs absolutely nothing!

That's not how they gain access to the Saim-Hann stratagem. If they did not have the pure alatioc detachment they wouldn't get the saim-hann strat. I point this out because I see things like this pretty often where people don't fully understand how soup works other than they just have a gut feeling its bad.

I know how the rules work for unlocking stratagems. The fact remains that it's just goofy to have subfaction rules that are intended to allow your army to specialize in one particular area of strength but there's absolutely nothing in place stopping you from just taking another detachment to get all the strengths of another faction/subfaction.

I agree that banning Chaos/Imperium detachments does absolutely nothing to address the problem. Banning Ynnari detachments does somewhat, but also just totally bans a faction, which is always a subpar non-solution (but boy oh boy is it simple, clear cut, and easy for people to kneejerk off too. YEAH! BAN THE THING I DONT LIKE! BAN IT! JUST MAKE IT GONE RIGHT NOW!)

The idea of only giving out all subfaction benefits (Unique strat, warlord trait, subfaction trait and relic) if your whole army consists of only a single subfaction is somewhat a better starting point IMO. And I say starting point, because obviously along with stuff like Regimental Advisors, etc that already exists with rules that don't break your subfaction but don't give them the benefits of it, you need to have rules for the "dedicated ally" units. Inquisitors should be freely add-able. Same with assassins. I'd pick a liberal swathe of fluffy choices and give them a "Mercenary" style rule that allows them to be freely added in in limited quantities without breaking the benefits of some army or another.

Interesting approach, what do you think of being forced to choose a 'main' detachment which grants WL traits, Relics and chapter/sept/dynasty etc. specific stratagems while additional detachments from outside factions do not have access to relics and traits as well as cost 1CP to ally in? Inquisition an co could have army traits that allow you to pick a second 'main' detachment or such?

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:
This is what I’m saying - you can’t just tell me it’s a fallacy because you disagree and expect to convince anyone, least of all me. I have tried to show above an example of why a unit can’t be balanced both in a Pure context and a Soup once simultaneously if you are going to have armies with native strengths and weaknesses.

I point out logical fallacies because you can't even begin a discussion objectively without starting from a functional logical basis, which quite frankly, you all fail to do horribly.

Hmm, lets see. Perhaps, 'appeal to the stone'? A logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity.

The problem I see with the vast amount of solutions is they require this magical handwave towards 'allied' armies without actually discussing how it would work and I honestly don't think most people have thought out any potential ramifications from it (i.e. using is as a soup arm in a strong mono codex build).

I think instead of punishing soup you reward mono builds, ultimately it accomplishes the same goal without being purely punitive.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
The problem I see with the vast amount of solutions is they require this magical handwave towards 'allied' armies without actually discussing how it would work and I honestly don't think most people have thought out any potential ramifications from it (i.e. using is as a soup arm in a strong mono codex build).

I think instead of punishing soup you reward mono builds, ultimately it accomplishes the same goal without being purely punitive.

magical handwave? All I want to take the rule that we already have in many codexes, and add it to commonly allied factions (imperial knights, inquisition, sisters of silence, assassins, renegade knights, fallen, brood brothers with GSC and Dark Eldar mercenary units are probably already getting a rule like that with their codex). Give them a special "This unit does not count when determining your army's faction." rule, and make it so that your army's faction rather than the detachment's faction is what matters when determining what you unlock.

That seems like a concrete suggestion without any hand-waving at all. There's even a game system we have to look at that does this exact thing, and it works very well: Age of Sigmar. Providing a handful of bonus cp to monofaction armies is one possible solution but ultimately I doubt it'd matter much. The incentive to soup up at a competitive level is extremely high.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
The problem I see with the vast amount of solutions is they require this magical handwave towards 'allied' armies without actually discussing how it would work and I honestly don't think most people have thought out any potential ramifications from it (i.e. using is as a soup arm in a strong mono codex build).

I think instead of punishing soup you reward mono builds, ultimately it accomplishes the same goal without being purely punitive.

magical handwave? All I want to take the rule that we already have in many codexes, and add it to commonly allied factions (imperial knights, inquisition, sisters of silence, assassins, renegade knights, fallen, brood brothers with GSC and Dark Eldar mercenary units are probably already getting a rule like that with their codex). Give them a special "This unit does not count when determining your army's faction." rule, and make it so that your army's faction rather than the detachment's faction is what matters when determining what you unlock.

That seems like a concrete suggestion without any hand-waving at all. There's even a game system we have to look at that does this exact thing, and it works very well: Age of Sigmar. Providing a handful of bonus cp to monofaction armies is one possible solution but ultimately I doubt it'd matter much. The incentive to soup up at a competitive level is extremely high.

That still ignores armies like Harlequins (who by all rights should have some capacity to ally in to both Dark and Craftworld Eldar) and that's just the first off the top of my head. Ultimately soup isn't new - its actually tamer in a lot of regards in 8th than in 7th (Riptide Wing, people running Warp Spiders and Demons at the last ACon of 7th, and so on). I think once Games Workshop finishes all the books then maybe a conversation the thing can be had but at current we have no idea if Tau are going to get access to more soup options as time goes on. I think most attempts to punish soup either don't actually hurt soup (see 'no Imperium or Chaos for the army') or go so far as to render the concept entirely non-viable (locking out all stratagem and trait access). The normal point to attack is CP which is fine but still ultimately feels more of a punitive "I don't get to do this so I don't want you to" than it does an ACTUAL attempt to address the core issue (which is, theoretically soup is too much better than playing mono armies). If more people argued to find ways to improve or incentive mono faction action armies I'd probably be willing to accept that the 'soup is bad for the game' crowd doesn't just want to punish soup players for having more toys than them.

If you limit access to relics and warlord traits to the primary detachment and put a hard limit on cross faction stratagem use I think you'll already start to see some of the impact of soup drained. If you pair that with boosts to mono faction armies then I think the two concepts get close enough to parity that you'll see comparatively more mono faction armies as a result.

 Crimson wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

It's not at all the same. The anti-FW arguments were ridiculous complaints based on which piece of paper a particular set of rules was printed on, assuming that somehow FW rules weren't "real GW" or whatever. The anti-FW crowd would have been fine with the exact same rules (and, in many cases, was fine with them) if they were printed in a book with the magic "codex" word on the cover, or even in one of the non-codex sources they arbitrarily decided were ok. The argument against soup is based on entirely different reasons, related to fundamental game design principles.

It is based on exact same reason: being able to choose units from multiple books is an unfair benefit. Now you're the one who is bizarrely basing an argument on which piece of paper the set of rules is printed on: GW book & FW book = fine and dandy, two GW books = bad.

Not even remotely the same, FW adds things to a codex, soup is literally taking what you want from any of the soup codexs, adding a vindicator variant is nowhere near the same as replacing vindicators with leman Russ, or tacticals with guardsman.

 Formosa wrote:

Not even remotely the same, FW adds things to a codex, soup is literally taking what you want from any of the soup codexs, adding a vindicator variant is nowhere near the same as replacing vindicators with leman Russ, or tacticals with guardsman.

It is the same, FW adds all sort of superheavy vehicles and flyers that are not present in the GW codices. It is extra options, and you don't even need to arrange separate detachments for them unlike with allies from another GW codex.

It is completely crazy to think that adding a Onager Dunewrawler into my marine army (along with bunch of stuff I really didn't want, but needed to fill the detachment) somehow breaks the game but bringing a Deimos Laser Destroyer doesn't.

 Crimson wrote:
In this forum there have often been debates about balance, and often there has been a sentiment expressed that ultra competitive WAACs are just ruining the fun for everyone by their demands for changes to improve balance. I have always found that sentiment laughable.....

And so have I because a lot of them really don't care about balance, they just want to win, at all costs.....

To the OP. I say play with friends. Throw the gauntlet down and challenge everyone else to beat you on the tabletop! I , myself don’t give a hoot what anyone thinks about my army list. Play me or not. I do not like the “competitive “ aspect of the game. So soup it is. Bad sportsmanship and the gang saying you need to be as anal as they are is a real turn off. It is a game and win or loose I want to put my toys down on the table and play. Emphasize “ Play”. So I’m prepared for the hate for my thoughts. Have fun.

Farseer_V2 wrote: I think most attempts to punish soup either don't actually hurt soup (see 'no Imperium or Chaos for the army') or go so far as to render the concept entirely non-viable (locking out all stratagem and trait access). The normal point to attack is CP which is fine but still ultimately feels more of a punitive "I don't get to do this so I don't want you to" than it does an ACTUAL attempt to address the core issue (which is, theoretically soup is too much better than playing mono armies). If more people argued to find ways to improve or incentive mono faction action armies I'd probably be willing to accept that the 'soup is bad for the game' crowd doesn't just want to punish soup players for having more toys than them.

If you limit access to relics and warlord traits to the primary detachment and put a hard limit on cross faction stratagem use I think you'll already start to see some of the impact of soup drained. If you pair that with boosts to mono faction armies then I think the two concepts get close enough to parity that you'll see comparatively more mono faction armies as a result.

I think I should make this very clear here - my suggestion to only allow access to Subfaction-specific Traits, Warlord Traits, Stratagems and Relics for Pure armies does not lock out all Stratagem access, it only removes a single Stratagem. For example, a Black Templars player who Soups up would lose the Righteous Zeal Chapter Tactic (reroll charges), the Crusader Helm Relic, the Oathkeeper Warlord Trait and the Abhor the Witch Stratagem. They would still have access to 7 generic Relics, 6 generic Warlord Traits and 19 generic Space Marine Stratagems. If you really think having to stick to that in order to be allowed to cover Black Templars’ inherent weaknesses by adding Soup renders Black Templars Soup entirely non-viable, then... I suppose all I can do is reiterate: there is more to this hobby than the top 3 tables at LVO.

(Black Templars can be substituted with any other army subfaction - if any army goes from viable to completely non-viable because of what I’m suggesting, then that’s a Codex design problem.)

TwinPoleTheory wrote:I point out logical fallacies because you can't even begin a discussion objectively without starting from a functional logical basis, which quite frankly, you all fail to do horribly.

Furthermore, look up the idea of proving a negative.

The moment you say to a group of people ‘you’re all doing it wrong’ should be a trigger for you to think ‘hang on, maybe I’m doing it wrong...’

I’ll reiterate, telling somebody their argument has a logical fallacy will convince no one. I don’t share your apparent interest in the finer points of debating theory and nomenclature, but I do understand that showing that someone’s logic is flawed is the only way you might convince anyone. It’s similar to how good writing doesn’t tell you the character is awesome and cool and smart, but shows them doing awesome and cool and smart things.

Without getting into some math argument, you're only argument against this is, "It's too hard..."

Seriously? We put a man on the moon, we calculate the start of the universe, but balancing variables in 40k is too hard?

There are a few squishy variables in 40k that can't just be run against one another, those are the ones that will be ironed out through play and community feedback.

I think you’re missing a sense of scale here. Putting a man on the moon is child’s play next to trying to consider the possible permutations of an Imperium Soup army. Some things are just literally impossible, and some of those things seem very inane - for example, trying to individually name every atom in a bag of coal. We would likely see the heat death of the universe before you finished.

Play and community feedback generally seems to support the idea that GW hasn’t considered all the cross-pollination variables of Soup. Which is entirely fair, as they simply don’t have the resources to.

 Crimson wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

It's not at all the same. The anti-FW arguments were ridiculous complaints based on which piece of paper a particular set of rules was printed on, assuming that somehow FW rules weren't "real GW" or whatever. The anti-FW crowd would have been fine with the exact same rules (and, in many cases, was fine with them) if they were printed in a book with the magic "codex" word on the cover, or even in one of the non-codex sources they arbitrarily decided were ok. The argument against soup is based on entirely different reasons, related to fundamental game design principles.

It is based on exact same reason: being able to choose units from multiple books is an unfair benefit. Now you're the one who is bizarrely basing an argument on which piece of paper the set of rules is printed on: GW book & FW book = fine and dandy, two GW books = bad.

No, it isn't the same argument at all. Being able to choose units from multiple books is irrelevant, because it's still the same faction. The fact that GW splits a faction's content up across multiple pieces of paper doesn't make it any less of a single faction. The issue is getting to choose units from multiple factions, regardless of which books they are printed in. Taking Tau and Tyranid units out of IA:Xenos (a single FW book) is not ok.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kombatwombat wrote:
Putting a man on the moon is child’s play next to trying to consider the possible permutations of an Imperium Soup army.

Uh, no. It really isn't. Yes, technically there is a huge number of possible armies, but most of them are irrelevant from a balancing point of view. A single 5-man tactical squad with no upgrades as your entire army in a 2000 point game is a legal list, and one that counts towards the 999999999999999999999999999999 potential armies that can be built, but nobody needs to spend time balancing something that stupid. Similarly, many units are interchangeable. If you know that a LR demolisher and LR executioner are balanced relative to each other then you can combine everything into a single "LRBT" entry and consider "space marine army that takes a LRBT" as a single list concept to evaluate rather than having to do balance testing on every possible combination of that LRBT's weapons. With smart playtesting you can evaluate this stuff, at least to a much higher level of balance than we have now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
It is the same, FW adds all sort of superheavy vehicles and flyers that are not present in the GW codices.

You are drawing an arbitrary line of your own invention between codex and not-codex sources. GW does not recognize any difference between the two. You might as well complain that page 118 of the IG codex adds a superheavy vehicle that isn't present on page 93, and it's unfair that IG get to take options from multiple pages.

It is completely crazy to think that adding a Onager Dunewrawler into my marine army (along with bunch of stuff I really didn't want, but needed to fill the detachment) somehow breaks the game but bringing a Deimos Laser Destroyer doesn't.

The difference is that FW units obey the same design principles as the rest of the faction, maintaining faction identity. IG may get a different gun for their LRBTs, but they won't get power armored elite infantry. Space marines might get that laser destroyer as a substitute for a Predator Annhiliator, but won't get 4ppm meatshield troops.

 Peregrine wrote:
[
Uh, no. It really isn't. Yes, technically there is a huge number of possible armies, but most of them are irrelevant from a balancing point of view. A single 5-man tactical squad with no upgrades as your entire army in a 2000 point game is a legal list, and one that counts towards the 999999999999999999999999999999 potential armies that can be built, but nobody needs to spend time balancing something that stupid. Similarly, many units are interchangeable. If you know that a LR demolisher and LR executioner are balanced relative to each other then you can combine everything into a single "LRBT" entry and consider "space marine army that takes a LRBT" as a single list concept to evaluate rather than having to do balance testing on every possible combination of that LRBT's weapons. With smart playtesting you can evaluate this stuff, at least to a much higher level of balance than we have now.

My guesstimate didn’t even go to the level of detail of single-unit armies or wargear options or anything. I just thought of a random example where you’re going to pick 10 units to make an army. Now, those 10 units might add up to 500pts or 2500pts, but rather than adding the theoretically infinite variable of points limit, I considered a simpler estimation where I only look choosing 10 arbitrary units rather than having to run all sorts of permutations for total points limit. If that rankles with you, maybe rephrase the notion as ‘we’re going do a balance sample test to combine 10 units that will form a subset of a 5,000pt army and consider how those units affect one another’. It also assumed you can only consider each unit once, so we’re not even considering the effects of spam. You could end up with 10 single model HQ characters to compare; who knows, stacking their cumulative buffs onto one another might create an OP combo. This is what we’re trying to assess. You can make some assumptions and cut out huge swathes of combinations, but those assumptions are where you run into trouble. Something something you and me.

If you’re choosing 10 units to compare out of 11, the number of possible ways you can choose those 10 units is 11!/10! = 11, which makes intuitive sense. If youre choosing 10 units out of 12, you get 12!/10! = 132 (these numbers get big fast). If you’re choosing 10 units out of 20 - say, the number of units in a single Codex - your number of ways jumps to 700 billion. Now, that’s too large to consider, so you make some assumptions and just choose to ignore whole piles of options. That’s not ideal but let’s say it’s functional. If you consider 10 units out of 100 - a very conservative guess for the number of Imperium Soup units even if you ignore the difference between a Sicaran and a Sicaran Venator for example - you get a number in the order of 10^20. Sure, you can pile assumptions on assumptions on assumptions to try and cut out piles of units (introducing huge leeway for misses and errors in doing so), but the numbers you’re considering are just so hideously, catastrophically enormous that you simply can’t functionally get anywhere near meaningful analysis. It’s not a linear relationship where considering 5 Codexes is 5 times harder than considering 1 Codex, it’s a situation where the extra permutations are just so mind-bogglingly massive compared to the extra data that you just can’t apply the same thinking.

I happen to completely agree with you on the FW issue though.

Edit: I’ve made some mistakes in the maths there in trying to rush it through in my lunch break, but the conclusion stands.

Again, you're assuming complete ignorance on what makes a good list and having to blindly attempt every possible combination. That's not how playtesting works. For example, you might try a few different 10-character lists, but if they're consistently terrible you can probably stop there and assume that all 10-character lists are going to be bad without having to try every possible combination of 10 characters. You don't need to mathematically prove that every possible list that can be generated is balanced, "it is very unlikely that we missed anything" is good enough even if its theoretically possible that some obscure combination breaks the game.

And those assumptions you’ve just made are exactly how we get balance issues.

Look, ultimately the point is, there’s a limit to how much GW can cover with their limited resources, and Soup makes the job so much harder as to be functionally impossible for the GW team to be able to meaningfully balance Soup armies.

kombatwombat wrote:
And those assumptions you’ve just made are exactly how we get balance issues.

No they aren't. We get balance issues because GW doesn't care enough to try at all, and is often actively hostile to the idea of making high-quality rules (CAAC! FORGE A NARRATIVE! BEER AND PRETZELS!). Using skill at the game, assuming you have put the effort into learning the game at a high level and care about such things, to narrow down the playtesting space is just part of playtesting. Virtually any game has sufficiently many combinations to make playtesting "impossible" if you do X! calculations to get a huge number, yet playtesting still happens and still improves games.

Look, ultimately the point is, there’s a limit to how much GW can cover with their limited resources, and Soup makes the job so much harder as to be functionally impossible for the GW team to be able to meaningfully balance Soup armies.

The key point here is "limited resources", not the impossibility of the task. GW could get the resources for proper playtesting, and be able to cover soup armies, if they cared enough to do it. But they don't.

The real reason soup should be removed is that it's terrible game design in fundamental ways that can not be fixed by playtesting. Even it it's perfectly balanced it's still terrible design and still shouldn't be part of the game. So, don't think that I approve of having soup armies exist. I just reject the idea that playtesting is as impossible as you claim.

 Peregrine wrote:

No, it isn't the same argument at all. Being able to choose units from multiple books is irrelevant, because it's still the same faction. The fact that GW splits a faction's content up across multiple pieces of paper doesn't make it any less of a single faction. The issue is getting to choose units from multiple factions, regardless of which books they are printed in. Taking Tau and Tyranid units out of IA:Xenos (a single FW book) is not ok.

You are drawing an arbitrary line of your own invention between codex and not-codex sources. GW does not recognize any difference between the two. You might as well complain that page 118 of the IG codex adds a superheavy vehicle that isn't present on page 93, and it's unfair that IG get to take options from multiple pages.

You're fixating on the faction. And as I already think that 'Imperium' is a valid faction, this argument will not convince me. And Factions are arbitrary too. Skitarii and Cult Mechanicus uded to be separate factions, now they're one faction, Grey Knights and Inquisition used to belong to the same faction, now they're separate factions.

The difference is that FW units obey the same design principles as the rest of the faction, maintaining faction identity. IG may get a different gun for their LRBTs, but they won't get power armored elite infantry. Space marines might get that laser destroyer as a substitute for a Predator Annhiliator, but won't get 4ppm meatshield troops.

Well IG shouldn't get 4ppm meatshield troops either. Such thing just being brokenly good in this edition is the reason why everyone is allying them in their armies. And most of this 'faction identity' is illusory. There ultimately is not a huge difference between marine and IG tanks (except latter are better, but that is bad balancing) or even some tyranid monsters and mechanical walkers of some other races. Even in that other thread you said that Craftworld Eldar and Dark Eldar have basically the same strengths and weakness, so how the hell is being to able to ally them with each other a problem. And of course fundamentally being able to field cheap mooks along marines cannot really be a huge problem, Chaos Marines can do it from single codex. Why is that OK, but if loyalist want to do the same it is an abomination?

Furthermore, FW design team is different set of people than main GW team, and they have different design style. They write rules somewhat differently, add more little unnecessary permutations and exceptions, and often seem to be even more clueless about the game balance than the main team. And they also sometimes introduce untits that allow mitigating weaknesses of a certain armies, or units that are just flat out better versions of codex units. This is very much the same sort of issues people have with the allies, and I have never supported banning FW either.

 Crimson wrote:
You're fixating on the faction.

Yes, because that's the problem with soup. This is like saying that I'm "fixating" on the cost of guardsmen in an argument over whether guardsmen should be 5ppm or 4ppm.

And as I already think that 'Imperium' is a valid faction, this argument will not convince me.

You think wrong. A faction that contains half the content in the game, vastly more than any other faction and including multiple complete factions, is not valid. There is absolutely no legitimate reason to have that kind of disparity in options in a fair game.

And Factions are arbitrary too. Skitarii and Cult Mechanicus uded to be separate factions, now they're one faction, Grey Knights and Inquisition used to belong to the same faction, now they're separate factions.

The fact that GW reorganizes stuff sometimes doesn't change the fact that there are factions, and those factions have their own design identity. Orks and Tau are not the same army even if GW reorganizes the books a bit and puts them into a single "Xenos" book.

Well IG shouldn't get 4ppm meatshield troops either. Such thing just being brokenly good in this edition is the reason why everyone is allying them in their armies. And most of this 'faction identity' is illusory. There ultimately is not a huge difference between marine and IG tanks (except latter are better, but that is bad balancing) or even some tyranid monsters and mechanical walkers of some other races. Even in that other thread you said that Craftworld Eldar and Dark Eldar have basically the same strengths and weakness, so how the hell is being to able to ally them with each other a problem. And of course fundamentally being able to field cheap mooks along marines cannot really be a huge problem, Chaos Marines can do it from single codex. Why is that OK, but if loyalist want to do the same it is an abomination?

Ok, you're pointing out bad design by GW that undermines their own faction system. I'm not sure why you think "GW sucks" is a good response to an argument that GW sucks at something else.

Also, you seem to have a very shallow understanding of balance and how it relates to faction identity. IG have better tanks because tanks are supposed to be the strength of the IG faction, while space marines have mediocre tanks because tanks are supposed to have a supporting role at best in their faction. It's the same reason why Khorne space marines get powerful melee units (or should get them, at least) and Tau get very bad melee units if they get them at all. CSM get cheap meatshields, but presumably pay for it elsewhere in their army. Etc. You aren't supposed to be good at everything that every other army has.

Furthermore, FW design team is different set of people than main GW team, and they have different design style.

So what? Different codex authors are different people and have different design styles. Should we only allow codices written by a particular author and ban the others?

They write rules somewhat differently, add more little unnecessary permutations and exceptions, and often seem to be even more clueless about the game balance than the main team.

{citation needed}

FW is clueless about game balance, but so is everyone else at GW. After all, it wasn't FW that gave us D-weapon titans in normal games, scatter laser jetbikes, the 4ppm guardsmen you hate, etc.

And they also sometimes introduce untits that allow mitigating weaknesses of a certain armies, or units that are just flat out better versions of codex units. This is very much the same sort of issues people have with the allies, and I have never supported banning FW either.

Again, no, it isn't the same issue at all. Maybe that's the issue for some people, but my issue with soup is that it undermines faction identity. FW rules do not. Your comparison is absurd.

 Peregrine wrote:

Again, no, it isn't the same issue at all. Maybe that's the issue for some people, but my issue with soup is that it undermines faction identity. FW rules do not. Your comparison is absurd.

The main concern in this thread has been the game balance based one. Most of those complaints can apply to FW too. A major complaint has been that Imperium has disproportionately huge selection of units. Certainly true. Now guess does FW add options equally to all factions? Yep, it doesn't. So if some armies getting more options than others is a valid reason to ban allies, then it is a valid reason to ban FW as well.

As for the faction identity, as you define it, I don't care. I didn't like the crazy ally rules of the previous edition which produced blatantly unfluffy armies and marine characters were blocking incoming shots directed to IG blobs by their magically buffed stromshields, but almost all of that silliness is gone, and if there are some specific problem areas then address those. To me an Inquisitor leading an eclectic collection of Imperial units or Yvraine doing the same for Eldar is cool and perfectly valid expression of 'faction identity.'

 Peregrine wrote:


You think wrong. A faction that contains half the content in the game, vastly more than any other faction and including multiple complete factions, is not valid. There is absolutely no legitimate reason to have that kind of disparity in options in a fair game.

You assume 40k is meant to be a "fair game". I think after over 20 years of grossly imbalanced rules and relatively poor balance, GW is not trying to build a "fair game" at all. It's just that's what people want, so they keep trying to force 40k to be it.

Wayniac wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


You think wrong. A faction that contains half the content in the game, vastly more than any other faction and including multiple complete factions, is not valid. There is absolutely no legitimate reason to have that kind of disparity in options in a fair game.

You assume 40k is meant to be a "fair game". I think after over 20 years of grossly imbalanced rules and relatively poor balance, GW is not trying to build a "fair game" at all. It's just that's what people want, so they keep trying to force 40k to be it.

Then its fair to say that being poorly balanced makes it a bad game. People want a good game. Good games are balanced.

I don't think its unreasonable to criticize and hope GW makes the game better by actually balancing it.