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.

Ultimately boosting the monofaction armies or nerfing the multifaction armies is the same thing. It is the relative power that matters.

Balance wise it is the same thing. In terms of enjoyability and feeling tough it is very different.

I still think soup is fine. Lists aren't going to become more thematic just because they're monofaction.

 Crimson wrote:
Ultimately boosting the monofaction armies or nerfing the multifaction armies is the same thing. It is the relative power that matters.

The balance result may be the same, the impact on the game and customers is not.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I still think soup is fine. Lists aren't going to become more thematic just because they're monofaction.

Agreed but where the problem comes in is you take min needed to unlock the other factions relics and strats. For example I know a guy who takes guard and custodes, and takes a relic from both armies and any time I use a command point they get to roll 2 dice and on a 5+ Get a command point back. And get to roll 1 dice for each one they use same thing. They have not played a game where they ended up with less command point then they started with, and burning CP almost every phase.

I think the path is very clear.

Soup causes problems. Lots of them, from people who can abuse it to people who due to a army choice that can't. While some like to say its not a problem, the fact this is now a 9 page thread, and its one of the more talked about issues in 40K is clear.

The game isn't as monolithic as it was. Faqs, chapter approved, all show there is a path to fix soup.

Beyond GW fixes, there are several organizations that are prominent enough that them implementing a fix is very influential.

For me the only argument is if its going to be banned (not what I want) if its going to be nerfed (you pay a price to soup) or if mono themed forces gain a bonus (Could be almost as bad as soup)

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I still think soup is fine. Lists aren't going to become more thematic just because they're monofaction.

Agreed but where the problem comes in is you take min needed to unlock the other factions relics and strats. For example I know a guy who takes guard and custodes, and takes a relic from both armies and any time I use a command point they get to roll 2 dice and on a 5+ Get a command point back. And get to roll 1 dice for each one they use same thing. They have not played a game where they ended up with less command point then they started with, and burning CP almost every phase.

Why is this a problem? It's a CP manipulation strategy, that relies on hot dice (a 5+ is not reliable. 2 5+s is only slightly better than a single 4+). I don't really see why this is an issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:
I think the path is very clear.Soup causes problems. Lots of them, from people who can abuse it to people who due to a army choice that can't. While some like to say its not a problem, the fact this is now a 9 page thread, and its one of the more talked about issues in 40K is clear.

I don't understand this sentence, because I've seen it asserted, but never proven. Can you articulate why it causes problems?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Reemule wrote:
I think the path is very clear.Soup causes problems. Lots of them, from people who can abuse it to people who due to a army choice that can't. While some like to say its not a problem, the fact this is now a 9 page thread, and its one of the more talked about issues in 40K is clear.

I don't understand this sentence, because I've seen it asserted, but never proven. Can you articulate why it causes problems?

The short answer is no - the long answer is 'he'll beat you over the head with logical inconsistencies' while suggesting 'changes' to soup that are effectively banning it. And he'll also hold up a 40 person tournament as a major organization who is driving the change that will lead to soup no longer being allowed.

Just look at the ranking lists on major events. How many are mono faction?

I think at the LVO it was 2/8 and something similiar in the GW heat event.

And as I have said before choice is power or at the very least a balancing nightmare. In AoS for instance allies are limited and lose allegiance abilities.

 Backspacehacker wrote:


Agreed but where the problem comes in is you take min needed to unlock the other factions relics and strats. For example I know a guy who takes guard and custodes, and takes a relic from both armies and any time I use a command point they get to roll 2 dice and on a 5+ Get a command point back. And get to roll 1 dice for each one they use same thing. They have not played a game where they ended up with less command point then they started with, and burning CP almost every phase.

To me this really just seem to be a problem with a rule that probably should not stack stacking, rather than a genuine soup problem.

 Earth127 wrote:
Just look at the ranking lists on major events. How many are mono faction?

I think at the LVO it was 2/8 and something similiar in the GW heat event.

And as I have said before choice is power or at the very least a balancing nightmare. In AoS for instance allies are limited and lose allegiance abilities.

2 of the top 3 lists at the GW Heat were Orks.

 Earth127 wrote:
Just look at the ranking lists on major events. How many are mono faction?

I think at the LVO it was 2/8 and something similiar in the GW heat event.

And as I have said before choice is power or at the very least a balancing nightmare. In AoS for instance allies are limited and lose allegiance abilities.

Elucidate why soup taking the top spots is a bad thing. Yes, I admit that it did, but I don't know why that's a problem.

Choice is not power, if the choices are balanced. And yes, it's a balancing nightmare, but that's why GW designers have a full-time salaried job to do it. It's probably less complicated than tons of other jobs (nuclear engineering off the top of my head).

If the choices are balanced for it existing.

I'd rather have more varied codices and specific pwerfull faction abilities than al armies feeling like SM but slightly different.

I don't have faith in GW design studios ability to balance a world full of soups. So they shouldn't be trying in matched play.

Note the distinction, in narrative/ open soup is all fine and dandy.

 Earth127 wrote:
If the choices are balanced for it existing.

I'd rather have more varied codices and specific pwerfull faction abilities than al armies feeling like SM but slightly different.

I don't have faith in GW design studios ability to balance a world full of soups. So they shouldn't be trying in matched play.

Note the distinction, in narrative/ open soup is all fine and dandy.

I can't parse your first sentence.

Your second sentence is also wrong, as there is nothing suggesting that balance is the same thing as blandness. I do not think that Slaaneshi Daemonettes feel like Tactical Marines, yet neither is terribly optimal nor terribly bad (i.e. they are balanced).

Your third sentence is applicable to matched play in general. "I don't have faith in GW design studio's ability to balance Matched Play, so they shouldn't be trying." I believe that statement is more accurate based on the data available. I also believe it is wrong (I am of the opinion that you should reach for perfection even if you can never attain it) but that's an opinion.

Certainly try for perfection even if it is impossible. But a counterpoint is the story of Icarus from greek mythology. He flew too high and thus he crashed. Sometime sit's better to acknowledge something isn't working and work around it rather than fail and crash.

Matched play is the game mode for restrictions in the name of balance. Why shouldn't there be a limit on some of the more outrageous soup?
I have gotten a bit carried away in my lastfew posts here tough. My suggestion is to disallow IMPERIUM and probably CHAOS and AELDARI as the only faction keyword you're entire faction has in common.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Elucidate why soup taking the top spots is a bad thing.

Because it means that imperium, chaos and eldar become way more powerful than xenos armies than can only play with 1 book, maybe 2.

That's why I'd like soups to continue existing, but being worse than any mono-faction list. You don't soup for advantage this way, you mix factions only for BG reasons (even invented chapters or armies) or because you're very skilled and/or want to play with combos no one expects.

Soups are 100% fine, souping for advantage is something that should be eradicated though.

 Blackie wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Elucidate why soup taking the top spots is a bad thing.

Because it means that imperium, chaos and eldar become way more powerful than xenos armies than can only play with 1 book, maybe 2.

That's why I'd like soups to continue existing, but being worse than any mono-faction list. You don't soup for advantage this way, you mix factions only for BG reasons (even invented chapters or armies) or because you're very skilled and/or want to play with combos no one expects.

Soups are 100% fine, souping for advantage is something that should be eradicated though.

No, it means that armies without codexes (every xenos army that can play with one book, maybe 2) are worse than armies with codexes. That's a stronger correlation with the top 8 of LVO than soup/no-soup, since 2 mono-faction armies made it into the top 8 while 0 Index armies did.

There is no reason for soup to be worse. You should be asking for them to be balanced, not for them to be outright worse.

Souping for advantage shouldn't exist, but neither should not-souping for advantage. In a perfect world, soup would be equally capable to non-soup.

 Earth127 wrote:
Certainly try for perfection even if it is impossible. But a counterpoint is the story of Icarus from greek mythology. He flew too high and thus he crashed. Sometime sit's better to acknowledge something isn't working and work around it rather than fail and crash.

Matched play is the game mode for restrictions in the name of balance. Why shouldn't there be a limit on some of the more outrageous soup?
I have gotten a bit carried away in my lastfew posts here tough. My suggestion is to disallow IMPERIUM and probably CHAOS and AELDARI as the only faction keyword you're entire faction has in common.

GW has not "failed and crashed" (and will not fail and crash) over the simple matter of soup driving people out of the hobby. To claim that they will is ridiculous hyperbole.

The reason not to limit soup is that soup is fluffy and thematic.

Why would you disallow Imperium, Chaos, and AELDARI as the only faction keyword? Would you seriously disallow Slaanesh Greater Daemons from fighting alongside Noise Marines?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Why would you disallow Imperium, Chaos, and AELDARI as the only faction keyword? Would you seriously disallow Slaanesh Greater Daemons from fighting alongside Noise Marines?

This would not be affected. You would just use SLAANESH as the keyword. What it would prevent is running a Keeper of Secrets alongside Alpha Legion Berserkers and then having Magnus as a LOW Auxiliary or filling cheap troop slots with Brimstone Horrors. Or running Noise Marines alongside a Bloodletter Bomb. Mono-cult faction would be entirely unaffected. Same on the Imperium side, it would stop (in Matched Play) running 2 blood angels captains with a guard battalion and some grey knights, or whatever.

Disallowing Chaos as a keyword would only potentially screw over Word Bearers and Black Legion (but BL could still mix marks by using <HERETIC ASTARTES> ) if you wanted to run Daemons alongside CSM (however, summoning them doesn't require keyword matching, so technically Word Bearers would be fine; they aren't competitive anyway). The cult armies would be unchanged as they would be using <CHAOS GOD> as the unifying keyword, not <CHAOS>, it would just prevent egregious min/maxing

Wayniac wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Why would you disallow Imperium, Chaos, and AELDARI as the only faction keyword? Would you seriously disallow Slaanesh Greater Daemons from fighting alongside Noise Marines?

This would not be affected. You would just use SLAANESH as the keyword. What it would prevent is running a Keeper of Secrets alongside Alpha Legion Berserkers and then having Magnus as a LOW Auxiliary or filling cheap troop slots with Brimstone Horrors. Or running Noise Marines alongside a Bloodletter Bomb.

Disallowing Chaos as a keyword would only potentially screw over Word Bearers and Black Legion (but BL could still mix marks by using <HERETIC ASTARTES> ) if you wanted to run Daemons alongside CSM. The cult armies would be unchanged as they would be using <CHAOS GOD> as the unifying keyword, not Chaos, it would just prevent mixing and matching marks.

Oh, right, the FAQ said <Mark of Chaos> and <Allegiance> are the same keyword, lol. Sorry, FAQs can be hard to keep track of.

I suppose no one thinks of Renegades and Heretics, even so.

Still, the point is that soup is fine, and I think it should totally be possible for an Inquisitor with some Custodes to protect a line of Imperial Guard Artillery while Space Marines descend from orbit in their flyers. In Matched Play.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Why would you disallow Imperium, Chaos, and AELDARI as the only faction keyword? Would you seriously disallow Slaanesh Greater Daemons from fighting alongside Noise Marines?

This would not be affected. You would just use SLAANESH as the keyword. What it would prevent is running a Keeper of Secrets alongside Alpha Legion Berserkers and then having Magnus as a LOW Auxiliary or filling cheap troop slots with Brimstone Horrors. Or running Noise Marines alongside a Bloodletter Bomb.

Disallowing Chaos as a keyword would only potentially screw over Word Bearers and Black Legion (but BL could still mix marks by using <HERETIC ASTARTES> ) if you wanted to run Daemons alongside CSM. The cult armies would be unchanged as they would be using <CHAOS GOD> as the unifying keyword, not Chaos, it would just prevent mixing and matching marks.

Oh, right, the FAQ said <Mark of Chaos> and <Allegiance> are the same keyword, lol. Sorry, FAQs can be hard to keep track of.

I suppose no one thinks of Renegades and Heretics, even so.

Still, the point is that soup is fine, and I think it should totally be possible for an Inquisitor with some Custodes to protect a line of Imperial Guard Artillery while Space Marines descend from orbit in their flyers. In Matched Play.

Potentially, but like most things the actions of a few abusive people (and, let's not pretend here, it's the tournament "competitive crowd" 99% of the time) will screw over the majority because they can't exercise restraint. I would not be opposed to seeing this as an ITC restriction instead of a GW Matched Play restriction just so it does not affect ALL matched play games, just the ones where it becomes abusive (i.e. tournament games)

Inquisition would need either a special rule exception or acces to some kind of Imperial agents keyword.

I hope GW prints another codex: imperial agents and includes GK,DW,sisters, scions etc.

So to make sure we're on the same page, everyone here is OK with fluff breaking nonsensical lists that tournament gamers build, as long as they're from one source. The game will be finely balanced without soup (or even more balanced than it currently is)? Because it seems to be the gist of the argument here - removing soup will somehow make things more balanced. In fact all it will do is create a harder divide between which armies are viable and which aren't.

 Earth127 wrote:
Inquisition would need either a special rule exception or acces to some kind of Imperial agents keyword.

I hope GW prints another codex: imperial agents and includes GK,DW,sisters, scions etc.

Whilst I wouldn't mind these factions sharing a codex with each other, it doesn't make sense for them being one faction (apart Inquisitors and their chambers militant, perhaps.) Sisters of Battle and Militarum Tempestus are not the same faction any more than Adeptus Mechanicus and Adeptus Astartes are.

Scions "are" the storm troopers so both could share Ordo hereticus. I wanted to cast the net wide to allow some options foor inquisition players.

@farseer: I am fine with it in tournaments so long as no one pretends everyone has to accept as fluffy.

 Earth127 wrote:
Scions "are" the storm troopers so bopth could share Ordo hereticus. I wanted to cast the net wide to allow some options foor inquisition players.

@farseer: I am fine with it in tournaments so long as no one pretends everyone has to accept as fluffy.

So its fine then but not when its soup?

In matched play: yes

 Earth127 wrote:
In matched play: yes

So you aren't aiming to make the game better or more balanced, you just don't want soup to exist because you don't like it? Effectively you've stated you have 0 issue with the game breakinginly ridiculous things that players do, as long as its from one book.

 Crimson wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:


Agreed but where the problem comes in is you take min needed to unlock the other factions relics and strats. For example I know a guy who takes guard and custodes, and takes a relic from both armies and any time I use a command point they get to roll 2 dice and on a 5+ Get a command point back. And get to roll 1 dice for each one they use same thing. They have not played a game where they ended up with less command point then they started with, and burning CP almost every phase.

To me this really just seem to be a problem with a rule that probably should not stack stacking, rather than a genuine soup problem.

You can probably say that about everything when it comes to soup. However - banning soup would fix all those problems instantly. And the people who play soup (90% power gamers) will just power game mono faction. The 10% people who play soup because they think it's fluffy and fun? Guess you gotta adapt bro. Majority rules.

I think codex internal blance is a different subject. One I can't comment on as much due to lack of practical knowledge of every codex.

Some list building freedom is fine you know.

 Xenomancers wrote:

You can probably say that about everything when it comes to soup. However - banning soup would fix all those problems instantly. And the people who play soup (90% power gamers) will just power game mono faction. The 10% people who play soup because they think it's fluffy and fun? Guess you gotta adapt bro. Majority rules.

So then no one actually cares about power-gaming or game balance. They just want soup to go away because they don't like it (effectively an emotional response).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Earth127 wrote:
I think codex internal blance is a different subject. One I can't comment on as much due to lack of practical knowledge of every codex.

some list building freedom is fine you know.

But only list building freedom that fits in the parameters you're OK with? Even if they're not actually more balanced than those currently available.