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.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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.

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.

Mono faction power gaming is very tame compared to soup power gaming.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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.

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.

Mono faction power gaming is very tame compared to soup power gaming.

Powergaming is powergaming, plain and simple. Unfluffy, unthematic, bizarre, and outright WAAC lists exist independently of soup/not soup, and will continue to do so. There's not really grades of "that army is unfluffy." It's probably more fluffy to have an Inquisitor leading Custodes defending a Guard artillery park whilst Space Marines in Stormravens come to the rescue than it is to have 178882 dark reapers in an Alaitoc detachment.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Powergaming is powergaming, plain and simple. Unfluffy, unthematic, bizarre, and outright WAAC lists exist independently of soup/not soup, and will continue to do so. There's not really grades of "that army is unfluffy." It's probably more fluffy to have an Inquisitor leading Custodes defending a Guard artillery park whilst Space Marines in Stormravens come to the rescue than it is to have 178882 dark reapers in an Alaitoc detachment.

This - 100%. Game breaking, WAAC, power gaming lists are going to exist no matter what - soup or not. So this idea that somehow removing soup is going to make for a healthier or more balanced game environment are farcical. And before you say 'Oh well GW just should just make better more balanced books' - that statement is independent of soup and with or without soup is still beneficial.

 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.

Most of the soup problems would also vanish if you banned IG and Craftworld Eldar. And of course it is conjecture that a majority wants the soup to be gone, it is most likely just couple of loud whiners as usual. And why haven't you adapted to the soup, bro?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Mono faction power gaming is very tame compared to soup power gaming.

Citation needed.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

This - 100%. Game breaking, WAAC, power gaming lists are going to exist no matter what - soup or not. So this idea that somehow removing soup is going to make for a healthier or more balanced game environment are farcical. And before you say 'Oh well GW just should just make better more balanced books' - that statement is independent of soup and with or without soup is still beneficial.

Indeed. And if you want to start to remove options to improve balance, you might just as well skip to the logical end point where the only unit allowed is Tactical Marines without weapon options.

Specific instances are easier to deal with if the repercussions are limited.

 Earth127 wrote:
Specific instances are easier to deal with if the repercussions are limited.

Ah yes, the old "it's easier to just slash options than to do work." Y'know. For the people who are paid and probably have benefits because they do work.

 Earth127 wrote:
Specific instances are easier to deal with if the repercussions are limited.

So basically they should only work to balance and make improvements as long as they fit in what you think is acceptable?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Mono faction power gaming is very tame compared to soup power gaming.

My Black Legion gunline with 25 lascannons disagrees. I may not compete in tournaments but dare anyone to out-power-game me.

UM AC Razorback spam lists disagree. The winner of Games Day was running one of those.

Early-8th conscript spam lists would disagree. Who needed another faction when they had Commisars issuing orders?

Tournament results are an exceptionally poor indicator of problems with underlying game mechanics. The lists are developed by experienced gamers with exceptional insight into beating an opponent. They would be doing the same thing with a single Codex if soup was banned.

I think the line should be clear and what is and isn't should be clear.

What is and isn't fluffy is very up to personal interpretation and not part of this discusiion since I am only talking matched play. I find a lot of lists more fluffy than the idea Ahriman can't cast waprtime because his second tried and failed. Narrative and fluff don not enter into my thinking for matched play.

 Earth127 wrote:
I think the line should be clear and what is and isn't should be clear.

What is and isn't fluffy is very up to personal interpretation and not part of this discusiion since I am only talking matched play. I find a lot of lists more fluffy than the idea Ahriman can't cast waprtime because his second tried and failed. Narrative and fluff don not enter into my thinking for matched play.

Then what is part of the discussion? What's wrong with soup?

It can't be that soup is unbalanced, because as proven time and again, soup could be balanced. What does enter your thinking for Matched Play, and why does soup violate that thinking?

 Earth127 wrote:
I think the line should be clear and what is and isn't should be clear.

What is and isn't fluffy is very up to personal interpretation and not part of this discusiion since I am only talking matched play. I find a lot of lists more fluffy than the idea Ahriman can't cast waprtime because his second tried and failed. Narrative and fluff don not enter into my thinking for matched play.

And? What's that got to do with soup in matched play? If soup is unbalanced then balance soup - your other response is to remove soup AND balance the existing books, there's no reason to do that as opposed to just balancing the existing options and thus making soup an equal but viable option.

Even if all codex are internally and externally balanced (they are far from that) soup will still have an inherent advantage over non soup. From a matched play perspective - there is no reason to allow it.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Even if all codex are internally and externally balanced (they are far from that) soup will still have an inherent advantage over non soup. From a matched play perspective - there is no reason to allow it.

Why?

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:
I think the line should be clear and what is and isn't should be clear.

What is and isn't fluffy is very up to personal interpretation and not part of this discusiion since I am only talking matched play. I find a lot of lists more fluffy than the idea Ahriman can't cast waprtime because his second tried and failed. Narrative and fluff don not enter into my thinking for matched play.

And? What's that got to do with soup in matched play? If soup is unbalanced then balance soup - your other response is to remove soup AND balance the existing books, there's no reason to do that as opposed to just balancing the existing options and thus making soup an equal but viable option.

I am offended by suggestion that rules for 40k can be balanced. Anyone who wants to argue otherwise is ignoring the real problem.

Soup or no soup, the people who win games are the ones with the most experience. Show me a winner of a major competitive tournament who hasn't played in at least 5 before. 8 of the top 10 players in every major tournament since 8th came out has consistently placed in the top 20 in previous tournaments within the last 3 years.

Accumulating experience for advantage is just an advanced form of cheating. It causes a lot of problems in the game.

Ban experienced tournament players from tournaments. Much bigger problem than books or soup.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Even if all codex are internally and externally balanced (they are far from that) soup will still have an inherent advantage over non soup. From a matched play perspective - there is no reason to allow it.

Why? Because soup would have more choices? As long as those choices are pointed appropriately then the only advantage is in play style choices, not inherent benefits of 'too cheap CP generators. More choices does not inherently mean better (see the SM codex).

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Even if all codex are internally and externally balanced (they are far from that) soup will still have an inherent advantage over non soup. From a matched play perspective - there is no reason to allow it.

Why? Because soup would have more choices? As long as those choices are pointed appropriately then the only advantage is in play style choices, not inherent benefits of 'too cheap CP generators. More choices does not inherently mean better (see the SM codex).

Agreed.

You would think that an SM player of all people would realize that more choices != better.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Yes, but "people who want to play mono-faction" are like people who "want to play with only cultists" or in my case "people who want to play how the fluff says" without regard for things like optimization or whatever (or at least with those things in a lower priority).

They're fine, and welcome to it, and I think that's awesome. But they're never going to be top level, and that's also okay. Themed lists are rarely also top-tier competition lists, and that was true whether or not soup was allowed.

In any given edition before soup, the top lists were rarely well-themed. They may have been mono-faction, but that's because they were required to be, not because they cared about theme.

I don't think most players divide up neatly into heartless WAAC players and fluff-bunny thematic players. I imagine most players have elements of both. The background is 40K's strongest draw, so players get attached to the background of their preferred army. This gets reinforced with the time and effort goes into assembling them and painting them. I can't be the only player who would prefer to play mono-faction because I'd rather have more of my favorite army on the table than mix-and-match.

I play Dark Angels, and one thing Dark Angels lack is cheap screening troops. Imperial Guard, on the other hand, has them in spades. I can get 30 screening bodies (and 2 officers to manage them) for 180pts. That's the minimum cost to get an IG battalion. If I stayed in-codex, my next cheapest option would be Scouts, which would run me 330pts. By taking the IG screen, I save 150pts, I can make one of those IG officers my warlord for the better version of the CP-regaining warlord trait, and I can take the relic that lets me regain CP when my opponent plays strats, and I get +3 CP.

I'll admit I'm old-school. I've played since 3rd ed, so I've spent years absorbing fluff about how different factions have different doctrines and don't generally mix at the micro-level. If other people want to use Allies, that's their thing. I just don't want to automatically be at a disadvantage for not doing so. That IG battalion confers a lot of benefits to a list, but I don't want them in my Dark Angels list. I want more Dark Angels, because they're who I like best. I can field the IG battalion. I've got a modest IG army at my disposal, so I have the minis. However, their inclusion breaks up the aesthetic cohesion of my army on the tabletop. The minis don't match the Dark Angels minis, and the color schemes don't mix, because I obtained and painted them as a standalone army (in 4th ed), not as an adjunct to my Dark Angels. I don't think it's too much to ask that some consideration be made to players who prefer mono-source lists, because we prefer them because we love and are invested in our armies, but that doesn't mean we want to be excluded from playing at competitive events, or have to play at a disadvantage when we attend.

Wayniac wrote:
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)

That is not really fair. I wouldn't say the competitive crowd can't exercise restraint - I'd say they can't afford to. If you want to be top-tier, you can't be leaving advantages on the table. Also, in my experience tournament players are usually quite pleasant to play against, as much as anyone can be when they're massacring your army. The biggest jerk I've ever played against I met not at a tournament, but in the pickup game environment.

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Powergaming is powergaming, plain and simple. Unfluffy, unthematic, bizarre, and outright WAAC lists exist independently of soup/not soup, and will continue to do so. There's not really grades of "that army is unfluffy." It's probably more fluffy to have an Inquisitor leading Custodes defending a Guard artillery park whilst Space Marines in Stormravens come to the rescue than it is to have 178882 dark reapers in an Alaitoc detachment.

Actually, on the face of it, that sounds horrendously unfluffy. A smart commander wouldn't tie up the most elite troopers in the galaxy babysitting cannons behind the lines.

Also, while Inquisitorial units, Custodes, IG ,and Space Marines may all wind up on the same hill on some battlefield, they'd be strikingly unlikely to all be in the same task force. An Inquisitor Lord certainly can mandate the assistance of Imperial Guard forces, but to get assistance from Space Marines, he has to ask, and he'd better be pretty damn polite, and even the lowliest of Custodes foot soldier would probably find it beneath him to take orders from some jumped-up zealot. Even in the case of the IG, the Inquisitor probably wouldn't directly command troops, but would make his wishes known to an IG officer, who would do the actual commanding of troops.

Furthermore, all those forces have different missions, doctrines, customs, etiquette, command structures, chains of supply, and so on. Meshing units with such widely varying would be a command nightmare. 40K is a big enough setting to allow edge justifications for the ad-hocciest of ad-hoc task forces, but it beggers belief to have the system both allow such cherry-picking and reward it with extra command points. If anything, such forces should come at a CP penalty, to reflect the difficulties in coordinating wildly different forces.

On the theory it's easier to give stuff than to take stuff away, I wouldn't advocate imposing penalties on builds that don't currently invoke them. Instead, I'd institute bonuses for using fewer sources and fewer detachments - say +3CP for a single-source list, and +3 CP for using a single detachment. That would at least be a nod to players who would prefer to play old-school, mono-source, single FOC lists. Would it be enough? Not sure. But, just because I don't know whether or not it would perfectly fix the balance between mono-source lists and multi-source lists, doesn't mean it wouldn't be a net improvement.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:


I play Dark Angels, and one thing Dark Angels lack is cheap screening troops. Imperial Guard, on the other hand, has them in spades. I can get 30 screening bodies (and 2 officers to manage them) for 180pts. That's the minimum cost to get an IG battalion. If I stayed in-codex, my next cheapest option would be Scouts, which would run me 330pts. By taking the IG screen, I save 150pts, I can make one of those IG officers my warlord for the better version of the CP-regaining warlord trait, and I can take the relic that lets me regain CP when my opponent plays strats, and I get +3 CP.

This isn't an apples to apples comparison. You can purchase scouts who do bring an advantage to the table in a pure DA battalion as decent screens. And from a competitive stand point they're one of the only 2 troops you should be using regardless. The IG aren't too good because of the screening, they're too good because they're cheap CP. If the guardsmen were appropriately costed then they wouldn't be the no brainer choice.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:



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?

How much proof do ya needs? How many threads? How many podcasts? I said this was a 9 page thread but really 2 pages are the same 3 people in frantic defence of the concept. So maybe a 8 page thread.

Reemule wrote:

How much proof do ya needs? How many threads? How many podcasts? I said this was a 9 page thread but really 2 pages are the same 3 people in frantic defence of the concept. So maybe a 8 page thread.

Oh? To me it seems that it is the same couple of soup haters insisting for pages that there is an inherit problem, yet being unable to really articulate what the problem actually is.

How about we put this as simple maths problem if you have 10 item in list of options A of which you can pick 5 and they have to balance against 5 options from 10 items in B thats a lot of options to balance correctly.

Soup takes that list of 10 and turns it i to a list of 1000. It's simply not feasible to balance all the possible interactions properly. It also gets even harder when as has already been provided as an example people start combining rules which are balanced in a mono codex force in ways that a mono codex never could.

The reason soup is so meta its not even funny is because it allows you to bypass certain limitations that codex content was designed with in mind.

EG custodes starts become insanely good when you have a IG CP battery to allow you to go mad with them because in a pure custodes army you would struggle to get more than 7CP in 2k points game. With guard cp farming you can ramp that up to 10 and reuse on a 5+, steel on a 5+ and spam strategums that where costed for an army with max 7 cps maybe 9 with a relic. Not starting with 9 and probably having 15 across a game.

Ice_can wrote:

EG custodes starts become insanely good when you have a IG CP battery to allow you to go mad with them because in a pure custodes army you would struggle to get more than 7CP in 2k points game. With guard cp farming you can ramp that up to 10 and reuse on a 5+, steel on a 5+ and spam strategums that where costed for an army with max 7 cps maybe 9 with a relic. Not starting with 9 and probably having 15 across a game.

Again, apart the relic stacking (which should have been prevented in the rules of said relics) this is a Guard problem. It is too easy to gain CP with Guard detachments. This is an issue with pure IG armies as well.

Ice_can wrote:
The reason soup is so meta its not even funny is because it allows you to bypass certain limitations that codex content was designed with in mind.

EG custodes starts become insanely good when you have a IG CP battery to allow you to go mad with them because in a pure custodes army you would struggle to get more than 7CP in 2k points game. With guard cp farming you can ramp that up to 10 and reuse on a 5+, steel on a 5+ and spam strategums that where costed for an army with max 7 cps maybe 9 with a relic. Not starting with 9 and probably having 15 across a game.

Going to need you to prove this. Where did GW ever state, imply, or otherwise signal that custodes were supposed to be played with 7-9 CP. Just because the game is played at or around 2k isn't a valid defense to be clear. You've stated that they were costed for having X - you need to provide a source on this.

Thats not relic stacking or any such thing or even a guard problem, it is purely soup allowing me to break the design constraints of custodes army who's stats must be playable with a realistic number of CP's for an all custodes army.

Guard CP generation isn't busted in a guard army either as their strates can be less good but spamable and higher cost.

Its the souping codex's together that destroyed the balancr

Soup gives more options

More options means more possible combinations

More possible combinations means more likely hood of their being an over powered combination that can't be identified/balanced in the time available.

Also balanced in a codex and balanced in soup is not the same thing a unit can be internally well balanced and OMG OP WTF GW broken in soup.

Example a guard battalion to an IG army isn't worth what it is to a custodes army. You can't acount for that in a points change, if you up the CP cost of the strategums custodes are unplayable without the IG soup. A 200 point battalion is worth not a lot to guard as they have massive CP and gain little from it, custodes have limited CP and get cheap roadblocks and double their CP 's for strategums.

Same units have a different value in mono codex and soup army.
Thats not a balance issue its a soup issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It was in the warhammer community faction focus articals when they where released that their strategums where cheaper as a custodes army won't generate a lot of CP's. As they payed a lot less CP's for comparible strategums to existing armies.

Your all getting hung up on the example I choose, not explaining how this issue isn't a soup problem which without soup disappears?

Just re-read the stratagems focus - no mention of anything even remotely similar to what you've stated. They do however specifically mention using Custodes in a soup based army. Pretty clearly indicates they were aware that you might just be bringing some Imperial Guard to hang out with your Custodes.

 Crimson wrote:

Oh? To me it seems that it is the same couple of soup haters insisting for pages that there is an inherit problem, yet being unable to really articulate what the problem actually is.

I’ll try and articulate the inherent problem as clearly as I can:

Factions are designed with inherent structural weaknesses. Guard lack heavy shock troops. Marines lack specialty. Custodes lack numbers. Tau lack close combat, Orks lack shooting. Eldar of various flavours lack flexibility and toughness. And so on and so forth. In general, well-designed factions will sit on a spectrum ranging from ‘minor strengths, but minor weaknesses’ like Space Marines to ‘massive strengths, but massive weaknesses’ like Tau. (Obviously poorly designed factions can end up with massive strengths but minor weaknesses or vice versa, but that’s a separate issue.)

The general tactical challenge of the game is to leverage your army’s strengths to capitalise on your opponent’s army’s structural weaknesses. Having greater strengths improves your leverage, but the associated greater weaknesses leave you more exposed. Conversely, you can have very minor weaknesses that are hard to expose, but you’ll have less strengths to leverage on your opponent.

Souping allows the ability to take a ‘massive strengths, but massive weaknesses’ army and bolt on a complementary force to fill in your weakness, effectively turning your army into ‘massive strengths, but minor weaknesses’ army. This breaks the system of having to follow the high/low strength/weakness spectrum. This is the core of the problem.

For example, a Custodes army hits like a freight train, but if they can’t engage with their opponent on their terms they’re wrong footed and easily defeated. A Space Marine army doesn’t hit anywhere near as hard, but has the ability to engage anywhere on the table. But what if you can take the pointiest of Custodes heavy-hitters with the most flexible of the Space Marines? You get an army that can hit harder than any other where it counts and that you can’t out-manoeuvre to turn the blow. The army has the very minor weaknesses of Space Marines coupled with the extreme strengths of the Custodes. (This is assuming that both Codexes worked as intended and that the Space Marine book was competent.)

It’s perfectly fine to let Soup reduce the weaknesses of an army, but for the system to work they must have the equivalent reduction in their strengths. There are two ways to do this: give Pure armies greater strengths that Soup armies don’t get, or take away some strengths from Souped armies that Pure armies get to keep.


TL;DR: The greater your army’s strengths, the greater its weaknesses. Soup lets you have great strengths while not having great weaknesses.

Take Incontrol's custodes army for instance it's 75% custodes points wise but he also took assasins and IG troops and mortars to shore up his main weakness. I am not saying this isn't a mostly cusodes list but you can't telll me it would have gone undefeated without souping.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2018/03/18/custodes-at-annihilation-the-weekender/

So reading through this I will say the following: From a purely competitive standpoint there is nothing wrong with soup. However, if we take into account any desire for list diversity, the ability to play single factions etc. Soup is and always will be a problem unless some change is made.

All you need to do is look at the complaint "guard being used for cheap CP wouldn't be a problem if they were priced appropriately" to see why they will always cause a problem.

Guard creating cheap CP is not really an issue in guard armies that lack some of the more powerful stratagems available to other armies. The problem arises when you include them in other armies.

If you price guardsman in a way to make this a less attractive option you then are making mono-guard less good, and moving toward IMPERIUM being the faction and not guard.

From a purely competitive standpoint this can be seen as fine, top players will play IMPERIUM and mono-lists will be less competitive. However, if you care at all about list diversity or faction diversity, this is a bad thing.

That is why I have always been for some extra benefits based on how much you restrict your list. This could be extra CP, extra stratagems, advanced chapter tactics etc.

I would say take some of those away from soup armies, but people see that as punishment, so instead add new things to existing armies.

Just as an example (using take away to make things easier to understand) If a chapter only got its chapter specific stratagems if your whole army were comprised of that chapter would soup be as appealing? If your alpha legion could only strike from the shadows (or whatever their equivalent strat is called) if you played mono-alpha legion, would we see as much soup? maybe maybe not, but it would certainly give more meaningful choices in list design.

All that said I'm also for reducing points in events down to say 1500 as that makes soup much harder to do well as points become more important. Spending 300 points on guard for CP is not huge at 2k, but it can really hurt your list at 1500.

 Crimson wrote:

 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.

*snip* And of course it is conjecture that a majority wants the soup to be gone, it is most likely just couple of loud whiners as usual. And why haven't you adapted to the soup, bro?

Dang it, Crimson - I was hoping to make that point

 Crimson wrote:
Oh? To me it seems that it is the same couple of soup haters insisting for pages that there is an inherit problem, yet being unable to really articulate what the problem actually is.

I've articulated the problem over and over again: soup is bad because it damages the concept of faction identity, each faction being balanced with strengths and weaknesses. If you play Tau you don't get good melee units. If you play space marines you don't get hordes of cannon fodder troops. Etc. Soup allows you to bypass the intended strengths and weaknesses of the various factions with a single super-faction that gets to take the best unit for every role.