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.

*note for those who care, I’m using the new definition of soup

Hello all!

In light of all the discussion of soup I’ve decided to throw my viewpoint into the mix. In the past I’ve talked about GW is unlikely to attack soup in meaningfully way, but haven’t spoken much on my own thoughts on soup. As the title suggests, I’m more in favor of soup than the vast majority of posters here. In this post I will give my background, what I think some of pros of soup are, and address some common criticisms of soup, Without further adu let’s begin.

Here’s a quick recap of my 40k experience to give you an idea of where I’m coming from. I started in during 4th edition at a young age, so I didn’t have a great grasp of the game during that edition, 5th was when I really started invested heavily into the hobby, and was a pretty regular tournament attendant. At the midpoint of 6th I quite the game, and came back at the beginning of 8th. 8th IMO has been the best edition of 40k that I’ve played, but that’s neither here nor there. The reason I bring this up is because I plan to contrast 8th’s souping system to 5th, as I know that edition very well and it was the last edition without real allies.

So what do I believe the pros of soup are?

1) it can be fuffly. It felt weird in 5th when stuff like daemons of chaos where basically completely separate from CSM. Likewise there was the fact that Grey knights where pretty much always by themselves despite almost never being so in the fluff. I remember this being a discussion point on some online forums, and there where a few homebrew rules to allow certain factions to ally with eachother

2) It allows me to buy more models that I think are cool, and less units that I think are less so. Too many times during 5th I would see some interesting model for an army l didn’t play, but wouldn’t pick it up because I had no interest in collecting the rest of models I needed to start that army. Souping makes it lot easier for me to buy stuff I want, while avoided stuff I don’t want.

3) Soup allows more list diversity. Because certain factions with glaring weaknesses now have access to plug those weaknesses, they can be played in new interesting ways (or just played competitively at all). Recent tournament results support this, and I think this will continue to
be trend throughout 8th. I’ll discuss this topic more in adressing complaints, but I think this area where I am pretty against the grain.

Now on to common complaints I see against soup.

1) “Soup hurts factions that don’t have acesss to it, such as necrons.” While true, I believe this argument is heavily overblown. Sure GW has to be careful on how it balances Xenos with little to no allies, but I think it can be done. Case and point are tau and tyranids. While neither have been totally top tier yet, both have been pretty consistently showing strong results at tournaments, as shown at Solcal open. With Orks looking very strong now that they have a codex, I believe it’s very possible that factions with no allies can be quite good.

2) “souping can be very un-fluffy.” This one is also true, but then again tournament list have rarely every been truly fluffy. In 5th for example, everyone was ridding in metal boxes, which may happen occasionally, but I doubt every guard commander in the fluff utilizise chimaera brigades with zero Leman Russes. Or that grey knight armies are exclusively some elite terminators, Draigo, and 3 dreadnoughts duel/wielding auto-cannons.

3) “Souping disacourges list diversity”. As you have probably guessed Based on my pros I fully disagree with this one. Now I think there’s a small degree of truth in this in that if a unit, or units are far too good, soup will increase there is usage even more. This means you see stuff like the loyal 32 everywhere, but in my mind this has more to do with guardsman and company commanders being too cheap for what they bring you, rather than a problem with soup. Furthermore even Though the loyal 32 have been omnipresent the list that utilize them have not been. There are some which use knights, some which use more guard, some that use Custards, and even some that use different flavors of space marines. The evidence supports this as well as over the span of 8th (a year and 3 months) we’ve seen everything from deathguard, to all flavors of eldar, to even some space marine win large tournaments. In 5th we could go whole years where a single or a few codex’s would dominate the Meta. Part of that was lack of attempts by GW to shake up the meta yes, but also because if a single codex had fewer weaknesses and/or more OP units than the rest
If the field it would dominate for a while no questions asked.

4) I keep hearing that souping allies you to eliminate all your weaknesses, and while true to a degree, it also will reduce yout armies strengths. For example if I choose to run a tzaangor bomb in my death guard list, that means I’m losing some duribility in my list (as I won’t be able to as many durable deathguard units) in exchange for more hitting power. So yeah I’m helped cover a deathguard weakness by souping, but my list won’t automatically be better.

So that’s my defense of soup. I’m expecting quite a few of you to disagree (that’s fine) but I’d thought it out there anyway.

Allies have basically always existed in some form. People just pretend it didn't to fit their own narrative.

Allies are fine, and quite frankly if anything prove how bad internal balance is with differing codices. That's a good thing.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Allies have basically always existed in some form. People just pretend it didn't to fit their own narrative.

Allies are fine, and quite frankly if anything prove how bad internal balance is with differing codices. That's a good thing.

This. Like any mechanic in game allies aren't inherently broken or the problem. It's more that GW doesn't run a tight ship and individual units are all over the place in how useful they are. I don't see anyone complaining about sisters of battle teaming up with admech to recreate a battle I read about in BL. People do complain that certain builds throw the game out of wack but if it wasn't that build it be another list that breaks the game down.

I don't have a problem with soup.

I have a problem with allies being mainly available to Imperial and Chaos players. As a Necron player, it feels super crappy to look at how few options I have compared to my opponents.

I also have a problem with taking allies and using a benefit gained from Faction A to buff Faction B. The Loyal 32 is the standard example. Take 32 cheap Guardsmen to gain 5CP. Use those 5CP to make different Faction units perform better. Again, really sucks for mainly Xenos Factions who don't have that option at all.

TL DR - Soup is delicious. Only allowing half the players to eat soup is bogus. Allowing the carrots in your soup to turn the potatoes into superheros is also bogus.

I dont have a problem with allies. I do have a problem with the whole "cp battery" thing. Things like Knights and Custodes have some really strong strats which should not be useable with cp provided by a guardsmen "cp-battery".

Faction-lock CPs and I'd be perfectly fine with the current ally system. Maybe even go so far and give a -1cp penalty per additional faction used.

 Kriswall wrote:
I don't have a problem with soup.

I have a problem with allies being mainly available to Imperial and Chaos players. As a Necron player, it feels super crappy to look at how few options I have compared to my opponents.

I also have a problem with taking allies and using a benefit gained from Faction A to buff Faction B. The Loyal 32 is the standard example. Take 32 cheap Guardsmen to gain 5CP. Use those 5CP to make different Faction units perform better. Again, really sucks for mainly Xenos Factions who don't have that option at all.

TL DR - Soup is delicious. Only allowing half the players to eat soup is bogus. Allowing the carrots in your soup to turn the potatoes into superheros is also bogus.

Your complaints about soup are basically the only reason people use soup. So really - you are against soup.

Allies always existed, except when they did not. You know, third through fifth edition.

Allies would be fine if kept to Open/Narrative play.

The current system is broken because of soup.

Morkphoiz wrote:
I dont have a problem with allies. I do have a problem with the whole "cp battery" thing. Things like Knights and Custodes have some really strong strats which should not be useable with cp provided by a guardsmen "cp-battery".

Faction-lock CPs and I'd be perfectly fine with the current ally system.

Faction lock soup CP and you make soup useless. Increase base CP for all armies but take away CP for allied detachment and you get a nice little workable give and take situation.

Soup can be just as fluffy or OP as a stand alone codex. It’s up to the player to decide how they will approach list building.

What I would personally like to see is all codexes be able to stand on their own without having to soup. Soup then just becomes another option.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Allies have basically always existed in some form. People just pretend it didn't to fit their own narrative.

Allies are fine, and quite frankly if anything prove how bad internal balance is with differing codices. That's a good thing.

It's only a good thing if GW makes changes to the units/armies that don't get taken in soup. They don't - so it's a bad thing.

Allies should exist.

Allies are not the problem with 40k.

40k in 8th edition is the most balanced it has ever been, starting from & including 5th edition.

If you don't like allies play casual, you probably already do. gg no re

Funny how it's the people who play factions that benefit from soup that always go up to bat for it.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I don't have a problem with soup.

I have a problem with allies being mainly available to Imperial and Chaos players. As a Necron player, it feels super crappy to look at how few options I have compared to my opponents.

I also have a problem with taking allies and using a benefit gained from Faction A to buff Faction B. The Loyal 32 is the standard example. Take 32 cheap Guardsmen to gain 5CP. Use those 5CP to make different Faction units perform better. Again, really sucks for mainly Xenos Factions who don't have that option at all.

TL DR - Soup is delicious. Only allowing half the players to eat soup is bogus. Allowing the carrots in your soup to turn the potatoes into superheros is also bogus.

Your complaints about soup are basically the only reason people use soup. So really - you are against soup.

No, your understanding of my comments is incorrect. I like allies. I think they make for a fun, fluffy time. I don't like that only part of the player base is allowed to have allies. Should be an all or nothing thing. I like allies. I think they make for a fun, fluffy time. I don't think it makes sense that an Imperial Guard Company Commander and a handful of small squads should give an Imperial Knight additional strategic options (5CP worth, to be exact). People who use allies to min/max don't necessarily like allies. They like min/maxing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Funny how it's the people who play factions that benefit from soup that always go up to bat for it.

Amen, brother.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Funny how it's the people who play factions that benefit from soup that always go up to bat for it.

Allies, not soup.

The only keyword i'm aware of that can actually soup is ADEPTUS ASTARTES.

And saying "no allies" means squatting quite a few things. Let's start with assassins and knights. Sound good?

 Marmatag wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Funny how it's the people who play factions that benefit from soup that always go up to bat for it.

Allies, not soup.

The only keyword i'm aware of that can actually soup is ADEPTUS ASTARTES.

And saying "no allies" means squatting quite a few things. Let's start with assassins and knights. Sound good?

God, I would be so happy if assassins were gone forever. feth that faction.

As always, miscosted units are the problem in both mono-faction AND allied armies. Allied armies have more statistical access to miscosted units. But if there were no miscosted units, this wouldn't matter.

Martel732 wrote:
As always, miscosted units are the problem in both mono-faction AND allied armies. Allied armies have more statistical access to miscosted units. But if there were no miscosted units, this wouldn't matter.

Yes, exactly.

Well that and, this forum is wholly incapable of differentiating between "good" and "overpowered."

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Funny how it's the people who play factions that benefit from soup that always go up to bat for it.

Allies, not soup.

The only keyword i'm aware of that can actually soup is ADEPTUS ASTARTES.

And saying "no allies" means squatting quite a few things. Let's start with assassins and knights. Sound good?

God, I would be so happy if assassins were gone forever. feth that faction.

Kinda curious here, is that sarcasm? Cause outside of being a fun fluffy choice it's not like assassins have ever been all that strong except maybe in 7th in some lists. His point stands though, without some ally mechanic a lot of what they have released over the years stops working. Hell it would mean the newest release from RT don't work.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Allies have basically always existed in some form. People just pretend it didn't to fit their own narrative.

While true, it was carefully managed for a couple of factions where it made sense, with very strict limitations for most of the last 20 years, and basically went away entirely in 5E once the DH and WH books got replaced.

There was never the ability to just take anything from anywhere in any quantity. If you wanted allies in previous editions, you could basically only take two troops and one of each other FoC role from the allied army (and they used up your existinf FoC slots for other stuff), and only paired with DH/WH armies.

Allies are fine, and quite frankly if anything prove how bad internal balance is with differing codices. That's a good thing.

Being able to treat a dozen codex books, each with vastly different forces, gameplay concepts and design philosophies, as a single grab bag army book is a huge balance issue. The fact that no list places at almost any tournament without elements from other armies illustrates that perfectly.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Morkphoiz wrote:
I dont have a problem with allies. I do have a problem with the whole "cp battery" thing. Things like Knights and Custodes have some really strong strats which should not be useable with cp provided by a guardsmen "cp-battery".

Faction-lock CPs and I'd be perfectly fine with the current ally system.

Faction lock soup CP and you make soup useless. Increase base CP for all armies but take away CP for allied detachment and you get a nice little workable give and take situation.

I guess I just see soup as less of problem here than just battalions giving too much CP. Back when they changed battalions to give 5 CP I remember being one of the few people not thrilled by it. The reason is because troops are on average are far cheaper than any other units, meaning that’s it’s less points to get a battalion which grants 500% more command points than equivalent detachments.(spearhead, outriders, and vanguard). I’d have rather GW have raised the amount of CP those detachments give, so there’s more of opportunity cost of bringing a battalion. 4 CPs for battalions, 10 CPs for brigades and 2 CPs for vanguard, outrider, and spearhead seem much better to me. Also raising the points on certain cheap troops and HQs will help a lot.

Martel732 wrote:
As always, miscosted units are the problem in both mono-faction AND allied armies. Allied armies have more statistical access to miscosted units. But if there were no miscosted units, this wouldn't matter.

There is the added impact that some units are costed fine UNTIL you add them to a Soup list. Knights are costed partly with the understanding that a Knight army isn't going to generate many command points. Give Knights access to plentiful command points and they get significantly better.

The simplest fix is to remove CP from list building and tie it to points. Allies should be taken cause you like those units, not to grab a bunch of cheap CP cause you took a dirt cheap battery option.

 Marmatag wrote:
gg no re

15 min no rush


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
Well that and, this forum is wholly incapable of differentiating between "good" and "overpowered."

KEKE!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Funny how it's the people who play factions that benefit from soup that always go up to bat for it.

Maybe you would feel differently if necrons were stronger?

 Kriswall wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
As always, miscosted units are the problem in both mono-faction AND allied armies. Allied armies have more statistical access to miscosted units. But if there were no miscosted units, this wouldn't matter.

There is the added impact that some units are costed fine UNTIL you add them to a Soup list. Knights are costed partly with the understanding that a Knight army isn't going to generate many command points. Give Knights access to plentiful command points and they get significantly better.

Knights were always meant to use allies.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Funny how it's the people who play factions that benefit from soup that always go up to bat for it.

Allies, not soup.

The only keyword i'm aware of that can actually soup is ADEPTUS ASTARTES.

And saying "no allies" means squatting quite a few things. Let's start with assassins and knights. Sound good?

God, I would be so happy if assassins were gone forever. feth that faction.

Kinda curious here, is that sarcasm? Cause outside of being a fun fluffy choice it's not like assassins have ever been all that strong except maybe in 7th in some lists. His point stands though, without some ally mechanic a lot of what they have released over the years stops working. Hell it would mean the newest release from RT don't work.

Assassins have never been truly overpowered, but that isn't my issue with them. My issue is that they are not and were never intended to be a faction unto themselves, and exist for the sole purpose of selling models to all Imperium players that just want a counterpick character. The Culexus isn't OP in a vacuum but because it exists the entire Imperium has a powerful tech choice against psyker armies while armies that can't run psykers at all are left with embarrassingly poor equivalents.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Maybe you would feel differently if necrons were stronger?

I wouldn't. I mean, Tau are pretty much as strong as you can get while having the limited options of a mono-faction with a clear mechanical identity and they are only just competitive with the soup armies.

 Kriswall wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
As always, miscosted units are the problem in both mono-faction AND allied armies. Allied armies have more statistical access to miscosted units. But if there were no miscosted units, this wouldn't matter.

There is the added impact that some units are costed fine UNTIL you add them to a Soup list. Knights are costed partly with the understanding that a Knight army isn't going to generate many command points. Give Knights access to plentiful command points and they get significantly better.

Speculation. We don't know how they costed IKs. The medium ones are quite lackluster, I assure you. Even with many CPs.

Martel732 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
As always, miscosted units are the problem in both mono-faction AND allied armies. Allied armies have more statistical access to miscosted units. But if there were no miscosted units, this wouldn't matter.

There is the added impact that some units are costed fine UNTIL you add them to a Soup list. Knights are costed partly with the understanding that a Knight army isn't going to generate many command points. Give Knights access to plentiful command points and they get significantly better.

Speculation. We don't know how they costed IKs. The medium ones are quite lackluster, I assure you. Even with many CPs.

It would make the most sense that play testing does not include soup, because the potential range of combinations is so absurd as to be impossible to test in a reasonable amount of time. Additionally, we wouldn't necessarily want them to test everything with Loyal 32 in the mix, because any changes to that changes all the prior assumptions.

Salt donkey wrote:


I guess I just see soup as less of problem here than just battalions giving too much CP. Back when they changed battalions to give 5 CP I remember being one of the few people not thrilled by it. The reason is because troops are on average are far cheaper than any other units, meaning that’s it’s less points to get a battalion which grants 500% more command points than equivalent detachments.(spearhead, outriders, and vanguard).

Yep. That was a stupid 'fix', it worsened the problem they tried to correct. Just up the base battleforged CP to 5 or 6 instead. If 200ish point IG detachment brings only three extra CPs, it is not such an autotake. Sure, still useful, but you might want to consider other option too at that point.

I still don't find any IK other than Castellan to be an issue, regardless of how many CP they have.