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.

 Peregrine wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Honestly I'm for half a point. 45 points for an Infantry squad seems alright but we all know GW won't price it that way.

So now we're talking about a 15 point increase in the cost of a CP battery. Do you honestly think that this will make them any less of an auto-include? That we won't still see every IK player taking a CP battery?

Are you really saying that since they'll still be allied in that we shouldn't nerf a model that is worth more than 4 points?

 Daedalus81 wrote:


It's a little like saying there is no climate change, because you're not actively measuring the temperatures.

Isn't this a point in Peregrine's favor?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Honestly I'm for half a point. 45 points for an Infantry squad seems alright but we all know GW won't price it that way.

So now we're talking about a 15 point increase in the cost of a CP battery. Do you honestly think that this will make them any less of an auto-include? That we won't still see every IK player taking a CP battery?

Are you really saying that since they'll still be allied in that we shouldn't nerf a model that is worth more than 4 points?

I think is more "this is not going to stop bad thing to happen" unless either
A) the nerf becomes crippling and AM by itself is compromised
B) souping is forbidden

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

it's an insane coincidence and there's surely no correlation











people don't give a gak about game design, they want easier wins. Simple as that. Anyone who thinks Soup is good for anything other than selling more models, is being biased

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


It's a little like saying there is no climate change, because you're not actively measuring the temperatures.

Isn't this a point in Peregrine's favor?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Honestly I'm for half a point. 45 points for an Infantry squad seems alright but we all know GW won't price it that way.

So now we're talking about a 15 point increase in the cost of a CP battery. Do you honestly think that this will make them any less of an auto-include? That we won't still see every IK player taking a CP battery?

Are you really saying that since they'll still be allied in that we shouldn't nerf a model that is worth more than 4 points?

I think is more "this is not going to stop bad thing to happen" unless either
A) the nerf becomes crippling and AM by itself is compromised
B) souping is forbidden

Or C) you bring back platoons, requiring a platoon commander model (would be considered part of the troops slot so no longer an elites choice and subject to Ro3), with two troop squads minimum per platoon for a troops choice which makes a CP battery go from 180 points to 360 points without screwing over guard players but making it a much harder choice for Imperium lists. The extra 60 points spent on gakky PC's as a tax is roughly equivalent to a bump to 5ppm, so you don't need to even dick with the points costs.

 Peregrine wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
5 or 6. I'd have to see play testing on both. IG is a faction where everything costs a pack of skittles, there by gaining a huge number of aggregate wounds. What could go wrong with letting ig field more wounds than many lists can deal out over six turns unhindered?

So you honestly think that a 30-60 point increase in the cost of the CP battery would make it a tough decision and not an auto-include?

(Correct answer: it would still be an auto-include.)

It would need to be a combination of things. Castellan needs another 30-50 pts increased, artemia hellhounds need another 20-30 increase (like seriously, how is it cheaper than a regular hellhound when it does MORE damage?) and mortars either nerfed or another 3-5 points increase. All of these are units/options that are overperforming for their cost.

The resulting addition of 100-150 points will force you to take less than best units for rest of your slots, which will make the standard IK/AM soup ever so slightly less competitive.

 SHUPPET wrote:

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

it's an insane coincidence and there's surely no correlation











people don't give a gak about game design, they want easier wins. Simple as that. Anyone who thinks Soup is good for anything other than selling more models, is being biased

This is a loaded statement and not really true. You have a lot of players who like that the game has a ton of subfactions that are viable solely because of allies. The ally system isn't the problem, certain options are. Again, how many times has a top table had a list with an assassin, admech and greyknights in this edition. It's cool that I can make a list like that and tell a cool story fighting another army. The fact that each codex has internal balance is an issue.

Salt donkey wrote:

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

It can be fluffy for, say, a squad of Space Marines to bolster an Imperial Guard army. It is not fluffy to be able to cherry-pick the best units from multiple dexes. Different forces have different combat doctrines, command structures, and lines of supply. Thus, simply slapping a bunch of units from disparate fighting forces together does not actually make an effective combat force and is only done in dire situations. That can be a highly narrative scenario, so it has a place in narrative play, but should not be allowed in matched play.

Salt donkey wrote:
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.

Nothing was ever stopping you from buying models that were cool. As for being allowed to play with them without having to buy the models you were less enthused about, again the answer is narrative play.

Salt donkey wrote:
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

No it doesn't. What soup does is encourage the cherry-picking of the best units. That is absolutely terrible for list diversity.

Salt donkey wrote:

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.

That is something soup absolutely does. Mono-dex-factions cannot possibly be balanced vs the endless possibilities of soup without making them overpowered against a mono-dex list. That sets up a terrible situation in casual games, where players who happen to play a multi-dex-faction are obliged to soup in order to stand a reasonable chance against the OPed mono-dex-factions.

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

 SHUPPET wrote:

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

it's an insane coincidence and there's surely no correlation











people don't give a gak about game design, they want easier wins. Simple as that. Anyone who thinks Soup is good for anything other than selling more models, is being biased

I've got Necrons, Orks, and Tau in addition to my Imperium stuff. Still think soup is better for the game in the long term.

Soup makes having to get 20+ factions roughly equal in power to one another down to seven. Which one of those is more likely to eventually achieve balance given a three times a year change cycle? Even as Marmatag pointed out, you extend the look at lists at the SoCal open to those with 5W/1L and all seven major factions had a road to victory. That's honestly a great place to be in for a game with this many races/units.

Getting every single chapter or craftworld balanced with every other is a pipe dream and I don't see how people can reasonably expect their precious Iron Hands or Hive Fleet Gorgon to be as good as the 5 options in their respective codices, much less when pitted against any of the major factions in the game. If you play some weird niche faction, you accept that you're not playing competitive and move on or you use the god damned keywords system and actually do well. Insisting on monofaction at this point is like trying to force everyone you play with in Starcraft to agree to "No rush 15."

There's only three books that are in a relative disadvantage due to lacking allies, Orks, Necrons, and Tau, and it can be easily overcome with a few buffs/new units. I fully expect to see Necron/Tau buffs in CA and we have no idea if the Orks book will be enough to bring them up to par yet, but everybody else is on roughly equal footing if you use the keyword system that defines this edition.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
This is a loaded statement and not really true. You have a lot of players who like that the game has a ton of subfactions that are viable solely because of allies. The ally system isn't the problem, certain options are. Again, how many times has a top table had a list with an assassin, admech and greyknights in this edition. It's cool that I can make a list like that and tell a cool story fighting another army. The fact that each codex has internal balance is an issue.

I suppose you don't recall why character targeting rule was revised.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

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

it's an insane coincidence and there's surely no correlation











people don't give a gak about game design, they want easier wins. Simple as that. Anyone who thinks Soup is good for anything other than selling more models, is being biased

This is a loaded statement and not really true. You have a lot of players who like that the game has a ton of subfactions that are viable solely because of allies. The ally system isn't the problem, certain options are. Again, how many times has a top table had a list with an assassin, admech and greyknights in this edition. It's cool that I can make a list like that and tell a cool story fighting another army. The fact that each codex has internal balance is an issue.

I didn't say allies are a problem. Certain codexes could be designed for allied detachments, like Assassins, etc. The problem is "soup". It's not my fault that people start using that word to mean "1800 pts of one army allied with 200 pts of one other".

RogueApiary wrote:

I've got Necrons, Orks, and Tau in addition to my Imperium stuff. Still think soup is better for the game in the long term.

That's great to hear, thanks for your completely unbiased opinion! Let me guess which one of those factions you are mainly playing in 8th though, right?



*checks your recent posts in Tactics category*

Over 100 posts in a row, every. single. one. in Imperium threads, split between 4 or 5 different IoM armies, I gave up scrolling after that.

Yeah you're exactly who we are to with he said "people who play factions that benefit from soup that always go up to bat for it".

 skchsan wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
This is a loaded statement and not really true. You have a lot of players who like that the game has a ton of subfactions that are viable solely because of allies. The ally system isn't the problem, certain options are. Again, how many times has a top table had a list with an assassin, admech and greyknights in this edition. It's cool that I can make a list like that and tell a cool story fighting another army. The fact that each codex has internal balance is an issue.

I suppose you don't recall why character targeting rule was revised.

And they fixed what was a problem as they should do to anything that in game is an issue. That also wasn't unique to any particular faction it was an issue with character targeting in general.

 SHUPPET wrote:

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

it's an insane coincidence and there's surely no correlation











people don't give a gak about game design, they want easier wins. Simple as that. Anyone who thinks Soup is good for anything other than selling more models, is being biased

But isn't the opposite true? I mean. People that can't access allies, aren't they biased agaisnt it?
Personally, I would love for the range to be expanded and orks to be able to become mercs, and Necrons and Tau having access to some allied races or more expanded subfactions. Everything but more Imperium Factions.
And I'm of course biased because I have models for 5-6 armies (Assasins, SoB, SoS, Tempestus Scions, Imperial Knights, Adeptus Custodes) that I can't field as stand alone forces, and making them stand alone forces would cost me hundreds of dollars, but I can play thanks to the allies system as a cohesive force.

Personally I prefer for them to restrict soup (Only relics for you Warlord faction, not sharing CP between subfactions/factions, only the 3 generic ones), and make taking allies or not a tactical choice, not a obvious choice, than to just ban allies. Some people would say that something like that would kill allies. I disagree. Allies would become that, cohesive forces that can be played by themselves that work together (Like a SM batallion + IM batallion) instead of a mix of the All-Stars. So like playing two mini armies instead of a mixed IMPERIUM one.
Also, make psychic powers only affect the subfaction of the model thats casting them.

 SHUPPET wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

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

it's an insane coincidence and there's surely no correlation

people don't give a gak about game design, they want easier wins. Simple as that. Anyone who thinks Soup is good for anything other than selling more models, is being biased

This is a loaded statement and not really true. You have a lot of players who like that the game has a ton of subfactions that are viable solely because of allies. The ally system isn't the problem, certain options are. Again, how many times has a top table had a list with an assassin, admech and greyknights in this edition. It's cool that I can make a list like that and tell a cool story fighting another army. The fact that each codex has internal balance is an issue.

I didn't say allies are a problem. Certain codexes could be designed for allied detachments, like Assassins, etc. The problem is "soup". It's not my fault that people start using that word to mean "1800 pts of one army allied with 200 pts of one other".

RogueApiary wrote:

I've got Necrons, Orks, and Tau in addition to my Imperium stuff. Still think soup is better for the game in the long term.

That's great to hear, thanks for your completely unbiased opinion! Let me guess which one of those factions you are mainly playing in 8th though, right?



*checks your recent posts in Tactics category*

Over 100 posts in a row, every. single. one. in Imperium threads, split between 4 or 5 different IoM armies, I gave up scrolling after that.

Yeah you're exactly who we are to with he said "people who play factions that benefit from soup that always go up to bat for it".

Oh snap, you got me there internet detective, I do mostly play imperium. Yet this somehow makes me want hundreds of dollars of models I own to never be balanced against the other hundreds of dollars worth of models I own cause reasons?

The game is clearly designed around allies and every balance change reinforces that. Notice that mono book CP costs go up rather than restricting who you can take as allies? That's because GW is looking at the IMPERIUM keyword when they adjust. Because they've figured out 7 is way the hell easier to balance than 20 and it's starting to show in tournament results.

Soup is very fluffy...but really? a squad of grunts sitting in a trench makes the knight shoot better? That's just dumb.

A squad of grunts sitting in the trench should make the grunts shoot better.

Plus soup is a way around the RO3...take two 1000 point armies instead of a heavily limited 2000 point army. That's just dumb.

By that logic, mono-builds should have RO6...but they don't.

 SHUPPET wrote:

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

it's an insane coincidence and there's surely no correlation











people don't give a gak about game design, they want easier wins. Simple as that. Anyone who thinks Soup is good for anything other than selling more models, is being biased

Ah yes. The ye old ad hominem. Let’s play fun word game shall we? Here’s my new defense of soup.

:Funny how it's the people who play factions that DON’T benefit from soup that always go up to bat against it

it's an insane coincidence and there's surely no correlation











people don't give a GAK about game design, they want easier wins. Simple as that. Anyone who doesn’t think soup is the greatest, is being biased:

Don’t corncern yourself if this comment seems familiar.

 JimOnMars wrote:
Soup is very fluffy...but really? a squad of grunts sitting in a trench makes the knight shoot better? That's just dumb.

A squad of grunts sitting in the trench should make the grunts shoot better.

Plus soup is a way around the RO3...take two 1000 point armies instead of a heavily limited 2000 point army. That's just dumb.

By that logic, mono-builds should have RO6...but they don't.

What army/ally combo can get 6 of a datasheet other than Demon princes (who only get around that because the demon princes have separately named data sheets)?

RogueApiary wrote:


Oh snap, you got me there internet detective, I do mostly play imperium.

I mean, YOU'RE the one who tried to imply you're some even handed perspective here like you're playing all these races, in DIRECT RESPONSE to us saying that all the people defending this are playing their own soup armies. And look at your posts, you're exclusively playing Imperium this edition! Don't get sassy because you narrative was exposed lol

RogueApiary wrote:
Yet this somehow makes me want hundreds of dollars of models I own to never be balanced against the other hundreds of dollars worth of models I own cause reasons?

Huh? This logic makes no sense. I mean, if you are power-gaming and trying to get an in-game advantage as was stated, for anything beyond the strongest army you own, the weaker it the better. You're only going to get matched against them too? That's exactly why you'd want that? :S

 Galas wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:


people don't give a gak about game design, they want easier wins. Simple as that. Anyone who thinks Soup is good for anything other than selling more models, is being biased

But isn't the opposite true? I mean. People that can't access allies, aren't they biased agaisnt it?

Not if it's bad game design, and the people able to recognize this are the people who don't benefit it (people who don't play keyword armies), or who DO benefit from it and are able to apply a bit of objectivity here (myself and many others).

There's very few people who don't own a soup faction who think it's good, you're right, and why would they, they know exactly why it's bad? but there's also plenty of people who DO OWN one, who think it's bad. It seems to be pretty much be personal bias that leads people to defend it, as far as I can see, because I only ever see really weak arguments defending it, from people who I know would be able to absolutely destroy those same sort of statements if they were against it.

Salt donkey wrote:

Ah yes. The ye old ad hominem. Let’s play fun word game shall we? Here’s my new defense of soup.

:Funny how it's the people who play factions that DON’T benefit from soup that always go up to bat against it

it's an insane coincidence and there's surely no correlation











people don't give a GAK about game design, they want easier wins. Simple as that. Anyone who doesn’t think soup is the greatest, is being biased:

Don’t corncern yourself if this comment seems familiar.

I play Tyranids and Chaos buddy, both Keywords with 3 or more factions available. Back to the drawing board for you, with this poorly thought out response.

 Crimson 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.

Knights were always meant to use allies.

Or be the allies.

The bitterness is thick in this thread.

I play Chaos and occasionally take Khorne Daemons as allies. No mixed detachments, everybody is grouped according to their Codex.

Could GW have put all the datasheets for CSM and Daemons all in a single Codex? Sure.

But, at the end of the day, what difference does it make when all the datasheets appear in a single book? I would be taking the same army. If there was a rule that limited me to playing from a single Codex, I'd be fine with that too. I know how to run my armies, no one wins or loses more often when I play units from 2 Codexes.

The reason Orks, Tau and Necrons are weak (for now) is because Xenos armies don't sell as well as Imperium / Chaos. If people bought models for these factions, GW would expand the range and they would have more options with better rules. But the fact is Xenos armies (except Eldar) are not as popular so they don't get the same kind of support.

Blaming soup for Necron / Tau / Ork woes is silly. The only disadvantage comes with command points, and strategy is not what those factions are known for. Changing the situation would require more people buying more models, a lot more.

 techsoldaten wrote:
The bitterness is thick in this thread.

Hot damn it is. Makes for good readin'!

Strategy is not what Necron and T'au are known for? Did it ever occur that everybody plays imperium and such because they are more powerful due to soup? Bad argument is bad...

 techsoldaten wrote:

The reason Orks, Tau and Necrons are weak (for now) is because Xenos armies don't sell as well as Imperium / Chaos. If people bought models for these factions, GW would expand the range and they would have more options with better rules. But the fact is Xenos armies (except Eldar) are not as popular so they don't get the same kind of support.

So it's the customer's fault if a product is defective. We should take one for the team.
Wow.

Zothos wrote:
Strategy is not what Necron and T'au are known for? Did it ever occur that everybody plays imperium and such because they are more powerful due to soup? Bad argument is bad...

Necrons are shambling metal space zombies with no autonomy. Tau need drones to tell them what to shoot. Each expresses their strategy better off the battlefield, they don't deserve CPs from a fluff perspective. So I'm good with that.

Imperium armies existed long before you had soup to blame. They're not powerful because they can mix units from several armies.

Perhaps the point you are missing is Imperium armies outsell Xenos armies by a mile. Of course GW is going to give them more options and better rules. They want people buying more of the popular stuff, it's the tyranny of the market at work.

If you really want Necrons to be better, buy more models and encourage a few thousand more people to buy more models. Otherwise, watch out for GW introducing 'Salad' in 9th edition, it will still be bad for non-Eldar Xenos players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

The reason Orks, Tau and Necrons are weak (for now) is because Xenos armies don't sell as well as Imperium / Chaos. If people bought models for these factions, GW would expand the range and they would have more options with better rules. But the fact is Xenos armies (except Eldar) are not as popular so they don't get the same kind of support.

So it's the customer's fault if a product is defective. We should take one for the team.
Wow.

Defective?

Your army does not autowin every game and others are a little more competitive. So that means the game is broken.

Yeah, right. My other army is Grey Knights, I play them monocodex when I want a challenge. The game works just fine.

Army gets more love -> sells more models -> army gets more love -> sells more models -> repeat ad naseum.

It’s a terrible argument; but it’s sadly true - who remembers when Dark Eldar/Necrons had to wait 12 YEARS for a new codex?

Hell, most Xenos factions got placed on the back burner, while the codex release cycle was Marine/not-marine/Marine/not-marine.

They were literally every other codex release. This was also when there were factions that had gone for 5/10 years plus without an update.

 SHUPPET wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:


Oh snap, you got me there internet detective, I do mostly play imperium.

I mean, YOU'RE the one who tried to imply you're some even handed perspective here like you're playing all these races, in DIRECT RESPONSE to us saying that all the people defending this are playing their own soup armies. And look at your posts, you're exclusively playing Imperium this edition! Don't get sassy because you narrative was exposed lol

RogueApiary wrote:
Yet this somehow makes me want hundreds of dollars of models I own to never be balanced against the other hundreds of dollars worth of models I own cause reasons?

Huh? This logic makes no sense. I mean, if you are power-gaming and trying to get an in-game advantage as was stated, for anything beyond the strongest army you own, the weaker it the better. You're only going to get matched against them too? That's exactly why you'd want that? :S

I was playing Index Deathwatch for a pretty good chunk of this edition under the expectation their codex would look like the GK one. But sure, I'm a power-gamer solely concerned with W/L. And I'd ideally like any of my armies to play on par with any of my other armies as each one represents a significant investment of money and hobby time. I just don't think soup is the problem. I've already put out my philosophy, there are 7 factions in this game and anyone playing an Imperium codex as a mono-codex is just putting on artificial restrictions on themselves. Eventually, they'll make enough changes where the 'true' mono codices (Necrons, Orks, Tau) can be fully on par with the soup factions either by strengthening them, weakening soup components, or giving them allies of their own. They've already started this by adjusting imperium book CP costs to take into account AM batteries. If CA boosts Necrons and Tau, and if the Orks' codex release is found to be good enough once people get some table time with it, I think we'll be in a pretty good spot.

RogueApiary wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
Soup is very fluffy...but really? a squad of grunts sitting in a trench makes the knight shoot better? That's just dumb.

A squad of grunts sitting in the trench should make the grunts shoot better.

Plus soup is a way around the RO3...take two 1000 point armies instead of a heavily limited 2000 point army. That's just dumb.

By that logic, mono-builds should have RO6...but they don't.

What army/ally combo can get 6 of a datasheet other than Demon princes (who only get around that because the demon princes have separately named data sheets)?

None. Mono builds should have this rule.

 techsoldaten wrote:

Defective?

Your army does not autowin every game and others are a little more competitive. So that means the game is broken.

Yeah, right. My other army is Grey Knights, I play them monocodex when I want a challenge. The game works just fine.

This is not what you implied above, I am sorry. You said "If people bought models for these factions..."
Au contraire, if GW updated the models for these factions and wrote better rules, we would escape such vicious circle.

Arguing that's whats best for GW's pockets runs parallel to what's best for game design, is counter productive and unrealistic. At best you can argue that at the expense of game design, selling more miniatures through soup can improve the profitability of the game and the size of the scene.

Or, simply, put up a chart for bonus command points based upon the army-wide keyword. Imperium, chaos and pointy-ears get 0, middle-weight armies like drukari, IK and (possibly) orks get 4, weak factions like tau & necron get 8. GK is singled out at 12.

 SHUPPET wrote:


I play Tyranids and Chaos buddy, both Keywords with 3 or more factions available. Back to the drawing board for you, with this poorly thought out response.

Cool I played pure knights at the last tournament I went to, but that’s neither here nor there. My point was that your argument cuts both ways. You took it as matter of fact that soup defenders always play soup, but some soup players reject soup. Furthermore you claim that people who don’t play soup always reject soup. You claim these things without any hard evidence, and as far as antidotal evidence goes I know plenty of pure army players who have no problem with soup. As far as the debate itself goes you’ve haven’t attacked any of my stances.

Also do I really I have to say that a speaker’s position on a topic Is independent of the logic of their argument? Certainly if somebody is overcommitted to one side of issue their arguments can be become biased. For example, if someone where to use a logical fallacy such as ad hominem in their opening arguments while casually ignoring evidence the other side has brought, I could reasonably assume they are biased. This is because they can’t be troubled to come with a real point yet are totally sure of their position. A classic symptom of somebody who won’t change their mind no matter what logic is presented to them. On the other hand, if somebody’s argument includes things like evidence and logical statements, does it really matter if they might be biased? To put it bluntly attack my argument not me. (Not saying my argument is automatically foolproof, I’d just prefer it if you attacked it rather than me first.)