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.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Company has good models and bad rules: sells X
Company has good models and good rules: sells X+Y

it's not that simple. For example, if in order to make the rules better you make it more difficult for people to use the models they want to buy. That's what many people here want, but it's a bad idea from commercial perspective.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

It doesn't matter if a game has those qualities so long as it's commercially successful.

See above, actual revenue vs potential.

You would need to explain that to me.

Company has good models and bad rules: sells X
Company has good models and good rules: sells X+Y

Okay. And what are you saying about it?

 Crimson wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Company has good models and bad rules: sells X
Company has good models and good rules: sells X+Y

it's not that simple. For example, if in order to make the rules better you make it more difficult for people to use the models they want to buy. That's what many people here want, but it's a bad idea from commercial perspective.

This is a valid observation in general, but I think at least in the case of GW games, none asks for perfect war simulations or subtle game design. Just a way to put in a viable way the toys on the table.

@techsoldaten: Shuppet gave up, I give up too. I suppose you win the discussion, from a certain point of view.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Company has good models and bad rules: sells X
Company has good models and good rules: sells X+Y

it's not that simple. For example, if in order to make the rules better you make it more difficult for people to use the models they want to buy. That's what many people here want, but it's a bad idea from commercial perspective.

That is somewhat true considering that some of the most popular board games are those god awful Milton Bradly games. Ease of entry and mass market appeal has its benefits for profitability and yet we still have niche genre games being made for both the table top as well as on digital media (PC/Consoles). Games like Hearts of Iron and Total War are not exactly the most mass marketable games and yet they are well known and popular to those who enjoy those types of games. If we want to focus on mass market appeal, instant gratification, and ease of entry to maximize profits then those companies should of just made another Candy Crush type game because those seem to be far more profitable than grand strategy or battlefield strategy games. Not trying to set up strawmen or spew hyperbole but sometimes catering to a more niche audience is worthwhile in ways outside of trying to maximize profits.

So I think there is a slight correlation between rules balance and sales, but not enough to claim that becuese X system sells well, it’s rules must be “good.” That being said I still think 40k’s rules system is a good spot,

To me what defines a good rules system is one which is both fun and relatively balanced, which I believe 40k achieves at the moment. What’s interesting about these 2 aspects and there somewhat mutually exclusive. Fun typically happens in tactics game where units/ armies are able to do cool and powerful things, like firing a vortex missel and which destroys your opponents titan. Notice how that’s fun but not remotely balanced. Chess meanwhile is the standered bearer for most balanced game, where in game skill is by far the most important aspect in winning. Yet we’re all here discussing 40k, likely because it has lots of variety of cool models, and flexibility in what you can do.

To me it seems like a lot of people in this thread want their cake and to eat it to. There’s just no chance that 40k can ever be completely balanced in a way where every army can be completely balanced. Now it’s a worthy goal sure, but I fairly certain removing soup won’t achieve this, and will very likely make things worse. It will at least make things less fun (in my eyes) since options and pontential synergy will decrease with that move. As far as more units becoming viable, I hate to keep bringing it up but it that wasn’t really the case during 5th either. In any competitive (or semi competitive) game, people would just spam the cream of the crop that their codex offered (usually guys in metal boxes), while ignoreing 70% of their dex’s offerings. Why would that be any different now?

 DrGiggles wrote:
I think you are conflating commercial success with "good" game design. Commercial success for a game isn't entirely dependent on how good the game was designed, especially for a game like 40k where there are people who buy the models used to play the game to paint but never play the game itself.

A game like Settler's of Catan is arguably a more well designed game than 40k, but it isn't anywhere near as successful commercially for a number of factors that don't have to do with it's design.

Edit: Spelling.

Pretty sure I am keeping the terms straight. I am saying 'good game design' is a meaningless phrase and commercial success is the only useful way to discuss the quality of a tabletop game.

Of course, I mean this in a specific way. Sales are a combined measure of a consumer's willingness to spend money on a game and the producer's satisfaction with the margins. Without one or the other, the game goes away.

There are plenty of terrific games, packed with clever gimmicks and enchanting background materials, that vanish every year. No one cares about any of that stupid design when the remaining stock is being transported to the dump. Maybe rats, when the packaging can be used to build a nest. But every pile of garbage is a heap of rotting dreams and stale aspirations devoid of purpose. It's disgusting to think about all the hours wasted sweating over something destined to become just another of the world's environmental problems. These grandiose designers and their overly-optimistic assessments of their work are arguably responsible for pollution and global warming at a macro level. There really should be criminal penalties for emphasizing design over business fundamentals.

Settlers of Catan might not sell as many units at 40k each year, but it's still a quality game. Don't ask me what I think of the game design, you probably would not like my answer. The fact people enjoy playing it enough to spend money so that it keeps being produced is enough for me.

The other thing I am saying, which might take some scrolling to get back to, is that soup is really good for 40k. GW is having a record year after streamlining 40k. The company's financial performance is evidence that 8th edition has been a 'good' design choice. The fact other businesses were forced out of the market is testament to how good.

I realize some people like soup and others don't. That means absolutely nothing about whether or not the game is well-designed. At best, those opinions only matter insofar as they affect sales, and there is no data to suggest they are slumping. So designers made the right choices.

You're absolutely right that some people buy GW models to paint them and never play the game. I just don't see how that observation explains the success of the company in the past year, they sold a lot more models than they have in the past. Is it possible that streamlined rules influenced non-players, or that people have been buying extra models for their soup armies?

Would love to hear thoughts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Company has good models and bad rules: sells X
Company has good models and good rules: sells X+Y

it's not that simple. For example, if in order to make the rules better you make it more difficult for people to use the models they want to buy. That's what many people here want, but it's a bad idea from commercial perspective.

This is a valid observation in general, but I think at least in the case of GW games, none asks for perfect war simulations or subtle game design. Just a way to put in a viable way the toys on the table.

@techsoldaten: Shuppet gave up, I give up too. I suppose you win the discussion, from a certain point of view.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I am genuinely interested in what you are trying to say about actual versus potential revenue.

Are you saying that GW has failed to maximize it's revenue due to flawed game design? Or are you trying to say, more generally, that a lack of design means some consumers will be turned off?

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Company has good models and bad rules: sells X
Company has good models and good rules: sells X+Y

it's not that simple. For example, if in order to make the rules better you make it more difficult for people to use the models they want to buy. That's what many people here want, but it's a bad idea from commercial perspective.

This is a valid observation in general, but I think at least in the case of GW games, none asks for perfect war simulations or subtle game design. Just a way to put in a viable way the toys on the table.

@techsoldaten: Shuppet gave up, I give up too. I suppose you win the discussion, from a certain point of view.

I asked "Explain why you think people would willingly pay for an advantage in P2W video games, but nobody would dream of doing so for 40k. If you're going to say the example is invalid, you have to explain why, just saying "apples to oranges" isn't an explanation at all."

and this was the the response:

"Sure. I believe my previous posts answered your first question, but I'm happy to reiterate.

As for the second question, this might require you accepting the idea that video games / mobile apps / etc are a completely separate market that invites no meaningful comparison. I'm not sure I could convince you of that and don't really want to waste my time trying to prove it."



This basically sums up everything about this pointless argument. There is no logic, no rationalisation being given, yet he still acts as though he's answering the question, in direct response to a post saying "just saying it doesn't work isn't an answer". But he's unwilling to waste his time proving it, how convenient.




I do give up. No matter what side anyone falls on the soup debate, I think anyone can recognise how absurd this particular argument, and the way it is being delivered, is. Sales does not equal good game design. How many people even bought into 40k knowing a damn thing about whether or not the game design was great?

How many people even bought into 40k knowing a damn thing about whether or not the game design was great?

It ain't that back as long as your starting army is good or at least mid tier. Problems start when your army is bad. The gap between the mid tier and good armies is huge. The store owner I play at, let me play for free yestarday vs his son eldar army. All my dead units could be recycled next turn. We played 5 turns, he killed 4700pts of GK, and I killed 600pts of eldar. half of it was from his hemlock brain frying itself and then exploding on the flank of his army.

Karol wrote:

How many people even bought into 40k knowing a damn thing about whether or not the game design was great?

It ain't that back as long as your starting army is good or at least mid tier. Problems start when your army is bad. The gap between the mid tier and good armies is huge. The store owner I play at, let me play for free yestarday vs his son eldar army. All my dead units could be recycled next turn. We played 5 turns, he killed 4700pts of GK, and I killed 600pts of eldar. half of it was from his hemlock brain frying itself and then exploding on the flank of his army.

You see how bad greyknights are? Space marines are only a little bit better. It's actually arguable that greyknights were better than space marines before the beta deep strike nerf.

If you want to have fun with your greyknights. Ask your opponent if you can ignore the deep strike rules for your greyknights because the they are still pretty bad even when they can deep strike turn 1.

Karol wrote:

How many people even bought into 40k knowing a damn thing about whether or not the game design was great?

It ain't that back as long as your starting army is good or at least mid tier. Problems start when your army is bad. The gap between the mid tier and good armies is huge. The store owner I play at, let me play for free yestarday vs his son eldar army. All my dead units could be recycled next turn. We played 5 turns, he killed 4700pts of GK, and I killed 600pts of eldar. half of it was from his hemlock brain frying itself and then exploding on the flank of his army.

Although you quoted it, and posed your response as though it was answering the question, it seems like it didn't really do that at all, and you simply just warped it into an excuse to complain about GK for the millionth time. So let me ask again: Did you know much about how well written the ruleset is when you first started buying 40k? Did you feel it had a fair unbalanced ruleset, and did this help shape your decision to buy into the game? I know it had absolutely zero to do with mine, I just thought Marines were cool and thought playing an army that literally eats them is even cooler. Please no more story about how much GK suck, we get it.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Company has good models and bad rules: sells X
Company has good models and good rules: sells X+Y

it's not that simple. For example, if in order to make the rules better you make it more difficult for people to use the models they want to buy. That's what many people here want, but it's a bad idea from commercial perspective.

This is a valid observation in general, but I think at least in the case of GW games, none asks for perfect war simulations or subtle game design. Just a way to put in a viable way the toys on the table.

@techsoldaten: Shuppet gave up, I give up too. I suppose you win the discussion, from a certain point of view.

I asked "Explain why you think people would willingly pay for an advantage in P2W video games, but nobody would dream of doing so for 40k. If you're going to say the example is invalid, you have to explain why, just saying "apples to oranges" isn't an explanation at all."

and this was the the response:

"Sure. I believe my previous posts answered your first question, but I'm happy to reiterate.

As for the second question, this might require you accepting the idea that video games / mobile apps / etc are a completely separate market that invites no meaningful comparison. I'm not sure I could convince you of that and don't really want to waste my time trying to prove it."



This basically sums up everything about this pointless argument. There is no logic, no rationalisation being given, yet he still acts as though he's answering the question, in direct response to a post saying "just saying it doesn't work isn't an answer". But he's unwilling to waste his time proving it, how convenient.




I do give up. No matter what side anyone falls on the soup debate, I think anyone can recognise how absurd this particular argument, and the way it is being delivered, is. Sales does not equal good game design. How many people even bought into 40k knowing a damn thing about whether or not the game design was great?

The main reason people stick around for 40k is because people know people will be playing 40k for years. For whatever reason - it's kind of unexplained as to why. People just play this game no matter how bad the rules are. The models are nice. I suppose the universe is pretty cool BUT it really doesn't explain why the game does so well.

My theory - it does well because people believe it will stick around. Not sure how it got that record - but it has it. 40k will live on forever probably.

So let me ask again: Did you know much about how well written the ruleset is when you first started buying 40k?

I expected it to be like any other game I played before, although my expiriance was limited to ccg. I did expect a 4000$ army to beat the living hell out of aa 400$ one. Same with an optimised list going vs something made out of a starter set times X. I was told though that you can play what ever you want in w40k, and that all stuff is valid as long as it has legal rules. Some people told me that GK maybe harder to play with, but no one explained to me what hard in w40k terms means.

Did you feel it had a fair unbalanced ruleset, and did this help shape your decision to buy into the game?

I didn't knew the rules set, I couldn't afford a 700$ army and the store owner had a GK army for sale and told me it would be good for me. Everyone else at my school, that asked me to start playing, and at that moment everyone was playing w40k, was having a lot of fun. Seen a few games, played a few demos. Seemed easy enough. And yes I knew that demo games are flawed, same as MtG demo games with pre build decks. What I did not expect was that an army could cost 25% less then another, but be 200% worse

I know it had absolutely zero to do with mine, I just thought Marines were cool and thought playing an army that literally eats them is even cooler. Please no more story about how much GK suck, we get it.

What am I suppose to ask or talk about then? I don't have another army. Even If I had the cash to buy more models, I would be too scared or nerfs to buy anything. I just want GW to fix the army I already have models for, so that I can get at least as much as the other people at my school. I would even be down to getting 2-3months of fun playing like the BA player that quit after the deep strike FAQ. Also I can't really use example of other armies, as I never played them. Maybe necron or orcs are just as bad, although I doubt it as both seem to be placing higher then GK in tournaments, and could be used as an example of a difference between a good codex to build list like DE or IG, and something bad.

Karol wrote:

So let me ask again: Did you know much about how well written the ruleset is when you first started buying 40k?

I expected it to be like any other game I played before, although my expiriance was limited to ccg. I did expect a 4000$ army to beat the living hell out of aa 400$ one. Same with an optimised list going vs something made out of a starter set times X. I was told though that you can play what ever you want in w40k, and that all stuff is valid as long as it has legal rules. Some people told me that GK maybe harder to play with, but no one explained to me what hard in w40k terms means.

Did you feel it had a fair unbalanced ruleset, and did this help shape your decision to buy into the game?

I didn't knew the rules set, I couldn't afford a 700$ army and the store owner had a GK army for sale and told me it would be good for me. Everyone else at my school, that asked me to start playing, and at that moment everyone was playing w40k, was having a lot of fun. Seen a few games, played a few demos. Seemed easy enough. And yes I knew that demo games are flawed, same as MtG demo games with pre build decks. What I did not expect was that an army could cost 25% less then another, but be 200% worse

Thank you for the response, this was a great answer to the question, and is I think pretty common. My 40k purchase also had nothing to do with any perception that the ruleset was better, I assumed I had just as good a chance as getting good rules with it as I did anywhere else, and barely even considered it. It's difficult to motivate yourself to learn the rules of a game you aren't already sold on playing, especially considering the bloat that characterized 40k till now. Sounds like in your case, the game design actually even may have detracted from your purchase if you had known better.

Karol wrote:

I know it had absolutely zero to do with mine, I just thought Marines were cool and thought playing an army that literally eats them is even cooler. Please no more story about how much GK suck, we get it.

What am I suppose to ask or talk about then? I don't have another army. Even If I had the cash to buy more models, I would be too scared or nerfs to buy anything. I just want GW to fix the army I already have models for, so that I can get at least as much as the other people at my school. I would even be down to getting 2-3months of fun playing like the BA player that quit after the deep strike FAQ. Also I can't really use example of other armies, as I never played them. Maybe necron or orcs are just as bad, although I doubt it as both seem to be placing higher then GK in tournaments, and could be used as an example of a difference between a good codex to build list like DE or IG, and something bad.

What are you supposed to talk about? See above. You answered that question just fine the second try around. If you want to complain about GK go ahead, but don't quote a question about what motivated you to get into 40k and act as though "hey my GK lost to Eldar here's a story nobody asked for or cares about" is any sort of an answer to it.

To anyone who thinks soup isn't a problem, do something for me. Tell me the single aspect of this edition that causes more balance issues than soup. You can't, there isn't one. The vast majority of GTs in this edition have had the top 10-15 places dominated by soup. Typically 5-8 imperial soup lists and 3-5 ynnari soup lists in the top 15. Every. Single. Event. How is this good for the game? At least with allies, you were forced to pay some kind of tax for taking other factions. You had to have an HQ and troops, typically point sinks that you didn't want or need, to get access to the cool stuff that other factions have to offer. You were also limited to 2 factions, one primary and one allied. Now you can have 3 factions, and with the detachments the way they are, you pay no penalty for getting extra CP and covering your own weaknesses.

You can't balance point costs around soup lists, otherwise lots of units become unplayable in a mono-faction list. There's also the issue of having so many combos, it becomes literally impossible for the people writing the rules to actually playtest them. If soup ceased to exist, it would be much easier to adjust points because you would only have to factor in the other units in the same codex. It is literally impossible to accurately point thinks like IKs and custodes jetbikes in the context of soup lists.

So let me know if anyone has an answer to my riddle. Name something that causes more balance issues in the game right now than soup lists with CP batteries and 3 different factions.

 Toofast wrote:
To anyone who thinks soup isn't a problem, do something for me. Tell me the single aspect of this edition that causes more balance issues than soup. You can't, there isn't one. The vast majority of GTs in this edition have had the top 10-15 places dominated by soup. Typically 5-8 imperial soup lists and 3-5 ynnari soup lists in the top 15. Every. Single. Event. How is this good for the game? At least with allies, you were forced to pay some kind of tax for taking other factions. You had to have an HQ and troops, typically point sinks that you didn't want or need, to get access to the cool stuff that other factions have to offer. You were also limited to 2 factions, one primary and one allied. Now you can have 3 factions, and with the detachments the way they are, you pay no penalty for getting extra CP and covering your own weaknesses.

You can't balance point costs around soup lists, otherwise lots of units become unplayable in a mono-faction list. There's also the issue of having so many combos, it becomes literally impossible for the people writing the rules to actually playtest them. If soup ceased to exist, it would be much easier to adjust points because you would only have to factor in the other units in the same codex. It is literally impossible to accurately point thinks like IKs and custodes jetbikes in the context of soup lists.

So let me know if anyone has an answer to my riddle. Name something that causes more balance issues in the game right now than soup lists with CP batteries and 3 different factions.

The root of the problem is miscosted units. And yes, you absolutely can and must balance them both soup and monoplay in mind; that this is somehow impossible is a fallacy. Marines alone have access to more units that the whole Eldar grand alliance. If it is possible to balance all those marine units and marines don't need to be banned from matched play, then it is possible to balance the eldar soup as well.

 Crimson wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
To anyone who thinks soup isn't a problem, do something for me. Tell me the single aspect of this edition that causes more balance issues than soup. You can't, there isn't one. The vast majority of GTs in this edition have had the top 10-15 places dominated by soup. Typically 5-8 imperial soup lists and 3-5 ynnari soup lists in the top 15. Every. Single. Event. How is this good for the game? At least with allies, you were forced to pay some kind of tax for taking other factions. You had to have an HQ and troops, typically point sinks that you didn't want or need, to get access to the cool stuff that other factions have to offer. You were also limited to 2 factions, one primary and one allied. Now you can have 3 factions, and with the detachments the way they are, you pay no penalty for getting extra CP and covering your own weaknesses.

You can't balance point costs around soup lists, otherwise lots of units become unplayable in a mono-faction list. There's also the issue of having so many combos, it becomes literally impossible for the people writing the rules to actually playtest them. If soup ceased to exist, it would be much easier to adjust points because you would only have to factor in the other units in the same codex. It is literally impossible to accurately point thinks like IKs and custodes jetbikes in the context of soup lists.

So let me know if anyone has an answer to my riddle. Name something that causes more balance issues in the game right now than soup lists with CP batteries and 3 different factions.

The root of the problem is miscosted units. And yes, you absolutely can and must balance them both soup and monoplay in mind; that this is somehow impossible is a fallacy.

How the hell can an army be balanced monofaction, but remain the exact same of power with 10 other factions of equally powerful units also become available to take? That makes no sense. Assuming all units of all monofactions are the same level of power, either they are balanced as monofaction, that get made too strong with the addition of 9 other dexes available in soup, or they are underpowered monofactions that gets made balanced by the addition of 9 other dexes. You are lying to yourself if you think you can multiple the amount of selectable units in an army by like 10, every single one of them equally playable, and have it remain the same power level. That's not how this game works, to do so would require every faction have no identity of it's own and not a single unit complements another races weaknesses. And that makes no sense, even from SM chapters alone.

 Crimson wrote:
Marines alone have access to more units that the whole Eldar grand alliance. If it is possible to balance all those marine units and marines don't need to be banned from matched play, then it is possible to balance the eldar soup as well.

When have SM ever had all their units balanced? And how is this at all similar? Your comparison would involve it being balanced if you were able to build an army out of 10% of the units in the dex, but also being equally balanced if you can select from the entire dex, all of which being the exact same power level. When was this ever the case? How would that make sense?


If the factions are balanced individually, those same factions are not balanced when blended into a single force. That's just logic.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 DrGiggles wrote:
I think you are conflating commercial success with "good" game design. Commercial success for a game isn't entirely dependent on how good the game was designed, especially for a game like 40k where there are people who buy the models used to play the game to paint but never play the game itself.

A game like Settler's of Catan is arguably a more well designed game than 40k, but it isn't anywhere near as successful commercially for a number of factors that don't have to do with it's design.

Edit: Spelling.

Pretty sure I am keeping the terms straight. I am saying 'good game design' is a meaningless phrase and commercial success is the only useful way to discuss the quality of a tabletop game.

Of course, I mean this in a specific way. Sales are a combined measure of a consumer's willingness to spend money on a game and the producer's satisfaction with the margins. Without one or the other, the game goes away.

There are plenty of terrific games, packed with clever gimmicks and enchanting background materials, that vanish every year. No one cares about any of that stupid design when the remaining stock is being transported to the dump. Maybe rats, when the packaging can be used to build a nest. But every pile of garbage is a heap of rotting dreams and stale aspirations devoid of purpose. It's disgusting to think about all the hours wasted sweating over something destined to become just another of the world's environmental problems. These grandiose designers and their overly-optimistic assessments of their work are arguably responsible for pollution and global warming at a macro level. There really should be criminal penalties for emphasizing design over business fundamentals.

Settlers of Catan might not sell as many units at 40k each year, but it's still a quality game. Don't ask me what I think of the game design, you probably would not like my answer. The fact people enjoy playing it enough to spend money so that it keeps being produced is enough for me.

The other thing I am saying, which might take some scrolling to get back to, is that soup is really good for 40k. GW is having a record year after streamlining 40k. The company's financial performance is evidence that 8th edition has been a 'good' design choice. The fact other businesses were forced out of the market is testament to how good.

I realize some people like soup and others don't. That means absolutely nothing about whether or not the game is well-designed. At best, those opinions only matter insofar as they affect sales, and there is no data to suggest they are slumping. So designers made the right choices.

You're absolutely right that some people buy GW models to paint them and never play the game. I just don't see how that observation explains the success of the company in the past year, they sold a lot more models than they have in the past. Is it possible that streamlined rules influenced non-players, or that people have been buying extra models for their soup armies?

Would love to hear thoughts.

1) Let me clarify, by good game design I mean that the game is relatively balanced (to the point that all choices are at least competitive in a niche case for the majority of factions) and that it is fun to play. I do not think that soup need to be removed from the game, but there needs to be some sort of trade off vs playing a mono faction since it allows people to shore up weaknesses that were intentionally designed into the factions to make them play differently. A game that is well designed will definitely help contribute to a game companies financial success, but with a business model as complex as GW's I don't think that it is a great way to determine the state of the game at a competitive level at least. I think we are just going to agree to disagree on what 'good design' is.

2) It isn't an explanation, just an observation that GW's revenue stream is multifaceted so it is difficult to see how much of that is due to their rules being 'good' causing people to buy models vs the new model releases spurring people to buy their products. It is entirely possible people are buying extra models for soup armies which is good for GW's revenue, but that doesn't mean that soup is necessarily healthy for overall game balance but that brings us back to point #1 so that is where I will leave that.

 Crimson wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
To anyone who thinks soup isn't a problem, do something for me. Tell me the single aspect of this edition that causes more balance issues than soup. You can't, there isn't one. The vast majority of GTs in this edition have had the top 10-15 places dominated by soup. Typically 5-8 imperial soup lists and 3-5 ynnari soup lists in the top 15. Every. Single. Event. How is this good for the game? At least with allies, you were forced to pay some kind of tax for taking other factions. You had to have an HQ and troops, typically point sinks that you didn't want or need, to get access to the cool stuff that other factions have to offer. You were also limited to 2 factions, one primary and one allied. Now you can have 3 factions, and with the detachments the way they are, you pay no penalty for getting extra CP and covering your own weaknesses.

You can't balance point costs around soup lists, otherwise lots of units become unplayable in a mono-faction list. There's also the issue of having so many combos, it becomes literally impossible for the people writing the rules to actually playtest them. If soup ceased to exist, it would be much easier to adjust points because you would only have to factor in the other units in the same codex. It is literally impossible to accurately point thinks like IKs and custodes jetbikes in the context of soup lists.

So let me know if anyone has an answer to my riddle. Name something that causes more balance issues in the game right now than soup lists with CP batteries and 3 different factions.

The root of the problem is miscosted units. And yes, you absolutely can and must balance them both soup and monoplay in mind; that this is somehow impossible is a fallacy. Marines alone have access to more units that the whole Eldar grand alliance. If it is possible to balance all those marine units and marines don't need to be banned from matched play, then it is possible to balance the eldar soup as well.

Marine units was never balanced. Every edition you have like 1-2 autochoice, some good, some decent and 25...50% unplayable. The same problem is the soup, but in the much lesser extension.

 SHUPPET wrote:
How the hell can an army be balanced monofaction, but remain the exact same of power with 10 other factions of equally powerful units also become available to take? That makes no sense. Assuming all units of all monofactions are the same level of power, either they are balanced as monofaction, that get made too strong with the addition of 9 other dexes available in soup, or they are underpowered monofactions that gets made balanced by the addition of 9 other dexes. You are lying to yourself if you think you can multiple the amount of selectable units in an army by like 10, every single one of them equally playable, and have it remain the same power level. That's not how this game works, to do so would require every faction have no identity of it's own and not a single unit complements another races weaknesses. And that makes no sense, even from SM chapters alone.

Perfectly possible. A unit is always stronger if taken within it's own faction than within another faction, due to not receiving auras powers and so on, other than not playing into the critical mass of the army, so any time you soup you are adding Underpowered elements to your army (in your scenario with everything being perfectly balanced on a mono dex level).
Souping is almost always a bad optimization choice, it is useful only in 4 cases:

1) You are souping into an OP model. Here the problem is not the soup, just the model.
2) You are souping to cover an hole in your army. This is fine, it costs you quite a bit of tax in underperforming models (since they are out of faction), and the model themselves will again be an UP version. It's a good choice to have.
3) Getting easy CPs. This is not a problem with soup, but with the CP system.
4) Because there are strong interactions between the main army and the lesser ingredients, like Doom. These are the real problems and have to go.

None of those problems is due to soup itself. If IG payed a bit more for HQs (even buffing them, it's fine), CPs were not shared and no powers like Doom existed, then Soups would be 100% fine, and even now they are not that bad, the distance between a good mono dex army and a soup army isn't that big.

Spoletta wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
How the hell can an army be balanced monofaction, but remain the exact same of power with 10 other factions of equally powerful units also become available to take? That makes no sense. Assuming all units of all monofactions are the same level of power, either they are balanced as monofaction, that get made too strong with the addition of 9 other dexes available in soup, or they are underpowered monofactions that gets made balanced by the addition of 9 other dexes. You are lying to yourself if you think you can multiple the amount of selectable units in an army by like 10, every single one of them equally playable, and have it remain the same power level. That's not how this game works, to do so would require every faction have no identity of it's own and not a single unit complements another races weaknesses. And that makes no sense, even from SM chapters alone.

Perfectly possible. A unit is always stronger if taken within it's own faction than within another faction, due to not receiving auras powers and so on, other than not playing into the critical mass of the army, so any time you soup you are adding

That doesn't make a difference for so many armies, if anything the aura's are the small reward you get for NOT souping. On top of that, it unlocks stratagems, and when thats things like Vect etc, it's more than made up for already.

Spoletta wrote:

2) You are souping to cover an hole in your army. This is fine, it costs you quite a bit of tax in underperforming models (since they are out of faction), and the model themselves will again be an UP version. It's a good choice to have.

That does. Not. Matter. If you can cover your holes, even with a "weaker" version of a unit (and I use weaker VERY lightly, Harley Jetbikes, Castellans, etc are almost identical in power to how they look in a solo faction list), that's still an advantage, and MORE than valueable. That makes the faction STRONGER to have this option, and if the faction was already balanced and it's weaknesses were part of that balance, this gives it a VERY REAL COMPETITIVE EDGE.

Spoletta wrote:

4) Because there are strong interactions between the main army and the lesser ingredients, like Doom. These are the real problems and have to go.

So you're just going to remove every single strong interaction combo from the game? LOL. How.... how on earth can you possibly do this... this isn't even pipe dream levels of feasability. This is not even possible with current game design.

Spoletta wrote:

None of those problems is due to soup itself.

At some point, when you have a laundry list of reasons it doesn't work for a balanced game, yes soup is the problem, not everything else.

Spoletta wrote:
the distance between a good mono dex army and a soup army isn't that big.

You're... joking right?

Try mono Knights vs Knights + IG.

Try mono BA vs BA + IG + Knights.

Try solo GSC vs Tyranids + GSC

Try solo CSM vs CSM + Tzeentch + Nurgle


There is worlds of differences between the same dexes from soup armies when they are forced to solo.

You are not answering my points.

I said GOOD mono dex armies, and you talk about mono BA versus imperium soup... (and even there, it's just a CP shring problem) Nid vs nid + gsc is a good one though, and indeed there isn't a really big difference between the two, so thank you for proving my point i guess?

About the excessive interactions, i can count the existing ones on a single hand with fingers to spare.

Lastly, the option to cover a weakness of your army with a unit that does it but is not performing at full value while doing this, is a choice and choices are good for the game. Depending on the list it could be a good thing or a bad thn.

Soup is fine, fix the real problems.

Spoletta wrote:
Lastly, the option to cover a weakness of your army with a unit that does it but is not performing at full value while doing this, is a choice and choices are good for the game. Depending on the list it could be a good thing or a bad thing.

Except that isn't how it works with soup. You aren't covering your weakness with a lower-tier unit just for the sake of having something in that role, you're picking the best possible option for every role. The best shooting units, the best melee units, the best objective holders, the best CP generation, etc. And all of those units are working at full value while doing so. The loyal 32 are still a highly efficient screening unit, with all of the stats and abilities (including CP generation) they'd have in a pure IG army, when an IK player brings them to cover their lack of screening and CP. A squad of Custodes jetbikes are still the same fast melee threats they are in a pure Custodes army when you take them to cover an IG army's weakness in melee. Etc. The only choice is between playing a mono-faction list with strengths and weaknesses vs. playing a soup list that is best at everything.

Now, this could certainly change if you nerfed soup. For example, if every unit from a faction other than your warlord's codex cost 50% more points and lost all of its regiment/chapter/whatever rules then yes, you would be allying in a lower-tier unit and have a choice of whether it's really worth taking that partial-value option. But that isn't the game we have.

Spoletta wrote:

I said GOOD mono dex armies, and you talk about mono BA versus imperium soup... (and even there, it's just a CP shring problem) Nid vs nid + gsc is a good one though, and indeed there isn't a really big difference between the two, so thank you for proving my point i guess?

Wait so for your example to work, you have to ignore all the weak dexes, and only use the strongest solo dex out of each soup?

What's even the point of this comparison? If all dexes were equally balanced, there would no longer be a strongest dex to choose from and say "see GSC is a weak solo dex - tyranids doesn't get much from them joining up!". If GSC was equally as powerful as Tyranids it would be a whole host of strengthy units to pick from, and any choice from Nids vs any choice of Nids + GSC would be a lot more one-sided than it currently is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The hoops that people are trying to jump through to make soup not the problem, you may as well just admit that soup is the problem, you just don't want it gone. You have to change up the entire game to make soup work. When you can just change soup to benefit the rest of the game, the problem is, in fact, the obvious one. Soup is great for narrative play, but in competitive, it makes it impossible to balance solo factions. There is no way that even a balanced army like Death Guard, EVER doesn't benefit from being able to take units that compliment its obvious weaknesses.

The problem is with the keyword mechanic, it's that simple. If soup is going to stay it needs to be drastically changed. There needs to be SERIOUS opportunity costs to taking those units, not just "well you get them and everything they bring to the table, and you've plugged the thing that your army does poorly by design, and you get more CP, but they don't benefit from any auras you already have!" which is just lolworthy. That's not a real penalty.

Spoletta wrote:
You are not answering my points.

I said GOOD mono dex armies, and you talk about mono BA versus imperium soup... (and even there, it's just a CP shring problem) Nid vs nid + gsc is a good one though, and indeed there isn't a really big difference between the two, so thank you for proving my point i guess?

About the excessive interactions, i can count the existing ones on a single hand with fingers to spare.

Lastly, the option to cover a weakness of your army with a unit that does it but is not performing at full value while doing this, is a choice and choices are good for the game. Depending on the list it could be a good thing or a bad thn.

Soup is fine, fix the real problems.

Thousand Sons are a good army. Thousand Sons are much better if you put a bunch of Nurglings in front of their characters.

Cultists are a fine screen, but they're not as good as Nurglings, which means that for an army that relies heavily on screens and character protection having soup is always going to be better than not having soup.

That's an issue with Cultists not working in a Thousand Sons army, compared to CSM or Death Guard as they're getting no bonus. See, at least in Death Guard, you gotta choose between two relatively even choices (Poxwalkers and Cultists). In Thousand Sons, why wouldn't you use Tzaangors?

 SHUPPET wrote:

How the hell can an army be balanced monofaction, but remain the exact same of power with 10 other factions of equally powerful units also become available to take?

Because you are always just taking a tiny subsection of units you could take. My Primaris Space Marine army does not benefit one bit from Devastators being available to the Space Marine faction, as my army doesn't have them. Do you understand that units cost points? Larger pool of available units doesn't mean you can take them all, you just take those you pay points for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Silver144 wrote:

Marine units was never balanced. Every edition you have like 1-2 autochoice, some good, some decent and 25...50% unplayable. The same problem is the soup, but in the much lesser extension.

Right. Yet no one is suggesting that Space Marines should be banned from the matched play. Again, the real problem is that the point costs are fethed up, not that there is a large pool of units to choose from.

 Toofast wrote:
To anyone who thinks soup isn't a problem, do something for me. Tell me the single aspect of this edition that causes more balance issues than soup. You can't, there isn't one. The vast majority of GTs in this edition have had the top 10-15 places dominated by soup. Typically 5-8 imperial soup lists and 3-5 ynnari soup lists in the top 15. Every. Single. Event. How is this good for the game? At least with allies, you were forced to pay some kind of tax for taking other factions. You had to have an HQ and troops, typically point sinks that you didn't want or need, to get access to the cool stuff that other factions have to offer. You were also limited to 2 factions, one primary and one allied. Now you can have 3 factions, and with the detachments the way they are, you pay no penalty for getting extra CP and covering your own weaknesses.

You can't balance point costs around soup lists, otherwise lots of units become unplayable in a mono-faction list. There's also the issue of having so many combos, it becomes literally impossible for the people writing the rules to actually playtest them. If soup ceased to exist, it would be much easier to adjust points because you would only have to factor in the other units in the same codex. It is literally impossible to accurately point thinks like IKs and custodes jetbikes in the context of soup lists.

So let me know if anyone has an answer to my riddle. Name something that causes more balance issues in the game right now than soup lists with CP batteries and 3 different factions.

To answere you riddle I instantly came up with the basically broken moral system. It’s clear that GW intended cheap units like cultist and guardsmans to be held back by moral (good in theory), but because the system is so weak it didn’t work. This means by default cheap chaff units have an advantage over more elite infantry, and is a large part of why you see space marine complaint threads pop up all the time here. So in essence because the moral system is weak, GW has invalidated a good chunk of infrantry and made cheap bodies too good.

I keep seeing people bring up that soup is a common thing as a point against it, but why is that a bad thing? If list and unit diversity are still high (which the evidence supports) with soup, why is that a problem? That’s why I believe the moral system is an actual problem. It clearly impacts unit diversity, because at the moment there’s little reason to take tactical marines over say scouts, or any type of Chaos space marines over things like tzaangors or cultists.

 Crimson wrote:
Right. Yet no one is suggesting that Space Marines should be banned from the matched play. Again, the real problem is that the point costs are fethed up, not that there is a large pool of units to choose from.

As we keep saying - part of the reason points are problematic is because of soup.
A model's points value is not an isolated event. It depends on how it works within an army.

As has been said - Guard and a Castellan is better than mono Guard or mono Knights. The combination adds something - both explicitly through CP farming - but also through adding high resillience and firepower along with board control and chaff.

What unit price do you change to reflect this?

CP farming is problem in itself. Some factions are able to generate CP too cheaply.

Tyel wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Right. Yet no one is suggesting that Space Marines should be banned from the matched play. Again, the real problem is that the point costs are fethed up, not that there is a large pool of units to choose from.

As we keep saying - part of the reason points are problematic is because of soup.
A model's points value is not an isolated event. It depends on how it works within an army.

As has been said - Guard and a Castellan is better than mono Guard or mono Knights. The combination adds something - both explicitly through CP farming - but also through adding high resillience and firepower along with board control and chaff.

What unit price do you change to reflect this?

You remove CP sharing and a couple of other interaction, then you don't need to change anything else.

A castellan is fine in an IG army if it has 0 CP to use.
Custodes are fine in an IG list if they have a total of 1 CP available.
Smashcaptains are fine if they have only 5 CP to work.

And so on!