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.

Soup isn't a problem. Poorly costed units are.

Case in point:
I can take a soup with a Chaplain, three Tactical Squads, and have them supported by Imperial Guard Veterans led by their Lord Commissar leader, as well as some Inquisitorial forces.

I can guarantee that that army would lose against a mono-Eldar force, or mono- Guard, or most mono- forces. However, it's not because they're mono, or because I souped. It's because I've taken poorly costed (low tier) units against presumably favourably costed units/armies.

Fix the points first, then we'll see if soup remains a problem.

I don't know why people remain hung up on the fact that "a unit is costed appropriately within it's codex, soup ruins this!" - surely a unit should be costed appropriately to how it functions both on it's own and as part of soup? So, a Knight Castellan, while vulnerable on it's own, should be costed as if it were screened - or potential screening units (Guardsmen, Conscripts) should be costed higher due to their potential as screens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
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!

Agreed. I refuse to share CP between my detachments due to this reason. I know the game doesn't force me to, but my games are better for it.

To give my last points of the thread I will Summarize what I’ve seen and why I remain unconvinced by the anti soup crowd

The biggest difference of thought between the pro and anti soup factions is the degree to which soup affects army power levels. Everyone believes that soup does increases the power of factions that have access to it, but the question is “by how much?” Anti-soupers believe that it is by a ton, so therefore soup needs to be addressed. To support this, they point out examples such as the loyal 32, Nurglings in chaos lists, farseers in dark eldar armies, etc ect. Additionally they love to point out the theory that souping allows to pick and the choose the best units from each and every codex, so therefore soup lists lack weaknesses and will almost always beat a non-soup list. To support this they use tournament results that showcase a lot of soup armies near the top. If anyone thinks I’ve misrepresented the anti-soup argument, please let me know as I don’t want to strawman here. Now onto the counter-points that the pro soup side has come up with.

1) While souping will often be the best option for the list, it also carries opportunity costs that make it much less powerful than the anti-soupers claim. Factors such as the 3 detachment limit, wreaking in-book synergy, and the watering down of an armies strengths in order to cover its weaknesses are all costs of soup. This means that soup isn’t nearly as powerful as the anti-soup crowd makes it out to be. Because soup is less powerful then what they claim, the problems that it causes are also exgerrated. There is plenty of evidence to support this as tau frequently do well in big tournaments and single faction armies have been able to quite well in the past (such as pure dark eldar winning capital city blood bath.

2)The anti-soup crowd also has /tendency to misattribute other problems in game to soup. Does anyone honestly expect factions like necrons to be much better off against pure craftworld eldar than they are against eldar soup? Will codex space marines suddenly become the bees news if imperium soup disappeared? Which brings me to my next point.

3) What happens after soup gets changed? Thoughout my life I’ve found that people have a very easy time picking apart flaws of the current system, but tend to faulter when building a better one (see communism ). That appears to be no different here. The anti-soup group seem to be pretty consistent in their issues with soup, but begin to differ heavily on how to things should be changed. I’ve seen people suggest removing allies entirely, using a system that is similar to age of sigmar, or change how command points are generated based on how many allies you bring. These are just a few of the suggestions brought forward, btw. I believe the big reason for the varied suggestions is that people can see pontential flaws in other posters suggestions (I know I sure can) and therefore want to come up with a better solution. The simple fact is that there will always be unforeseen problems with any new system, and that the answer to the currents systems issues is rarely “tear it all down!” I’m not saying it’s impossible to make a better system than the keyword one (although I do think that will be extremely difficult since I believe it’s flaws are heavily exgerated) but if you truly are interested in making 40k a better game (doubtful for some here) then you should be more focused on building a replacement for soup rather than just trying to prove that it should be replaced.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Techsoldaten, I am genuinely unable to understand the point you are trying to make. Also you kinda moved the goalpost from profit to becoming public, in regard of the game companies.

Same with the payment and revenue. The point is just that a well rounded sets of models for each faction, and a tight ruleset are a better bet for attracting a diverse array of customers.

Honestly, it feels like I am spitting in the wind. The exact same argument would apply to what you just said about well-rounded sets models and tight rulesets.

It doesn't matter if a game has those qualities so long as it's commercially successful. If it has those qualities and it's not commercially successful, it's not a game, it's just some selfish endeavor that will lose money.

Don't tell me a game is well designed just because you think those qualities apply. Someone is always going to have a different opinion and your opinion doesn't mean anything more than the next persons. In fact, people will say it's not well designed just because you think it is.

'Well designed' means nothing unless it emphasizes profit. And if you define profit as $1 more than it cost to build the game, it was never worth your time to begin with.

Does "Games Design" include access to start up cash, marketing skills and access to various production facilities? The latter being a key issue with many companies due to the limited number of places that can produce the kind of high level plastics people want before you even know if your game will take off. First question in almost all the miniature Kickstarter threads is "what material are you producing in".

Famously Betamax was a better recording system than VHS, but VHS won out because of a variety of other economic factors that had no bearing on the fidelity of the image or sound recording which can be objectively shown to be true.
Game design is an element of the product, but not the sum total of all of it. Or is Monopoly the best game engine to use to represent the 40K universe because Monopoly is one of the most successful?

I think restricting CP to the highest keyword that produces it is fine, though I'd also like to see Imperial, Chaos and Xenos level strats. Make taking units from outside your chain of command a proper tactical choice, given they've not got the support they usually have.
Still the ability to add chaff/elite to an army that usually lacks it, but think if some detachments are Warlord faction only, and some are eligible for allies you might be able to fix this.

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

I did.
But that was along time ago in the closing days of RT.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
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?

I'm not comparing Cultists and Tzaangors, I'm comparing Cultists and Nurglings. You don't use Tzaangors as a cheap screen because they're paying for offensive stats the cultists don't have. Cultists are a pretty good cheap screen, very low points cost per wound. The problem is that, because you can take anything from Chaos, they're competing with the best possible screen unit in the entire game. Nurglings being gobs of wounds that can set up outside of your deployment zone and have Disgustingly Resilient isn't something you could possibly change Cultists to compete with. Nurglings being an insanely good screen isn't as much of a problem in the context of Nurgle Daemons, who care far less about having good screens than Thousand Sons do.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Case in point:
I can take a soup with a Chaplain, three Tactical Squads, and have them supported by Imperial Guard Veterans led by their Lord Commissar leader, as well as some Inquisitorial forces.

I can guarantee that that army would lose against a mono-Eldar force, or mono- Guard, or most mono- forces. However, it's not because they're mono, or because I souped. It's because I've taken poorly costed (low tier) units against presumably favourably costed units/armies.

Well yes, if you deliberately make a bad soup list you can lose against a well-built mono-faction list. I'm not sure why you think this is a compelling argument for anything.

or potential screening units (Guardsmen, Conscripts) should be costed higher due to their potential as screens.

And then you make them too expensive when not being used as screens in a soup, continuing the problem of soup being better than mono-faction.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Case in point:
I can take a soup with a Chaplain, three Tactical Squads, and have them supported by Imperial Guard Veterans led by their Lord Commissar leader, as well as some Inquisitorial forces.

I can guarantee that that army would lose against a mono-Eldar force, or mono- Guard, or most mono- forces. However, it's not because they're mono, or because I souped. It's because I've taken poorly costed (low tier) units against presumably favourably costed units/armies.

Well yes, if you deliberately make a bad soup list you can lose against a well-built mono-faction list. I'm not sure why you think this is a compelling argument for anything.

But if soup was this instant "I win" button that some people aren't far off implying, then surely it wouldn't be an issue.

Soup isn't instantly better than mono. Even a tame mono list can take out a tame soup list. The issue is that a competitive soup list beats a competitive mono list - because competitive is solely concerned with making the most powerful list. If you balance the units, then there's no incentive to use soup if you can make a competitive list with just a mono army.

or potential screening units (Guardsmen, Conscripts) should be costed higher due to their potential as screens.

And then you make them too expensive when not being used as screens in a soup, continuing the problem of soup being better than mono-faction.

But they can still screen for units in their own army. Guardsmen have units that need screening too, or are you suggesting that Guardsman screens ONLY exist in soup?

If we're going down this rabbit hole of "well what if I don't use them as screens, I shouldn't have to pay for them", what if I buy a flamer, and never get to fire it? How about a plasma gun? What if I buy a Rhino, and then I stick it in the corner of the table, and has no effect on the game?
You know as well as anyone that you don't pay for what a unit does in game. You pay for what it can do, and it's opportunity cost. Things get more expensive when they have a higher opportunity to do something. It's why a flamer (short ranged, low strength and AP) is cheaper than a lascannon (long range, high strength and AP) - because it has less opportunities in game.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Soup isn't instantly better than mono. Even a tame mono list can take out a tame soup list. The issue is that a competitive soup list beats a competitive mono list - because competitive is solely concerned with making the most powerful list. If you balance the units, then there's no incentive to use soup if you can make a competitive list with just a mono army.

It is not possible to balance a unit when its strength varies depending upon whether it is in a mono army or a soup army. If a guardsman is worth 6 in a 3 knight list, but 5 with pure IG, what number do you pick?

Units are costed based on factors that are dependant on the content and context that they can be used in. They kinda have to, as you can't math out the appropriate cost for a unit, weapon or model in a vacuum, as it simply doesn't translate well when put into an army. The issue arises that it becomes a lot more difficult, time consuming, and more importantly, costly, to design and cost a unit when the external factors working with said unit doubles. Balancing soup may be possible, and it is maybe even possible to balance both soup and mono armies for every codex. But even if that is (and it is kind of a big if), it would be exceptionally lengthy and costly to design, playtest and tune such changes.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Soup isn't instantly better than mono. Even a tame mono list can take out a tame soup list. The issue is that a competitive soup list beats a competitive mono list - because competitive is solely concerned with making the most powerful list. If you balance the units, then there's no incentive to use soup if you can make a competitive list with just a mono army.

It is not possible to balance a unit when its strength varies depending upon whether it is in a mono army or a soup army. If a guardsman is worth 6 in a 3 knight list, but 5 with pure IG, what number do you pick?

By the same logic, it's not possible to balance a flamer because you don't know if you're fighting Gretchin or Knights.

Although, seeing as how GW have elected to go historically (with things like flamers being cheaper than lascannons, because lascannons are more likely to be against a target that suits it more), the Guardsmen should be costed at 6.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Darsath wrote:
Units are costed based on factors that are dependant on the content and context that they can be used in. They kinda have to, as you can't math out the appropriate cost for a unit, weapon or model in a vacuum, as it simply doesn't translate well when put into an army. The issue arises that it becomes a lot more difficult, time consuming, and more importantly, costly, to design and cost a unit when the external factors working with said unit doubles. Balancing soup may be possible, and it is maybe even possible to balance both soup and mono armies for every codex. But even if that is (and it is kind of a big if), it would be exceptionally lengthy and costly to design, playtest and tune such changes.

Seeing as this is the Internet, and people seeming to wishlist and ask for absolutely anything under the sun, I assumed that we were ignoring length and cost of playtesting and implementing a rebalanced 40k points system.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
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?

Using tzaangors misses the point of cheap screens. Nurglings have DR (usually), suffer less morale, infiltrate and are more useful for zoning out deployment.

So, no, tzaangors are not a replacement for that.

Cultists do just fine generally. They just aren't as amped up as nurglings.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Soup isn't a problem. Poorly costed units are.

Case in point:
I can take a soup with a Chaplain, three Tactical Squads, and have them supported by Imperial Guard Veterans led by their Lord Commissar leader, as well as some Inquisitorial forces.

I can guarantee that that army would lose against a mono-Eldar force, or mono- Guard, or most mono- forces. However, it's not because they're mono, or because I souped. It's because I've taken poorly costed (low tier) units against presumably favourably costed units/armies.

Fix the points first, then we'll see if soup remains a problem.

Yes, exactly! The real problem is miscosted units. The soup merely accentuates the problem as you can choose undercosted units from several codices. But the real problem is the undercosted units.

I don't know how to explain to you that the more synergy is available for a unit the more powerful it is

Nothing in a competitive game exists in a vacuum, you can't just look at what a unit does on its datasheet and be exactly certain of how strong it'll be in a list

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I don't know how to explain to you that the more synergy is available for a unit the more powerful it is

Nothing in a competitive game exists in a vacuum, you can't just look at what a unit does on its datasheet and be exactly certain of how strong it'll be in a list

Right, And generally allied units have less synergy, because they do not benefit many auras, psychic powers and other special rules of the parent army.

 Crimson wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I don't know how to explain to you that the more synergy is available for a unit the more powerful it is

Nothing in a competitive game exists in a vacuum, you can't just look at what a unit does on its datasheet and be exactly certain of how strong it'll be in a list

Right, And generally allied units have less synergy, because they do not benefit many auras, psychic powers and other special rules of the parent army.

Yeah, they still can. You can still take other units with Auras and Psychic Powers. Just less of them. Though some armies get less of that than others, to the point that it doesn't really matter if you do or not.

 Crimson wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I don't know how to explain to you that the more synergy is available for a unit the more powerful it is

Nothing in a competitive game exists in a vacuum, you can't just look at what a unit does on its datasheet and be exactly certain of how strong it'll be in a list

Right, And generally allied units have less synergy, because they do not benefit many auras, psychic powers and other special rules of the parent army.

I'm not talking about canned synergy. I'm talking about the Thousand Sons/Nurglings synergy, where combining the best characters in the game with the best screens in the game makes the army much better than it is (when it's already pretty good!).

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


I have very little faith much with change after CA. 5 point IG might be on there. However - 95% of issues will go untouched and they will probably create more issues - kind of like every major rules update they have had so far in this 1 1/2 year period.

Here's the funny thing...

The community is so focused on the big killers like the Castellan & Ynnari that few have an idea what the next worse unit will be.

I challenge anyone here to predict what that will be. Also, I invite you to predict what Ork unit will be problematic, if any.

And we'll all find out in the shakedown at LVO.

The little I've seen with orks I doubt any will be problematic. Much the same it will probably be shoota boys being the most powerful choice - probably with the advance and shoot army trait or FNP.

It's hard to predict the meta. Its not hard to figure out what units needs to be looked at though.

Smasha and Traktor are broken on Mek Guns, you'll see in the new few tournaments

 Arachnofiend wrote:

I'm not talking about canned synergy. I'm talking about the Thousand Sons/Nurglings synergy, where combining the best characters in the game with the best screens in the game makes the army much better than it is (when it's already pretty good!).

If you can easily name them as best characters and best screens is the game , then both are undercosted!

 Crimson wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

I'm not talking about canned synergy. I'm talking about the Thousand Sons/Nurglings synergy, where combining the best characters in the game with the best screens in the game makes the army much better than it is (when it's already pretty good!).

If you can easily name them as best characters and best screens is the game , then both are undercosted!

Exactly. The units need a price increase if they're "the best character" and "best screen".

As a potential fix, perhaps some kind of allies tax could be paid? So you can still take allies, and still take your models, but maybe some are costed differently if taken in an allied army?

 Crimson 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?

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.

What? If Devs are as good as Primaris equivalent, you absolutely benefit from the choice of having both in the list building phase, and being able to select the optimal choice from either for what your current list needs is absolutely an advantage that will result in a stronger list being put on the table. And that's just for two units that are very similar - not having Devastator type units obviously isn't a real weakness of Primaris only lists. However, not having bodies for example, is a real weakness of Knight lists, if Knights were perfectly balanced on their own it's almost guaranteed they are going to get stronger the second you let them start allowing them to bring in balanced Guardsmen with auxiliary points to help control the map and completely offset the designated weakness for the bulk of your army. Being limited by points isn't just it at all, armies are also limited by what units they can pick from. It's how each army has its identity on the battlefield. The Genestealer is a good, strong unit on its own, but if you could only build your army out of nothing but Genestealers, the Tyranid dex would be pretty weak, and there is a reason nobody does that even though it's pretty much already an option. Additional options at the same power level will absolutely improve a dex, it's absurd to me that people are genuinely arguing otherwise, it feels like people have never actually played a real game of 40k before and are just looking at whether or not an individual unit is balanced without thinking about how that can affect the broader faction it's attached to.

 Crimson wrote:

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.

What are you even talking about? Why would anyone have suggested SM be removed for match play? It's like you're not even reading his posts. You're putting forward this hypothetical situation where every single unit in the game is equally powerful, and as a result SM has double or triple the amount of playable units as other armies... "so why aren't people asking for SM to be changed"? Because the situation you describe has literally never happened? The post you just quoted even said that... If what you described was ever the case, SM would almost definitely be stronger than every other army, and if that was the case, people WOULD be asking for changes. I have no idea what you are trying to do with this line of thinking.

 Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Soup isn't a problem. Poorly costed units are.

Case in point:
I can take a soup with a Chaplain, three Tactical Squads, and have them supported by Imperial Guard Veterans led by their Lord Commissar leader, as well as some Inquisitorial forces.

I can guarantee that that army would lose against a mono-Eldar force, or mono- Guard, or most mono- forces. However, it's not because they're mono, or because I souped. It's because I've taken poorly costed (low tier) units against presumably favourably costed units/armies.

Fix the points first, then we'll see if soup remains a problem.

Yes, exactly! The real problem is miscosted units. The soup merely accentuates the problem as you can choose undercosted units from several codices. But the real problem is the undercosted units.

This is the problem. You guys aren't critically thinking here at all. This post exemplifies it the best. You want to use allies, so all you are looking for is arguments no matter how flimsy to support it.

When approaching your perspective from a logical manner, what you have to look for evidence and logic that dispels your perspective, not for evidence that supports it - and there's been so much sensible explanations given that you can't really answer, but someone gives some shaky example of why "soup must be fine because a combination of the garbage units from other dexes can't compete with the most OP stuff selected from a single soup ingredient!" (???) and you latch on to that as if it's brilliance given words, when it doesn't even really make sense if you think about it for more than 10 seconds.

Guardsmen are worth more than 4ppm in monolist or soup. Soup is just an excuse for ig players to keep broken units.

 Crimson 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?

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.

Correct - ultimately all the issues in 40k are due to improperly costed units.

 Crimson wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

I'm not talking about canned synergy. I'm talking about the Thousand Sons/Nurglings synergy, where combining the best characters in the game with the best screens in the game makes the army much better than it is (when it's already pretty good!).

If you can easily name them as best characters and best screens is the game , then both are undercosted!

Thousand Sons... having the best characters... is the entire goddamn point... The entire identity of the faction is a cabal of extremely powerful sorcerers and their various minions. At this point I can only assume that you're fully committed to throwing faction identity out the window just so you can preserve your precious Imperial soup.

 Xenomancers wrote:
You see how bad greyknights are?

Laurence from Table Top Tactics just won the London War-gaming Guild's, Fun and Fluffy 40k tournament with them.

 Hollow wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
You see how bad greyknights are?

Laurence from Table Top Tactics just won the London War-gaming Guild's, Fun and Fluffy 40k tournament with them.

Oh, I heard about that tournament. The list building rules are... bizarre, and seem specifically designed to push away anyone playing the game seriously. Every non-troop or dedicated transport is a 0-1 model, for example.

 SHUPPET wrote:

What? If Devs are as good as Primaris equivalent, you absolutely benefit from the choice of having both in the list building phase, and being able to select the optimal choice from either for what your current list needs is absolutely an advantage that will result in a stronger list being put on the table. And that's just for two units that are very similar - not having Devastator type units obviously isn't a real weakness of Primaris only lists. However, not having bodies for example, is a real weakness of Knight lists, if Knights were perfectly balanced on their own it's almost guaranteed they are going to get stronger the second you let them start allowing them to bring in balanced Guardsmen with auxiliary points to help control the map and completely offset the designated weakness for the bulk of your army. Being limited by points isn't just it at all, armies are also limited by what units they can pick from. It's how each army has its identity on the battlefield. The Genestealer is a good, strong unit on its own, but if you could only build your army out of nothing but Genestealers, the Tyranid dex would be pretty weak, and there is a reason nobody does that even though it's pretty much already an option. Additional options at the same power level will absolutely improve a dex, it's absurd to me that people are genuinely arguing otherwise, it feels like people have never actually played a real game of 40k before and are just looking at whether or not an individual unit is balanced without thinking about how that can affect the broader faction it's attached to.

But if my fluff is primaris only, then I don't take Devastators. Just like if my fluff is Imperial Knights only, then I don't take guardsmen. It is the same thing. Getting hung up on which physical books the datasheets are printed is silly. Factions have never had equal amount of choices. If all factions had exactly 30 units, and allying was an only way to overcome that, then you might have a case. But that's not how it works, factions have wildly different amount of units available to them, even in mono. So again soup haters are naming a feature that is present in the game even without the soup, as an issue with the soup. There certainly is some minimum amount of units faction needs to function, so your Genestealer example is flawed. But there are factions with very limited selection of units like the Harlequins.

What are you even talking about? Why would anyone have suggested SM be removed for match play? It's like you're not even reading his posts. You're putting forward this hypothetical situation where every single unit in the game is equally powerful, and as a result SM has double or triple the amount of playable units as other armies... "so why aren't people asking for SM to be changed"? Because the situation you describe has literally never happened? The post you just quoted even said that... If what you described was ever the case, SM would almost definitely be stronger than every other army, and if that was the case, people WOULD be asking for changes. I have no idea what you are trying to do with this line of thinking.

You are arguing that having access to crazy amount of units to choose from is an unfair advantage. Well, compared to any other faction, Space Marines have that. Why is that not a problem, but when Aeldari soup has access to same amount of units it suddenly is? And yeas, Eldar units on average are way better, but again, not a soup issue, it's a badly balanced units issue.

This is the problem. You guys aren't critically thinking here at all. This post exemplifies it the best. You want to use allies, so all you are looking for is arguments no matter how flimsy to support it.

When approaching your perspective from a logical manner, what you have to look for evidence and logic that dispels your perspective, not for evidence that supports it - and there's been so much sensible explanations given that you can't really answer, but someone gives some shaky example of why "soup must be fine because a combination of the garbage units from other dexes can't compete with the most OP stuff selected from a single soup ingredient!" (???) and you latch on to that as if it's brilliance given words, when it doesn't even really make sense if you think about it for more than 10 seconds.

You are not approaching the issue in logical manner. You completely fail to see the real issue. You see soup and stop thinking right there. It is is like I said, if Saim-Hann and Blood Angels were dominating tournaments half of Dakka would want to ban red models from matched play.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Thousand Sons... having the best characters... is the entire goddamn point... The entire identity of the faction is a cabal of extremely powerful sorcerers and their various minions. At this point I can only assume that you're fully committed to throwing faction identity out the window just so you can preserve your precious Imperial soup.

Points! Do you understand what they're for? If their characters are stronger, then they need to cost more points! If their characters are better for their points than anyone else's, then that is a literal description of a miscosted unit!

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Hollow wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
You see how bad greyknights are?

Laurence from Table Top Tactics just won the London War-gaming Guild's, Fun and Fluffy 40k tournament with them.

Oh, I heard about that tournament. The list building rules are... bizarre, and seem specifically designed to push away anyone playing the game seriously. Every non-troop or dedicated transport is a 0-1 model, for example.

Sounds like a good idea. Gets those lazy players out of the spam mindset and playing properly

 Crimson wrote:
You are arguing that having access to crazy amount of units to choose from is an unfair advantage. Well, compared to any other faction, Space Marines have that. Why is that not a problem, but when Aeldari soup has access to same amount of units it suddenly is? And yeas, Eldar units on average are way better, but again, not a soup issue, it's a badly balanced units issue.

Having a crazy amount of BALANCED UNITS to choose from, is going to be an advantage over someone who has 10% as many equally powerful units, as was your original hypothetical. NOBODY is saying that it's op to have 2 good units and a bunch of garbage in your dex. You've completely moved the goalposts to something else. The entire SM line has never once ever been balanced. Why are you pretending you don't understand what the discussion is here? You are the one who set the goals up yourself, this post here is what this quote chain leads back to:

 Crimson wrote:
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.

The question is answered, are you capable of backing down from a point thats been proven fallacious or will you give zero ground on anything ever?

 Crimson wrote:
You are not approaching the issue in logical manner. You completely fail to see the real issue. You see soup and stop thinking right there. It is is like I said, if Saim-Hann and Blood Angels were dominating tournaments half of Dakka would want to ban red models from matched play.

No, we don't. The rest of the game needs to be balanced at a unit per level. This is where we all agree, and also where YOU stop thinking, because you don't want soup to go. The fact is, even with a completely level field on a dex vs dex level, soup ALSO needs to be balanced, because as it stands even in a perfectly equivalent power level across dexes, mixing and matching more units even of equal power level, is a serious list building advantage for the larger factions. WHICH tools you have matters, not just how strong they are.

 Crimson wrote:
But if my fluff is primaris only, then I don't take Devastators. Just like if my fluff is Imperial Knights only, then I don't take guardsmen. It is the same thing. Getting hung up on which physical books the datasheets are printed is silly.

What? Getting hung up on balance is silly because you are building off your personal fluff? LOL. These arguments are getting more absurd every post

 Crimson wrote:
Points! Do you understand what they're for? If their characters are stronger, then they need to cost more points! If their characters are better for their points than anyone else's, then that is a literal description of a miscosted unit!

Yes, but this is army dependent.
If you have powerful characters (i.e. relatively cheap for their points) but you have to protect them with weaker chaff (re: more expensive for their points) - or another feature of the army - then it balances out.

The issue is when because of soup you can go "I want the best characters and the best screens at the same time".

 SHUPPET wrote:

Having a crazy amount of BALANCED UNITS to choose from, is going to be an advantage over someone who has 10% as many equally powerful units, as was your original hypothetical. NOBODY is saying that it's op to have 2 good units and a bunch of garbage in your dex. You've completely moved the goalposts to something else. The entire SM line has never once ever been balanced. Why are you pretending you don't understand what the discussion is here? You are the one who set the goals up yourself, this post here is what this quote chain leads back to:

 Crimson wrote:
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.

The question is answered, are you capable of backing down from a point thats been proven fallacious or will you give zero ground on anything ever?

That's my fething point. The exact same situation you complain about soup (some factions having way more options than others and the amount of options makes balancing difficult) already exists even without the soup!

No, we don't. The rest of the game needs to be balanced at a unit per level. This is where we all agree, and also where YOU stop thinking, because you don't want soup to go. The fact is, even with a completely level field on a dex vs dex level, soup ALSO needs to be balanced, because as it stands even in a perfectly equivalent power level across dexes, mixing and matching more units even of equal power level, is a serious list building advantage for the larger factions. WHICH tools you have matters, not just how strong they are.

But even the monofactions do not have the same amount of units to choose from, not even nearly! Even if there was no soup some factions would have almost twenty times the amount of units than others! Again, you're erroneously attributing a common feature of the game to the soup. Now if you suggest that armies with access to more units need to have worse units to counter that 'advantage' then that is just pure madness. Do we increase the point cost of tactical marine every time a FW releases a new Space Marine flyer?

What? Getting hung up on balance is silly because you are building off your personal fluff? LOL. These arguments are getting more absurd every post

Hungin up on balance is not silly, getting hung up on books and factions is. Every players chooses a small subsection of units available to them when building an army, based on their personal criteria. Mys choice of making a Primaris only Space Marine army is no different choice than someone's choice to make a Craftworld only of Kabalite only Aeldari army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:


Yes, but this is army dependent.
If you have powerful characters (i.e. relatively cheap for their points) but you have to protect them with weaker chaff (re: more expensive for their points) - or another feature of the army - then it balances out.

No, this is just bad design. Every unit needs to pay for its actual effectiveness. Some units should not get discount because some other units in the codex are overpriced.