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.

 Eldarsif wrote:

TL;DR - I like soup ... when Everyone gets soup.

Which is why I kinda miss the old ally system in 7th. It allowed Necrons and Blood Angels to fight together as intended even though there were some limitations to it.

Yeah, I feel there should be a mechanism to ally anything together, it just needs appropriate balancing. Which I feel can be managed through the CP system.

Alternatively, find a way to let the armies that don't currently ally get some allies.

Tau could ally with Guard very easily. Do it like Brood Brothers, just make it GUE'VESA instead.

There's an angle to allow Necrons to ally with Admech - have the Void Dragon awaken in some way, leading to a faction of Admech who worship it leave.

That just leaves Orks. Why not make Orks the ultimate mercenary faction? Could ally with anyone (just not everyone simultaneously).

 Stux wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

TL;DR - I like soup ... when Everyone gets soup.

Which is why I kinda miss the old ally system in 7th. It allowed Necrons and Blood Angels to fight together as intended even though there were some limitations to it.

Yeah, I feel there should be a mechanism to ally anything together, it just needs appropriate balancing. Which I feel can be managed through the CP system.

Alternatively, find a way to let the armies that don't currently ally get some allies.

Tau could ally with Guard very easily. Do it like Brood Brothers, just make it GUE'VESA instead.

There's an angle to allow Necrons to ally with Admech - have the Void Dragon awaken in some way, leading to a faction of Admech who worship it leave.

That just leaves Orks. Why not make Orks the ultimate mercenary faction? Could ally with anyone (just not everyone simultaneously).

You know how to do it REALLY easy too?

Keywords and detachment rules.

Much like you have rules for cadians, tallarans, etc-you could easly as well have rules for Gue'vesa detachment, and their special "thing" is that they get the T'au Empire keyword, and can't be warlords (so you cant primary the "ally")
That's it. no more special abilities.

You get the abiilty to ally in stuff like that (and you can be real selective to who gets what using these), but the "cost" of having allies is that the side defined as the allies in that combo doesn't have any inherit subfaction abilities.

So on the same note, Admech "forgeworld" ability that grants the Necrons keyword.
Ork klan that grants Imperium/Chaos/tau/whatever
etc...


Real quick, real easy-and gives low-level allies to anyone you want to give them.

Allies aren't a problem, individual units are a problem.

Allies should be used for tactical flexibility. Their current use is molded by points and rules imbalances.

 Marmatag wrote:
Allies aren't a problem, individual units are a problem.

Allies should be used for tactical flexibility. Their current use is molded by points and rules imbalances.

So, should every army be balanced according to what they can bring in their codex or around what they can soup in?

If the former, you'd have the entire category of "Haywire" weapons in Dark Eldar and Harlequin codexes overcosted because of the existence of a single psychic power from another codex.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Allies aren't a problem, individual units are a problem.

Allies should be used for tactical flexibility. Their current use is molded by points and rules imbalances.

So, should every army be balanced according to what they can bring in their codex or around what they can soup in?

If the former, you'd have the entire category of "Haywire" weapons in Dark Eldar and Harlequin codexes overcosted because of the existence of a single psychic power from another codex.

Well if everyone could bring in Imperial Guard units they would. However we get some armies that cannot function without those allies (Grey Knights are the biggest offender, with Custodes kinda on the edge there, though units from FW will help with that.

 p5freak wrote:
I cant believe that some people still dont have realised that soup is intended, wanted and supported by GW.

As examples from history show, having an idea and being able to enforc it. Does not somehow make it automaticly good. Everyone can read the rules that allow the creation of soup lists.

is that "Your guys get access to it and Mine don't!"

the end.

Not saying it isn't, but at least it could get fixed by GW just writing good books that don't have ally options. As orcs show GW can make mono lists do well.

 p5freak wrote:
I cant believe that some people still dont have realised that soup is intended, wanted and supported by GW.

You seem to be confusing what is and what should be, when what is benefits you.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Allies aren't a problem, individual units are a problem.

Allies should be used for tactical flexibility. Their current use is molded by points and rules imbalances.

So, should every army be balanced according to what they can bring in their codex or around what they can soup in?

If the former, you'd have the entire category of "Haywire" weapons in Dark Eldar and Harlequin codexes overcosted because of the existence of a single psychic power from another codex.

I think the way through allies is to force detachments not of the warlord's faction to take units they don't normally want to take.

- Allies can only be in Patrol or Battalion detachments and must be a minimum of 25% of your list.
- Heirloom stratagems can only be used by the Warlord's faction.

This means you can't just slap Starweavers on your list. You'd also be forced to pay for Troupes.
No more sneaking in a Farseer.
No flying circus of daemon princes.
You can't stock your Castellan AND also have relics for IG.

It also means you can't get away with Loyal 32 - they would need to take tanks or more units to fill it out. Now, this is not a problem for someone who commits to Catachan & Castellan, but point tweaks can solve that, I think.

Maybe that's a dumb idea...I haven't pondered the consequences thoroughly enough.

 Kommisar wrote:
this is how most people play.

[citation needed]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most people who play 40K are not meta-chasing flavor-of-the-month competitive tournament players.

I've posted it before, I'll post it again! Soup circa 1995!

I like that they are taking a realistic approach to the game based on how a large chunk of the player base plays (or are thought to play, but that is a debate for another time).

I think a dandy solution to soup nonsense could be tied to Keywords. So that would mean that either Astartes or <Chapter> could be the keyword here (I prefer <Chapter> myself but Im sure theres nothing too wrong with mixing within a single faction) and that you would get a substantial buff for taking an army ONLY comprised of that faction. Heres my short list of everything I would like to see.

1. Free relic only for the mono faction, everyone else has to pay.
2. The 3 CP for breathing only for mono lists.
3. Primary faction is determined by the faction with most points invested. Warlord can only come from this faction and can only take relics from the primary faction. Seriously, why would any Space Marine worth his salt take any orders at all from some random guard commander, ESPECIALLY if he was a Captain.
4. Super scoring needs to apply only to the "Primary" faction as noted above

In short you should have to pay a penalty for soup as it had been in other editions. Being a varied force means you do not have the same unit cohesion as a regiment that has been trained to fight with their brother units. Therefore you make less CP, you lose ObSec, and you do not have the same access to relics.

Back in 2nd edition, you got IIRC 25% of your points able to be spent on allies. That's proper soup and acceptable. The way 8th edition has soup it is not at all acceptable.

As an aside, I also greatly miss when armies were that size. A Dreadnought or a single tank was often the most you saw.

Wayniac wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
Bring on Kill Team or AoS CP system and a lot of the soups will disappear completely. Not all, but quite a few of them, especially the CP batteries.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I think the solution needs to be. Either use the rules from KT for them, or have them be a flat amount of CP based on the game's point limit for Matched Play. Something, anything to curb taking the "Loyal 32" in every Imperium list for a cheap 5 CP that end up being used on anything other than what generated them.

(Not addressed at you specifically Wayniac, just bootstraping here) It is quite funny that people think, that CPs and Stratagems were introduced only in 8th and that many don't realize that "CPs based on game size" (or scenario in some cases) is exactly how CPs (called SPs then) worked in 7th ed Planetstrike and Zone Mortalis supplements - 1 CP+1CP per 500pts and done, max 5 CPs to use in 2000pts game, or rigid 4 in most Planetstrike missions.

CPs based on points value is a much better system than the current unintuitive system of forcing in 32man detachments to farm CPs for your actual fighting force, I'd say.

 Ashiraya wrote:
CPs based on points value is a much better system than the current unintuitive system of forcing in 32man detachments to farm CPs for your actual fighting force, I'd say.

But then we would have to do math! *gasp*

On an off note I think it would be hilarious if someone would make their loyal 32 modeled as farmers with straw hats and pitchforks

Wayniac wrote:
Back in 2nd edition, you got IIRC 25% of your points able to be spent on allies. That's proper soup and acceptable. The way 8th edition has soup it is not at all acceptable.

I could get on board with 25% allies only as well.

 Kommisar wrote:
It's refreshing that they're finally acknowledging that this is how most people play. Hopefully they'll write tighter rules in the future to reflect that fact. If you don't like it it doesn't effect your moms basementhammer games anyway.

Going to disagree that this is how "most people play" until you can show some data around that. This is a representation of how TOURNAMENT players play. Tournament players are not necessarily "most players".

where is the data that it is not played that way and only tournaments see such lists?

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Back in 2nd edition, you got IIRC 25% of your points able to be spent on allies. That's proper soup and acceptable. The way 8th edition has soup it is not at all acceptable.

I could get on board with 25% allies only as well.

The issue with that is the Loyal 32 is like under 200 points, so it wouldn't fix that problem. The main issue here is being able to use CP generated from Army A to power Army B, when Army B might be balanced around having limited CP so they get badass stratagems (see: Imperial Knights)

Wayniac wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Back in 2nd edition, you got IIRC 25% of your points able to be spent on allies. That's proper soup and acceptable. The way 8th edition has soup it is not at all acceptable.

I could get on board with 25% allies only as well.

The issue with that is the Loyal 32 is like under 200 points, so it wouldn't fix that problem. The main issue here is being able to use CP generated from Army A to power Army B, when Army B might be balanced around having limited CP so they get badass stratagems (see: Imperial Knights)

True, good point.

25% allies with CP only being able to be used for that faction would be a way to correct that perhaps.

So you could bring a loyal 32, but those 5 CP can only be used for that loyal 32 with the rest of the CP going to the primary faction. Would definitely stop CP batteries.

I think that it's a little out of scope to deny CP to other detachments. As I stated earlier a possible way through is to force people to take MORE allies.

Not a max of 25%, but AT LEAST 25% plus forcing them to use Patrol, Battalion, or Super Heavy Aux removes their ability to take only the good specialty units.

People probably wouldn't like this, because it would force them to commit to more models.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think that it's a little out of scope to deny CP to other detachments. As I stated earlier a possible way through is to force people to take MORE allies.

Not a max of 25%, but AT LEAST 25% plus forcing them to use Patrol, Battalion, or Super Heavy Aux removes their ability to take only the good specialty units.

People probably wouldn't like this, because it would force them to commit to more models.

I don't think too many soup players would be that upset about having to take a few mortar squads and/or Leman Russes in addition to their Loyal 32. Guard and Knights and Smash Captains are a great combo even if you have to spend 500+pts on each.

CP-sharing is really the biggest reason why soup is a problem for balance, so it makes sense to go after that. Being able to take units from two (or more) completely different armies is powerful enough; they shouldn't also be able to benefit from mix-and-matching.

I mean, optimally I'd like CP to be overhauled so that everyone has roughly the same amount of CP and then stratagems can be appropriately balanced in terms of CP cost, but that seems dramatically less likely to happen than an FAQ that says no CP sharing across factions.

 Kommisar wrote:
It's refreshing that they're finally acknowledging that this is how most people play. Hopefully they'll write tighter rules in the future to reflect that fact. If you don't like it it doesn't effect your moms basementhammer games anyway.

"Most people"? [Citation required]

 SHUPPET wrote:
oh no, people enjoy playing the game in a different manner to myself! better bitch and moan about the fact that GW didn't cater literally everything in every single issue of their magazine to my specific niche of the demographic!

Grow up.

 SHUPPET wrote:
People playing the ruleset competitively isn't the problem, that's the best thing a game can have.

Not if the game isn't designed for it, it isn't - I'm pretty sure playing "competitive" (by which I assume you're meaning tournament) games with a Polemos system, for example, just won't work.

Karol wrote:
Well I can't talk about the past,

Why not? You've talked about leaving the game during 4th before now...

the_scotsman wrote:
If the former, you'd have the entire category of "Haywire" weapons in Dark Eldar and Harlequin codexes overcosted because of the existence of a single psychic power from another codex.

Ideally, Doom just gets a rewrite so that only units from the Craftworlds book benefit from it when shooting the unit the power has been cast upon. Solves the problem from a mechanical standpoint, even if thematically there is no reason for anyone shooting at a Doomed unit not to be more effective.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
I cant believe that some people still dont have realised that soup is intended, wanted and supported by GW.

You seem to be confusing what is and what should be, when what is benefits you.

To be fair, Grimtuff, I do think that GW did intend allies to be a thing this edition - I just think they intended for people to use them for thematic reasons, not to squeeze every last 0.001% of potential out of a list.

Wayniac wrote:
As an aside, I also greatly miss when armies were that size. A Dreadnought or a single tank was often the most you saw.

I thought the all tank battle report they did during 2nd edition was really cool - bet it took a while to play, though, given how vehicles worked back then. I think it was called Heretic!, maybe?

Karol wrote:
where is the data that it is not played that way and only tournaments see such lists?

When the claim is made that "most people play this way", the onus is on the person making the claim to provide the evidence. Proving a negative is a very difficult thing to do, after all.

While it's anecdotal and not exactly people doing the loyal 32, the majority of Imperium players where I live are exactly that; Imperium players. It's rare that I face a monofaction Imperium army anymore, even if it's usually just a Knight or 2 inserted into like, a marine list or something.

 Bosskelot wrote:
While it's anecdotal and not exactly people doing the loyal 32, the majority of Imperium players where I live are exactly that; Imperium players. It's rare that I face a monofaction Imperium army anymore, even if it's usually just a Knight or 2 inserted into like, a marine list or something.

This is kinda the problem with allies. Like any mechanic, it can be abused. I agree as an Imperium player I love that I can combine smaller IOM factions together to create fun lists. I don't own a knight and don't feel they belong in a normal game of 40k. But at the same time I don't want to loss the ability to take an inquisitor with my marines or recreate certain novel team ups like Sisters of Battle and Admech.

This gets back to the core issue with 40k, both players need to have the same goals and expectation from the game or it likely won't be fun for either of them.

 Stux wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

TL;DR - I like soup ... when Everyone gets soup.

Which is why I kinda miss the old ally system in 7th. It allowed Necrons and Blood Angels to fight together as intended even though there were some limitations to it.

Yeah, I feel there should be a mechanism to ally anything together, it just needs appropriate balancing. Which I feel can be managed through the CP system.

Alternatively, find a way to let the armies that don't currently ally get some allies.

Tau could ally with Guard very easily. Do it like Brood Brothers, just make it GUE'VESA instead.

There's an angle to allow Necrons to ally with Admech - have the Void Dragon awaken in some way, leading to a faction of Admech who worship it leave.

That just leaves Orks. Why not make Orks the ultimate mercenary faction? Could ally with anyone (just not everyone simultaneously).

I would totally agree with this as long as the Orks in question were either predominantly Blood Axe or maybe led by Blood Axe. They're mentioned plenty of times in the fluff as working with other races as mercs.

 Bosskelot wrote:
While it's anecdotal and not exactly people doing the loyal 32, the majority of Imperium players where I live are exactly that; Imperium players. It's rare that I face a monofaction Imperium army anymore, even if it's usually just a Knight or 2 inserted into like, a marine list or something.

And that sucks. I personally miss the days in which you had a decent idea of what an opponent had because they were playing X, and X only had specific options.
But now that you can basically cherry-pick from multiple factions, it is just too much. Armies don't really have the same kinds of weaknesses as you can just plug them with another faction.

Don't get me wrong, Allies are fun and should be a part of the game, but they shouldn't be the main part of the game. Mono-factions should be just as viable.

-

When the claim is made that "most people play this way", the onus is on the person making the claim to provide the evidence. Proving a negative is a very difficult thing to do, after all.

No it isn't. If someone says that glass is not a good thing to eat, they don't have to prove anything. It is the people that glass is a valid thing to eat that have to prove it is the case. You can't put up an illogical argument that most people don't care about money and buy bad armies, and then ask everyone that this is not the case.

Why not? You've talked about leaving the game during 4th before now...

that was my dad. He posted like twice on my account.

Ideally, Doom just gets a rewrite so that only units from the Craftworlds book benefit from it when shooting the unit the power has been cast upon. Solves the problem from a mechanical standpoint, even if thematically there is no reason for anyone shooting at a Doomed unit not to be more effective.

Did GW or anyone from GW say that they are thinking about a change like that. Because if not this is a fix, like me thinking about GK stuff costing 1/5th less and having some extra rules.

While it's anecdotal and not exactly people doing the loyal 32, the majority of Imperium players where I live are exactly that; Imperium players. It's rare that I face a monofaction Imperium army anymore, even if it's usually just a Knight or 2 inserted into like, a marine list or something.

Ok, but are they imperium players, because they always wanted to play soup armies, or do they play imperium soup, because playing anything else is punishing enough for most people not want to try it?

True, good point.

25% allies with CP only being able to be used for that faction would be a way to correct that perhaps.

So you could bring a loyal 32, but those 5 CP can only be used for that loyal 32 with the rest of the CP going to the primary faction. Would definitely stop CP batteries.

Personally I think this is a little too extreme.

I would suggest either limit allies to 25% points but allow all to benefit from CP or make it unlimited allies but they can only use their own CP

People want different things. To some, the fix should make Allies not possible. To others, make it only token presences of minor forces alongside the main host. To others, it should be totally viable that half your army be Imperial Guard and the other half Marines. Or Traitor Marines and Demons.

I'd like to see Soup still viable but not as optimal as now. For that, you need to disincentivize soup instead of outright penalize or deny it.

To that end, my favorite is still the "Detachments Cost CP" suggestion that pops up in Proposed Rules from time to time. You can find the details there. But it would make using more detatchements cost CP instead of give CP - which would mean you can soup, but it'll cost you. Currently, souping typically means you get more CP.