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.

Martel732 wrote:
Because people are allergic to math.

No. As has been pointed out repeatedly in this very thread it's because 8th edition changed the very nature of how armies and allies work. We now have stratagems and CPs and faction bonuses and different detachment types to consider. That makes taking allies a fundamentally different proposition in 8th than in previous games when the only benefit was expanding the total number of unit choices an army could pick from. Costing units properly doesn't help as a solution because it's almost impossible to properly cost a unit when it can be available to a mono-Codex army with all the restrictions that entails or a soup army with essentially no restrictions at all.

That's where empiricism comes in. There is a point value where everything is usable but not autotake.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
I recently did a trip through old White Dwarf and I'm seeing Soup Armies all the way back to second edition. Why are we considering removing a core part of the game that's been there for that long? This game has always had soup in it and removing it doesn't fix anything. GW isn't just going to squat all those Ynari players and Knight House infantry lists to not actually address the problem.

This is a knee-jerk 5-minute solution that smacks of populist thinking as opposed to actual critical thinking

The problem is that there are a lot of problems. And GW happy enough to make the game for some players, but leave others behind.

It’s very likely that people are fine with ally’s when they are not the only way for some factions to even participate. I would also say that ally’s have not been a core part of the game. But a complimentary part until recently.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
I recently did a trip through old White Dwarf and I'm seeing Soup Armies all the way back to second edition. Why are we considering removing a core part of the game that's been there for that long? This game has always had soup in it and removing it doesn't fix anything. GW isn't just going to squat all those Ynari players and Knight House infantry lists to not actually address the problem.

This is a knee-jerk 5-minute solution that smacks of populist thinking as opposed to actual critical thinking

'Soup' in older editions required meeting FOC requirements for each detachment, and provided no inter-faction synergy through abilities. Obviously CP didn't exist either.

You could take allies, but each faction had to be a substantial chunk of your army, each had minimum FOC requirements that represented a significant tax, and they provided no benefits to one another apart from simply being able to mix units from different armies.

In other words, it was completely different from the present situation, in which you can simply bolt a Castellan on to any Imperial list and supercharge it with CP. I see a lot fewer people advocating for the end of mixed-faction armies entirely than advocating for a revision to the soup mechanics to be more like it used to be.

But how many people are actually advocating for the removal of soup? If there were drawbacks introduced to the mechanic then it's fine. Many soup lists are fluffy and fun, but a system where you can draw from 500 datasheets instead of 30 with no drawbacks at all is just really tough to balance.

A lot of people quickly shoot down any proposed fixes because there might be some unintended consequences/ doesn't go far enough, but the only solution in my mind is incremental changes. That's what we should hope for, not some over-arching ban on soup or no changes at all

 Horst wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:
Crazy idea. Why don't we jack up the points cost of the Castellan by...iunno....100 points to bring it in line with its over-performing status.

Seem fair?

Not, because its not fair, and its not the problem.

And I'm not sure how you misunderstand that point.

Because Castellans *do* seem to be a problem? What makes you think the Castellan isn't a problem, when really only the Eldar have effective counters for it. Other knights aren't really an issue like this, you can counter melee knights with screening units / good positioning, and the other shooty knights aren't nearly as powerful as the Castellan. It needs some nerfs.

Ok, but if we nerf knights, then all there is going to be left is eldar armies. Right now as bad as it maybe, there are two more or less equal armies. Eldar soups, of which there are a few versions and IG+castellan soups, which again have some variation. If IG or the knights get nerfed then all we are going to get is eldar players steam rolling everyone. That would be even less balance then we have now. Instead of talking of how to kill armies which clearly work, how about GW goes on and starts fixing armies that do not work. Maybe orcs need some valid anti tank, no idea what tau or necrons need to be on pair with the best. Fixing the meta by just making it an eldar heaven is like turning back the clock to 2017.

I don't want to derail this thread, but how's this for a solution to the problem with soup?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/771340.page

 ChargerIIC wrote:
I recently did a trip through old White Dwarf and I'm seeing Soup Armies all the way back to second edition. Why are we considering removing a core part of the game that's been there for that long? This game has always had soup in it and removing it doesn't fix anything. GW isn't just going to squat all those Ynari players and Knight House infantry lists to not actually address the problem.

This is a knee-jerk 5-minute solution that smacks of populist thinking as opposed to actual critical thinking

So it is not ok for eldar or IK players to have more equal opponents, but other factions can stay squalched for years? How does mono BA or GK do in tournaments or casual games? Those factions are non existant.

The partial or ful removal of soup would mean one thing. GW, if they were to stay true to what they say about the quality of their products, would have to make each new codex have a valid army to play with. They wouldn't be able to make books which are "ok" to play as long as you take a castellan and a IG detachment alongside of it.

Slipspace wrote:

No. The better approach is to try to reduce the effectiveness of soup across the board so it becomes a genuine choice whether to soup or not. I don't think that'll be achieved with points changes. You need fundamental changes to the rules for allies to do it. Once you've achieved that then balancing individual units becomes much more effective because the playing field is more level to start with.

No, because vast majority of the soup lists are not a problem at all. Why does an AdMech + Iron Hands list need to be nerfed while it is already much weaker than many of the mono armies available?

All I see is nerf nerf nerf! Why not incentivize mono builds by buffing mono armies?

Wayniac wrote:

glados wrote:
Let’s get to the heart of the real issue. It’s not soup, it’s the inclusion of Titanic vehicles to the game.

If a Land Raider was the biggest armoured vehicle in the game this thread wouldn’t be happening,

Phase out super heavies to only being permitted in a special rules Apocalypse style game and the problem is completely solved

This is the best solution but also impossible at this point in time. Flyers and Superheavies don't belong in 40k proper, but they've been included too long to phase them out.

The biggest mistake of all was rolling Apoc into the base game instead of keeping it separate and distinct.

Yup, the proverbial Rubicon has firmly been crossed here.

 Crimson wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

No. The better approach is to try to reduce the effectiveness of soup across the board so it becomes a genuine choice whether to soup or not. I don't think that'll be achieved with points changes. You need fundamental changes to the rules for allies to do it. Once you've achieved that then balancing individual units becomes much more effective because the playing field is more level to start with.

No, because vast majority of the soup lists are not a problem at all. Why does an AdMech + Iron Hands list need to be nerfed while it is already much weaker than many of the mono armies available?

Because if we build a wall around each army than that army will get a chance to shine! None of this point balance nonsense that threatens my mono-build. What we need are quick, instinctive leadership decisions that don't affect us and lower the playability of others!

Nerf Guard! Nerf Ynarri! Nerf Soup! Ia Ia Cthulhu Ftagan!

If you think Allies are a bad thing and should go, while I disagree, I think there are viable arguments both for and against and I respect your opinion. However, reading so-called "nerfs" to Allies that functionally deletes them from the game (Silo-ing off CP, restricting anything useful being generated by non-Warlord detachments, etc etc) makes me want to headbutt my desk. If you want Allies removed, then say it. 40K has enough trap options as-is without you wanting to add more!

If I were to make any suggestions, it would firstly be to make "Troop Detachments" (Battalions & Brigades) a 1-per-army detachment. The issue isn't multiple Battalions per se, but rather that some armies (Read: IG) can cheaply "upgrade" a Spearhead into a Battalion by taking about 200pts of perfectly good screening/ob.sec. while other armies get left to hang. Sidenote: Non-Troop Detachments (Spearheads, Outriders, Vanguards etc) have three troop slots each. Forcing Troop-spam to mix up their lists a bit won't kill them.
Also, why do LoW get a better Auxiliary detachment? Delete it and put a LoW option in the Auxiliary Detachment. Likewise, Supreme Command Detachments have never provided anything good enough to outweigh their detriment to the game. Delete 'em.

Pancakey wrote:
All I see is nerf nerf nerf! Why not incentivize mono builds by buffing mono armies?

That could work aswell. The real question is, what buff would make people play mono armies?

Having extra rules for free if your army is mono. Want a melee army with catachans, smash hammers and some knights running around. Here you go, you can even cross use the CP etc. But if someone takes a pure IK,Catachan, or BA army there should be army buffs and unit buffs.

If this can't be done on a unit per unit basis, then specilised detachments that require so many units you end up with something like 1800pts of stuff, so the possibility of someone taking a knight and IG with such a list is zero. Unless someone plays those crazy 2000pts+ games.

Forcing Troop-spam to mix up their lists a bit won't kill them.

LoL so GK players to avoid the horrible termintors and bad strikes, turn to interceptors and now to run them they need 3 units of the stuff they wanted to avoid taking. Nice.
How about just make every detachment take 5 troops, then playing GK will have no sense at all, because it won't be possible fit GK in to a 2000pts army.

Trollbert wrote:
...... If you're honest, nothing substantially changed from mid 7th (when I quit) to now, were are basically at the same point again.

Besides literally everything about the game changing you mean?

If you quit mid 7th, then you have no clue how 8th plays at all and how drastically different it is then 7th towards the end.

As for the topic, not sharing CP is the fast way to fix this, and I'm kind of wondering why people and tournaments are not doing this on their own to drive the point home. But I'm not ignorant, I know why, because if that happened it would take a concerted effort by the community to drive the point home to all players that we need balance. That didn't happen at the end of 5th/6th7th, it's not going to start happening now, so GW needs to do something about it.

The ITC missions are hot garbage at the moment, the champions packet rewards leafblowers and it's not even close, 8 of the 11 secondary objectives are "kill" related, and you can earn 12 points a mission just with those alone. The bonus points are nearly impossible, and are all objectives related. The primary mission is heavily dependent on the number of objectives laid down in deployment, and rewards nothing. If you can sit on half the objectives and out shoot someone you win.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
I recently did a trip through old White Dwarf and I'm seeing Soup Armies all the way back to second edition. Why are we considering removing a core part of the game that's been there for that long?

Because they havent really. 2E was a very different game with a different scale and different mechanics and interactions, far fewer units and armies, and had hard limits on allies usage and none of the back end army building stuff like detachments/CPs/etc. Allies were nonexistent for three editions outside of the WH/DH books (which had severe restrictions and limitations). Allies, in the current incarnation, are a relatively recent development of the last couple editions.

Darsath wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
All I see is nerf nerf nerf! Why not incentivize mono builds by buffing mono armies?

That could work aswell. The real question is, what buff would make people play mono armies?

The quickest and most bolt on solution for 8th right now is to just rework battle forged CP and the CP for detachments, reduce battalions and brigades up the battle forged CP and you loose CP if your army is joined by the "super faction keywords, ie Aledari, choas, imperium, basically copy the battle brother's detachment wording across.

LoL so GK players to avoid the horrible termintors and bad strikes, turn to interceptors and now to run them they need 3 units of the stuff they wanted to avoid taking. Nice.
How about just make every detachment take 5 troops, then playing GK will have no sense at all, because it won't be possible fit GK in to a 2000pts army.

If your only objection is that mono-GK armies wouldn't work under my system, then I think I'm doing fine! /s

Seriously though, the ability to effectively purchase 4CP for approx. 200pts of good models you wanted anyway is a massive part of why some armies are better than others. Additionally, it would force problematic lists like Boyz spam (which I still see at tables R.I.P) into putting points into other stuff. The other option is to nerf Battalion and Brigade CP back to old levels, but that still doesn't solve the issue of cheaply buying CP with models you were already taking.

 Crimson wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

No. The better approach is to try to reduce the effectiveness of soup across the board so it becomes a genuine choice whether to soup or not. I don't think that'll be achieved with points changes. You need fundamental changes to the rules for allies to do it. Once you've achieved that then balancing individual units becomes much more effective because the playing field is more level to start with.

No, because vast majority of the soup lists are not a problem at all. Why does an AdMech + Iron Hands list need to be nerfed while it is already much weaker than many of the mono armies available?

Because if you ever want your fluffy IH/AdMech list to be even slightly competitive the game needs to be readjusted so that the most extreme abuse isn't as good. At the moment that extreme abuse is doe via soup. Once you've reined in the most abusive parts of soup the ideal scenario would be that soup is still viable, but not the default always-best option.

Just wanted to say that I TO'd my first tournament this weekend. 44 players over 2 days.

I put in significant restrictions to army comp to push people away from soup. And by soup I don't just mean knights with guard. I mean Hive Fleet Leviathan fighting next to Hive Fleet Kraken.
Or Blood Angels and Dark Angels fighting side by side. Min-max nonsense to get the right bonuses on the right models with little downside.

Lists are publically viewable...

Here are the winners ordered by "Best Overall" (combined best general, best painting and best sports)

Top 5 are:
1. pure Bad Moons Orks
2. pure Sisters of Battle
3. pure House Krast Knights
4. pure Blood Angels
5. pure Deathskulls Orks

Here are the winners ordered by "Best General" - only their tournament points

Top 5:
1. IMPERIAL SOUP!!! A brigade of Cadians plus 2 helverins and a Castellan. Beat the Sisters on strength of schedule after a close final game.
2. Sisters
3. Bad Moons
4. Krast Knights
5. Blood Angels

All the lists available here:
http://downunderpairings.com/Tournament.php?TournamentID=371&GoTo=ArmyLists


Doesn't show you that a pure Bad Moons list would win the LVO.

Does show you that if you take a bit of time to think of some army comp rules and reward things other than just the Best General, you will get a very diverse list of winning armies.

Soup still won the game, but only by narrowly beating a mono-faction army.


My players are still doing the post-tournament survey but the feedback was mostly "Next year just go mono codex!"
I'm not sure I agree but there is definitely an appetite for this sort of event.

I've posted a rough draft of a change to how allies work in the proposed rules section, if anyone wants to provide feedback.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/771347.page#10342986

kingheff wrote:
I've posted a rough draft of a change to how allies work in the proposed rules section, if anyone wants to provide feedback.

With respect, we all have. I spent ages writing mine and you haven't read them. You spent ages writing yours and I won't read them. Neither you nor I are going to affect the rules in any way, unless you choose to run your own tournament or gaming group and apply your rules.

#trufax


Edit: I did read them Not terrible and not miles from mine. Don't like the +1 cp for stratagems not from main detachment part. Extra bookkeeping and tough to remember/easy to either deliberately forget or accidentally forget.

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:

LoL so GK players to avoid the horrible termintors and bad strikes, turn to interceptors and now to run them they need 3 units of the stuff they wanted to avoid taking. Nice.
How about just make every detachment take 5 troops, then playing GK will have no sense at all, because it won't be possible fit GK in to a 2000pts army.

If your only objection is that mono-GK armies wouldn't work under my system, then I think I'm doing fine! /s

Seriously though, the ability to effectively purchase 4CP for approx. 200pts of good models you wanted anyway is a massive part of why some armies are better than others. Additionally, it would force problematic lists like Boyz spam (which I still see at tables R.I.P) into putting points into other stuff. The other option is to nerf Battalion and Brigade CP back to old levels, but that still doesn't solve the issue of cheaply buying CP with models you were already taking.

Everyone is ok with an army they don't play getting nerfed. GK don't work as mono, and souping up doesn't help them, because there are better armies to soup instead of them.

Karol wrote:

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:

LoL so GK players to avoid the horrible termintors and bad strikes, turn to interceptors and now to run them they need 3 units of the stuff they wanted to avoid taking. Nice.
How about just make every detachment take 5 troops, then playing GK will have no sense at all, because it won't be possible fit GK in to a 2000pts army.

If your only objection is that mono-GK armies wouldn't work under my system, then I think I'm doing fine! /s

Seriously though, the ability to effectively purchase 4CP for approx. 200pts of good models you wanted anyway is a massive part of why some armies are better than others. Additionally, it would force problematic lists like Boyz spam (which I still see at tables R.I.P) into putting points into other stuff. The other option is to nerf Battalion and Brigade CP back to old levels, but that still doesn't solve the issue of cheaply buying CP with models you were already taking.

Everyone is ok with an army they don't play getting nerfed. GK don't work as mono, and souping up doesn't help them, because there are better armies to soup instead of them.

That highlights one of the other problems with soup. Paradoxically it tends to reduce options because once you've decided to soup in order to be as competitive as possible you're restricting yourself to only the best units available. You know longer have to think about how to deal with your weaknesses as an army because you just take the best units from multiple factions to cover those weaknesses. You can easily substitute Imperial Fists for Grey Knights in your comment above. Once you decide to try to be as competitive as possible you'd discard the IF in favour of IG for CPs or Custodes or Smash Captains for close combat punch.

Darsath wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
All I see is nerf nerf nerf! Why not incentivize mono builds by buffing mono armies?

That could work aswell. The real question is, what buff would make people play mono armies?

“Brothers in Arms”

“If all units and dectachments share the same faction, reduce the CP cost off all strategems by 1.”

Yes this makes 1CP strats free.

I'm still a fan of Detatchments-Cost-CP.

If you paid for taking detachments instead of getting paid to take detachments (Patrol, Batt, Brigg included, all 3 at the same CP cost), then you have a CP incentive to take fewer allies - filling out or upsizing your core detachment gives more CP than adding a detachment from another book.

 sfshilo wrote:

Trollbert wrote:
...... If you're honest, nothing substantially changed from mid 7th (when I quit) to now, were are basically at the same point again.

Besides literally everything about the game changing you mean?

If you quit mid 7th, then you have no clue how 8th plays at all and how drastically different it is then 7th towards the end.

As for the topic, not sharing CP is the fast way to fix this, and I'm kind of wondering why people and tournaments are not doing this on their own to drive the point home. But I'm not ignorant, I know why, because if that happened it would take a concerted effort by the community to drive the point home to all players that we need balance. That didn't happen at the end of 8th, it's not going to start happening now, so GW needs to do something about it.

The ITC missions are hot garbage at the moment, the champions packet rewards leafblowers and it's not even close, 8 of the 11 secondary objectives are "kill" related, and you can earn 12 points a mission just with those alone. The bonus points are nearly impossible, and area all objective related. The primary mission is heavily dependent on the number of objectives laid down in deployment, and rewards nothing. If you can sit on half the objectives and out shoot someone you win.

I quit mid 7th and came back for 8th (and I am about to quit again).

The game changed drastically, but I was not saying that the game didn't evolve. I am in fact saying that the game sidestepped.
In 7th I could only have fair games against certain players with certain armies. That is still true.
In 7th I could only use a small range of my models against slightly stronger opponents. That is still true.
In 7th, games against the opponents with armies that I could fairly fight got boring really quickly because the games turned out to play in the same way each time we played. That is still true.

Does sound like 8th ed.

That highlights one of the other problems with soup. Paradoxically it tends to reduce options because once you've decided to soup in order to be as competitive as possible you're restricting yourself to only the best units available. You know longer have to think about how to deal with your weaknesses as an army because you just take the best units from multiple factions to cover those weaknesses. You can easily substitute Imperial Fists for Grey Knights in your comment above. Once you decide to try to be as competitive as possible you'd discard the IF in favour of IG for CPs or Custodes or Smash Captains for close combat punch

Not saying no, but in GK case this a strickt there are identical better units type of problem. DW are no where near eldar or IG/castellan lists, but they cost is identical to GK cost. The units do the same stuff, only DW get free ammo and Storm Shields. I understand that tournaments will always focus the meta and counter to meta. But there just isn't any mechanical incite to run a GK strike over a DW vet or even primaris.