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.

OK. GW separate the two types of play style, story telling and competitive. Some types of units are only available for Narrative play, eg Looted Wagons.

It seems strange that, in a ‘competition’ setting, pitting one force/faction against another, that multiple faction armies are allowed.

As a Narrative army, I can totally see soup forces. In a Matched play game, not so much. It would seem unfair to pit two (or more) factions against one. Please note, I am not calling for a complete re-working of tournament rules, just that if you are ‘competing’, should it not be on a level playing field.

Feel free to change my mind.

Well, we only play matched play.
Narrative play is a mess.

I think it would be totally reasonable if GW came out with an 'organised play suggestion', much like the Rule of 3, that says tournament armies should be made up of a single faction. Maybe go as far as sub faction even.

It would probably also become standard for matched play pick up games (again much like Rule of 3), but it would be more clear that it's fine to play matched play with soup if you want to.

Your argument for not playing soup is it’s not.. a level playing field? That makes no sense.. competitively I would want to face the best of the best that way if I won I would know I played the best possible against everyone.

Our gaming group does a fair amount of narrative games, but we always use the full matched play+organized play rules to do so. There is little reason to skip all those rules meant to improve your game, and nothing prevents you from playing narrative missions with matched play rules.

One reason to use narrative or open play is when you have a game master telling a story and want to lift restrictions to have more creative freedom... but then again, there is no reason not to just ignore any rules at will when you are doing so.

The last part using datasheets that only have a PL, but even then, you are better off either using matched play rules with PL or just count 1 PL = 20 points for those datasheets.

Soup exists primarily so GW can sell more kits (you sell more kits when a player is choosing from seven codices for the "best" units than one).

Soup exists in narrative play (which for the record can be played just as Matched Play but with better/cooler scenarios - not sure why people think Narrative play is limited to Power Level and NOT using any Matched Play rules...?)

In narrative gaming you would expect a thematic and story-driven army composition. The units wouldn't be taken for power gaming or sneak a particular stratagem, warlord trait or relic into an army solely for that purpose. In Matched Play that's precisely why they're taken. The standard tournament Soup list has no thematic element or reasoning behind the unit choice simply power and mathematical efficiency (occasionally hidden behind the excuse of "well it's fluffy!").

GW will continue to allow Soup in tournament play because tournament gamers are the more quick-to-buy players vs. the slow-burn hobbyists who might enjoy 40K in a narrative setting. A narrative or casual player won't read an FAQ or a new codex and think "Oh man, that's 12% more shots per turn than previous, I'll buy four boxes for the next tournament!". That's precisely what tournament players are more prone to doing. GW wants that kind of purchase (even if it's eBayed a couple months later when the meta shifts). Tournament goers with the expendable income often make entirely new 1750-2000 point armies within six months because they want to attend X event and play a new meta-net army.

The casual player isn't doing that, even if he does have the funds.

I don't think it's even worth arguing that Soup shouldn't exist in 40K tournaments. It's here to stay unless some big tournaments start making that decision (which I wish they would because that would be 10x more interesting). Right now Soup is undoubtedly a massive advantage. But as mentioned above, it's good for business. How many Knights and Castellans did you see at tournaments? Each one of those is a sweet $140 sale (though admittedly GW gets a cut of that only).

Personally I'd like to see Tournaments risk going mono-codex. It would be an easy way to set your tournament apart and it would be seriously challenging.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Your argument for not playing soup is it’s not.. a level playing field? That makes no sense.. competitively I would want to face the best of the best that way if I won I would know I played the best possible against everyone.

What? This doesn't make sense to me. You aren't playing 'the best of the best' currently, you're playing against the best possible within list building restrictions. This is just another restriction.

Or do you want to be playing against armies composed of nothing but Custodes Bike Captains and stuff like that? Because that's probably the sort of list you'd get for a true best of the best unrestricted.

 Stux wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Your argument for not playing soup is it’s not.. a level playing field? That makes no sense.. competitively I would want to face the best of the best that way if I won I would know I played the best possible against everyone.

What? This doesn't make sense to me. You aren't playing 'the best of the best' currently, you're playing against the best possible within list building restrictions. This is just another restriction.

Or do you want to be playing against armies composed of nothing but Custodes Bike Captains and stuff like that? Because that's probably the sort of list you'd get for a true best of the best unrestricted.

I’m sorry maybe you didn’t understand what I was saying. Soup makes for a more competitive army. A more competitive army means a better game... competitively. Hence the term, competitive army. I think that should assist you in understanding?

I'd be happy with a +1 to the number of same datasheets you can use if you are doing a mono faction army. (or -1 for multi faction army).

That would make a fair trade-off for me: Do I take the units of my faction more often, or do I not do that and allow for other options.

ThePauliPrinciple wrote:
I'd be happy with a +1 to the number of same datasheets you can use if you are doing a mono faction army. (or -1 for multi faction army).

That would make a fair trade-off for me: Do I take the units of my faction more often, or do I not do that and allow for other options.

Terrible idea as it does not affect necrons, tau, or other armies that have a simple one codex. Soup will continue to exist, as stated above simply because GW knows it makes them money. Thank goodness, because this game would be a lot more boring if it was back in the old days. Beautiful thing? Play older editions if you want to play mono faction. Or agree with your opponent. Wanna play competitive? Expect anything. Case closed moving on.

Bingo!

So many folks uses "but mah narrative" arguments for the matched play games, when there is, you know, "narrative play" available for their fluffy armies.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Your argument for not playing soup is it’s not.. a level playing field? That makes no sense.. competitively I would want to face the best of the best that way if I won I would know I played the best possible against everyone.

What? This doesn't make sense to me. You aren't playing 'the best of the best' currently, you're playing against the best possible within list building restrictions. This is just another restriction.

Or do you want to be playing against armies composed of nothing but Custodes Bike Captains and stuff like that? Because that's probably the sort of list you'd get for a true best of the best unrestricted.

I’m sorry maybe you didn’t understand what I was saying. Soup makes for a more competitive army. A more competitive army means a better game... competitively. Hence the term, competitive army. I think that should assist you in understanding?

Ok, I just don't think that is true. More powerful is not the same as more competitive. We could make more powerful armies than we currently have by removing restrictions, and I don't think that would improve the quality of games. In the same way, I think there are some restrictions we could add that would improve the quality of games.

Competitive to me doesn't mean high power, it means balanced and with meaningful strategic and tactical decisions. Power is only relative after all.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

ThePauliPrinciple wrote:
I'd be happy with a +1 to the number of same datasheets you can use if you are doing a mono faction army. (or -1 for multi faction army).

That would make a fair trade-off for me: Do I take the units of my faction more often, or do I not do that and allow for other options.

Terrible idea as it does not affect necrons, tau, or other armies that have a simple one codex. Soup will continue to exist, as stated above simply because GW knows it makes them money. Thank goodness, because this game would be a lot more boring if it was back in the old days. Beautiful thing? Play older editions if you want to play mono faction. Or agree with your opponent. Wanna play competitive? Expect anything. Case closed moving on.

Clearly it does affect mono faction armies as they would be allowed to bring one more of their best units to offset the limited choice compared to soup. I am not at all against soup, but would love to see a bigger trade-off to soup or not to soup.

 Stux wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Your argument for not playing soup is it’s not.. a level playing field? That makes no sense.. competitively I would want to face the best of the best that way if I won I would know I played the best possible against everyone.

What? This doesn't make sense to me. You aren't playing 'the best of the best' currently, you're playing against the best possible within list building restrictions. This is just another restriction.

Or do you want to be playing against armies composed of nothing but Custodes Bike Captains and stuff like that? Because that's probably the sort of list you'd get for a true best of the best unrestricted.

I’m sorry maybe you didn’t understand what I was saying. Soup makes for a more competitive army. A more competitive army means a better game... competitively. Hence the term, competitive army. I think that should assist you in understanding?

Ok, I just don't think that is true. More powerful is not the same as more competitive. We could make more powerful armies than we currently have by removing restrictions, and I don't think that would improve the quality of games. In the same way, I think there are some restrictions we could add that would improve the quality of games.

Competitive to me doesn't mean high power, it means balanced and with meaningful strategic and tactical decisions. Power is only relative after all.

Ah you’re talking competitive for every army! Ok. Well unfortunately that’s not the concern of GW. OP is saying mono codex should be what is used for competitive play. I’m saying competitive play should mean.. being competitive. Me souping together the same faction as a whole (all are aeldari) or an imperium player using multiple imperium units from codex is competitive..

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Your argument for not playing soup is it’s not.. a level playing field? That makes no sense.. competitively I would want to face the best of the best that way if I won I would know I played the best possible against everyone.

What? This doesn't make sense to me. You aren't playing 'the best of the best' currently, you're playing against the best possible within list building restrictions. This is just another restriction.

Or do you want to be playing against armies composed of nothing but Custodes Bike Captains and stuff like that? Because that's probably the sort of list you'd get for a true best of the best unrestricted.

I’m sorry maybe you didn’t understand what I was saying. Soup makes for a more competitive army. A more competitive army means a better game... competitively. Hence the term, competitive army. I think that should assist you in understanding?

Ok, I just don't think that is true. More powerful is not the same as more competitive. We could make more powerful armies than we currently have by removing restrictions, and I don't think that would improve the quality of games. In the same way, I think there are some restrictions we could add that would improve the quality of games.

Competitive to me doesn't mean high power, it means balanced and with meaningful strategic and tactical decisions. Power is only relative after all.

Ah you’re talking competitive for every army! Ok. Well unfortunately that’s not the concern of GW. OP is saying mono codex should be what is used for competitive play. I’m saying competitive play should mean.. being competitive. Me souping together the same faction as a whole (all are aeldari) or an imperium player using multiple imperium units from codex is competitive..

But that's only being competitive now because that is what the rules are. If the rules were different something else would be more competitive, and would hopefully also be much more meaningfully so.

I'm just not clear on why you believe the current level of restriction is the optimal one, as opposed to some amount more of less restriction.

It's a bit like you're saying the current system is correct because it is the current system.

 Stux wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Your argument for not playing soup is it’s not.. a level playing field? That makes no sense.. competitively I would want to face the best of the best that way if I won I would know I played the best possible against everyone.

What? This doesn't make sense to me. You aren't playing 'the best of the best' currently, you're playing against the best possible within list building restrictions. This is just another restriction.

Or do you want to be playing against armies composed of nothing but Custodes Bike Captains and stuff like that? Because that's probably the sort of list you'd get for a true best of the best unrestricted.

I’m sorry maybe you didn’t understand what I was saying. Soup makes for a more competitive army. A more competitive army means a better game... competitively. Hence the term, competitive army. I think that should assist you in understanding?

Ok, I just don't think that is true. More powerful is not the same as more competitive. We could make more powerful armies than we currently have by removing restrictions, and I don't think that would improve the quality of games. In the same way, I think there are some restrictions we could add that would improve the quality of games.

Competitive to me doesn't mean high power, it means balanced and with meaningful strategic and tactical decisions. Power is only relative after all.

Ah you’re talking competitive for every army! Ok. Well unfortunately that’s not the concern of GW. OP is saying mono codex should be what is used for competitive play. I’m saying competitive play should mean.. being competitive. Me souping together the same faction as a whole (all are aeldari) or an imperium player using multiple imperium units from codex is competitive..

But that's only being competitive now because that is what the rules are. If the rules were different something else would be more competitive, and would hopefully also be much more meaningfully so.

I'm just not clear on why you believe the current level of restriction is the optimal one, as opposed to some amount more of less restriction.

It's a bit like you're saying the current system is correct because it is the current system.

In all honesty if you like the older style of restriction, as I said you are free to play older editions that were that way back in the day. Or discuss with your opponent about using mono codex or different restrictions. However yes, in TODAYS rules and restrictions/meta, it is what is correct and good. I love soup, and I don’t feel there should be a down side for TAKKNG soup.

Ah ok. Well if your position is just that you enjoy soup then that's fine, I respect that! It is quite fun to be able to field stuff from loads of armies you've collected

I just think that we'd have a more competitively tooled game with some more restrictions on it than we have currently.

Moriarty wrote:
OK. GW separate the two types of play style, story telling and competitive. Some types of units are only available for Narrative play, eg Looted Wagons.

It seems strange that, in a ‘competition’ setting, pitting one force/faction against another, that multiple faction armies are allowed.

As a Narrative army, I can totally see soup forces. In a Matched play game, not so much. It would seem unfair to pit two (or more) factions against one. Please note, I am not calling for a complete re-working of tournament rules, just that if you are ‘competing’, should it not be on a level playing field.

Feel free to change my mind.

In a tourney setting you are on a level playing field. You each have x pts to spend & follow the same build rules. After that? It's on YOU to make the best list you can. It's on YOU to provide the skill to play whatever you've chosen. It's unreasonable to expect others choices to be nerfed when you fail at one or both of those.

But armies clearly are not equal. Building a tournament list with IG as a base is much different then trying to build one with lets say Grey Knights. It is like having no weight divisions and age groups, and suddenly someone at 65kg and 15 years, gets to enjoy a 120kg 19 year old .

Tbh, I'm not sure why Narrative Play needs to be a separate thing from Matched Play in the first place.

It seems like just having Narrative missions (but otherwise using Matched Play rules) would work fine.

It is what it is

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Your argument for not playing soup is it’s not.. a level playing field? That makes no sense.. competitively I would want to face the best of the best that way if I won I would know I played the best possible against everyone.

What? This doesn't make sense to me. You aren't playing 'the best of the best' currently, you're playing against the best possible within list building restrictions. This is just another restriction.

Or do you want to be playing against armies composed of nothing but Custodes Bike Captains and stuff like that? Because that's probably the sort of list you'd get for a true best of the best unrestricted.

I’m sorry maybe you didn’t understand what I was saying. Soup makes for a more competitive army. A more competitive army means a better game... competitively. Hence the term, competitive army. I think that should assist you in understanding?

Ok, I just don't think that is true. More powerful is not the same as more competitive. We could make more powerful armies than we currently have by removing restrictions, and I don't think that would improve the quality of games. In the same way, I think there are some restrictions we could add that would improve the quality of games.

Competitive to me doesn't mean high power, it means balanced and with meaningful strategic and tactical decisions. Power is only relative after all.

Ah you’re talking competitive for every army! Ok. Well unfortunately that’s not the concern of GW. OP is saying mono codex should be what is used for competitive play. I’m saying competitive play should mean.. being competitive. Me souping together the same faction as a whole (all are aeldari) or an imperium player using multiple imperium units from codex is competitive..

I'm just not clear on why you believe the current level of restriction is the optimal one, as opposed to some amount more of less restriction.

It's a bit like you're saying the current system is correct because it is the current system.

In all honesty if you like the older style of restriction, as I said you are free to play older editions that were that way back in the day. Or discuss with your opponent about using mono codex or different restrictions. However yes, in TODAYS rules and restrictions/meta, it is what is correct and good. I love soup, and I don’t feel there should be a down side for TAKKNG soup.

This just reads as "I like that my chosen faction is better than others, I don't want game balance." Your whole argument is akin to saying "We should be allowed to play all Queens in Chess because that is the best piece so true competition only happens when we can play with all queens."

It isn't an argument about what makes a better, more competitive, more tactical game. It is an argument for liking OP cheese because it makes it easier for you to win. It is an obtuse position as they have put restrictions on army building since the beginning of the edition (rule of 3, detachment limit, no mixed detachments) Other than you liking soup what makes those good restricitons, and no soup bad?

I'm not saying GW can achieve balance (they never have), but it is easier to balance factions in a non-soup world. When some "factions" (imperium) have 10x the units of others that are available for use it makes it hard to make those factions equal. Essentially if soup is allowed the entirety of factions like imperium need to be balanced as if they are a single faction, against factions like orks. This would result (without a lot of changes) to any subfactions of Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari being weak and uplayable for competition.

In the end it comes down that their are 2 camps
1.) People who believe choice of faction should not decide competitiveness of army.
2.) Those who are ok with some factions being better.
But that's only being competitive now because that is what the rules are. If the rules were different something else would be more competitive, and would hopefully also be much more meaningfully so.

 Stux wrote:
I think it would be totally reasonable if GW came out with an 'organised play suggestion', much like the Rule of 3, that says tournament armies should be made up of a single faction. Maybe go as far as sub faction even.

It would probably also become standard for matched play pick up games (again much like Rule of 3), but it would be more clear that it's fine to play matched play with soup if you want to.

That would be really dumb. The only reason half the factions in the game see any representation at all is because of soup.

Do you think you'll see a Grey Knight, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, or Sister of Battle model at a tournament ever again without soup? No you will not.

Also the rule of three was a lazy doggak patch job that didn't actually fix anything while making mono faction armies weaker by default so...

ERJAK wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I think it would be totally reasonable if GW came out with an 'organised play suggestion', much like the Rule of 3, that says tournament armies should be made up of a single faction. Maybe go as far as sub faction even.

It would probably also become standard for matched play pick up games (again much like Rule of 3), but it would be more clear that it's fine to play matched play with soup if you want to.

That would be really dumb. The only reason half the factions in the game see any representation at all is because of soup.

Do you think you'll see a Grey Knight, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, or Sister of Battle model at a tournament ever again without soup? No you will not.

Also the rule of three was a lazy doggak patch job that didn't actually fix anything while making mono faction armies weaker by default so...

I do think you would see them again, because once they can't soup gw can more effectively balance them to other armies. I think one of the main reasons they are bad is because GW erred on the side of underpowered because they have good ally options.

duplicate post

HI all,

thanks for the input.

I appreciate that there are issues with the different power levels of different Codices, and that people like to think they are competing against 'the best', and that the situation is unlikely to change.

However, the fact that there are already restrictions on list building (as per the CP rules) shows that GW envision some sort of level playing field for the game. My contention is that allowing soup in tournaments does not give a level playing field, because it is not available to every Codex.

If the rule was that a player could select any unit from any Codex and still claim 'Battle Forged' CP, that would be fair. If the rule was that a player could only select units from his chosen Codex, that would be fair. Allowing some players' factions to choose from multiple Codices, but not others, is not fair in my opinion.

Please feel free to change my mind.

Moriarty wrote:
HI all,

thanks for the input.

I appreciate that there are issues with the different power levels of different Codices, and that people like to think they are competing against 'the best', and that the situation is unlikely to change.

However, the fact that there are already restrictions on list building (as per the CP rules) shows that GW envision some sort of level playing field for the game. My contention is that allowing soup in tournaments does not give a level playing field, because it is not available to every Codex.

If the rule was that a player could select any unit from any Codex and still claim 'Battle Forged' CP, that would be fair. If the rule was that a player could only select units from his chosen Codex, that would be fair. Allowing some players' factions to choose from multiple Codices, but not others, is not fair in my opinion.

Please feel free to change my mind.

The game is not balanced right now at any level (codex to codex, faction to faction etc) so no matter what the playing field is not level, just eliminating soup won't necessarily make it more balanced unless action is changed to balance it.

There are 3 scenarios that could achieve some level of balance.

1.) Ban Soup and balance the individual books against one another. There are some books (like Harlequins) that would have a tough time with this due to lack of options but could be brought into line none the less.

2.) Allow soup and balance soup factions (imperium, Aeldari etc) as a whole against non-soup factions. So Imperium becomes a faction that is balanced against the mono-faction orks for example. This would make the game fair but generally make playing mono-dex within a soup faction a weaker choice.

3.) Institute some other sort of balancing mechanism (penalty for playing soup, bonus for playing mono-dex, bigger still for mono-faction) as a method of leveling the playing field. I've always felt this should be related to faction traits and stratagems.

I would wager that for the vast majority of us Narrative Play effectively does not exist.

It just isn't an option for pick-up games.

Moriarty wrote:
HI all,

thanks for the input.

I appreciate that there are issues with the different power levels of different Codices, and that people like to think they are competing against 'the best', and that the situation is unlikely to change.

However, the fact that there are already restrictions on list building (as per the CP rules) shows that GW envision some sort of level playing field for the game. My contention is that allowing soup in tournaments does not give a level playing field, because it is not available to every Codex.

If the rule was that a player could select any unit from any Codex and still claim 'Battle Forged' CP, that would be fair. If the rule was that a player could only select units from his chosen Codex, that would be fair. Allowing some players' factions to choose from multiple Codices, but not others, is not fair in my opinion.

Please feel free to change my mind.

If, after everything that has been said about actual competitive play, you still don’t understand that Warhammer is not about “being fair” and is about using your rules to the best of your ability with list building and utilization, then you are just being stubborn with the whole “change my mind, ya know like that YouTube channel” concept.

I despise soup from a matched play perspective. For narrative it makes sense, but for matched it's just min/maxing and beardy/cheesy combos.