Switch Theme:

Why is soup considered so horrible?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






Sigh...

Do I have to spell out what I, and others have posted already ITT so you can infer from context that that one specific example is not the norm when it comes to souping and the people that participate in it?

Needless pedantry and Dakka. Name a more iconic duo.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/25 11:38:59



Games Workshop Delenda Est.

Users on ignore- 53.

If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

Why is soup hated? Go look at the competitive filth lists you see in tournaments. Maybe SM 2.0 changed it but when you see garbage like taking a Blood Angels detachments where the only Blood Angels are Mephiston and 2 Smash Captains and everything else is from different factions it's ridiculous.

Basically like others said it makes things super hard to balance when Imperium has umpteen codexes they can mix and match with zero drawback across detachments to remove the army's weaknesses. Why even have weaknesses when you can take a different faction to alleviate it?

Knights were a good example. Their weakness was lack of screens and low CP generation but good stratagems. That weakness was completely removed with the Loyal 32 and guess what? It was ridiculously OP and had to be nerfed but they nerfed the Knight rather than fix the reason it was OP: being able to negate a design weakness.

With luck this change will also mean the end of Unit X getting nerfed because competitive players are pairing it with Units Y and Z from different factions and that combination is making unit X crazy good.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in de
Junior Officer with Laspistol






I always thought a good start would be to limit CPs generated to the faction that generated them. It won't fix every issue with soup, but at least the CP batteries would not work any more and thus it would be less of a Problem that 1CP in Knight stratagems is usually a bigger thing than 1CP in IG stratagems.

~7510 build and painted
1312 build and painted
1200 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Pyroalchi wrote:
I always thought a good start would be to limit CPs generated to the faction that generated them. It won't fix every issue with soup, but at least the CP batteries would not work any more and thus it would be less of a Problem that 1CP in Knight stratagems is usually a bigger thing than 1CP in IG stratagems.

Thankfully 9th edition fixes the mess of the 8th CP system by replacing it completely

The strategums had to be different power between factions though some factions Knights and custodes struggling to pass double digets of CP while some, Guard, can make it to almost 30CP in 2k game.
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





nekooni wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
Karol wrote:
I always had problems in defining, in non game terms, what kind of an army was the IG with castellan and some BA jump captins with 15 scouts.


[IMPERIUM]

Next...?


I think maybe you've misunderstood the question. Karol is asking what such an army is supposed to represent from a fluff perspective, since the Imperium does not regularly deploy integrated combat units consisting of Imperial Guard with Knights and led by Space Marines. These are typically independent assets; often used in the same operations, but with their own independent chains of command, logistics, and deployment.

This is rather different from taking, say, a 1000pt detachment of Guard along with a 1000pt detachment of Blood Angels, where each is based around a Battalion and represents a functionally coherent fighting unit in its own right.


But how is that different?
Two batallions on one hand
A batallion, superheavy detachment and Supreme command on the other hand.

The triumvirate is in charge, but all the other marines are busy elsewhere,or really just the three guys were sent (ignore that they're captains, think of them as movie marines) in the first place.

The castellan is the leader of the knights, but the marines are in charge.
Same with the guard.

This could be staight out of a novel, as long as you ignore the marine ranks.


You need to come up convoluted excuses that goes against how it's descrcibed in fluff and novels. That's the difference

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




For those of us who don't care about fluff and novels?
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Martel732 wrote:
For those of us who don't care about fluff and novels?

It's imbalanved as heck and also gets really old when the way to make your army better is just adding 30 guardsmen and 2 tank commanders/company commanders etc.

Some of us want to play the armies we bought into not guard or admech.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Ice_can wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
For those of us who don't care about fluff and novels?

It's imbalanved as heck and also gets really old when the way to make your army better is just adding 30 guardsmen and 2 tank commanders/company commanders etc.

Some of us want to play the armies we bought into not guard or admech.


Now you are speaking my language.
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Black Templar Dreadnought





Canada

I think everyone hit all the right check-boxes before me.

Soup Bad:

- Most armies are balanced within themselves, interactions between other armies or units make the complexity exponentially more complex for points to capability.
- Most armies have a style to them, horde, shooty, melee, durable, re-populates, army-wide abilities. Soup allows a means to cover the disadvantages of these given styles which can lead to strong synergies. (Maybe a good thing??)
- Added things like keywords were made to try to contain abilities so they would only interact with intended units or armies (another layer of complexity).

Soup Good:

- More representative of GW "fluff" where combined arms are typically deployed.
- More interesting visually and strategically.

I gave up in using 40k competitively... it seems an oxymoron, I have turned to other systems for that.
BUT we like to use matched play to keep things somewhat sane.
We really like to use the game as a 40k sandbox simulator... we are more into the look of the thing and the insane amount of carnage that happens during the game.

I will be interested to see with the new edition how command points and strategems are separated between the factions of the "soup".

A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Ice_can wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
For those of us who don't care about fluff and novels?

It's imbalanved as heck and also gets really old when the way to make your army better is just adding 30 guardsmen and 2 tank commanders/company commanders etc.

Some of us want to play the armies we bought into not guard or admech.

Or daemons. Or knights. Or any of the other eight legions.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

nekooni wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
I think maybe you've misunderstood the question. Karol is asking what such an army is supposed to represent from a fluff perspective, since the Imperium does not regularly deploy integrated combat units consisting of Imperial Guard with Knights and led by Space Marines. These are typically independent assets; often used in the same operations, but with their own independent chains of command, logistics, and deployment.

This is rather different from taking, say, a 1000pt detachment of Guard along with a 1000pt detachment of Blood Angels, where each is based around a Battalion and represents a functionally coherent fighting unit in its own right.


But how is that different?
Two batallions on one hand
A batallion, superheavy detachment and Supreme command on the other hand.

The triumvirate is in charge, but all the other marines are busy elsewhere,or really just the three guys were sent (ignore that they're captains, think of them as movie marines) in the first place.

The castellan is the leader of the knights, but the marines are in charge.
Same with the guard.

This could be staight out of a novel, as long as you ignore the marine ranks.


'Its the same thing, as long as you pretend the Marines are something they're not, and come up with a contrived backstory/excuse'?

Is that really the angle you want to go with?

Uh, maybe that American army recaptured a couple of German-captured Katyushas and liberated some Canadian POWs, just pretend that they're special forces even though I'm using the rules for officers. See, my WW2 soup army is historically plausible, and totally not just a flimsy excuse at powergaming.

   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






 catbarf wrote:
nekooni wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
I think maybe you've misunderstood the question. Karol is asking what such an army is supposed to represent from a fluff perspective, since the Imperium does not regularly deploy integrated combat units consisting of Imperial Guard with Knights and led by Space Marines. These are typically independent assets; often used in the same operations, but with their own independent chains of command, logistics, and deployment.

This is rather different from taking, say, a 1000pt detachment of Guard along with a 1000pt detachment of Blood Angels, where each is based around a Battalion and represents a functionally coherent fighting unit in its own right.


But how is that different?
Two batallions on one hand
A batallion, superheavy detachment and Supreme command on the other hand.

The triumvirate is in charge, but all the other marines are busy elsewhere,or really just the three guys were sent (ignore that they're captains, think of them as movie marines) in the first place.

The castellan is the leader of the knights, but the marines are in charge.
Same with the guard.

This could be staight out of a novel, as long as you ignore the marine ranks.


'Its the same thing, as long as you pretend the Marines are something they're not, and come up with a contrived backstory/excuse'?

Is that really the angle you want to go with?

Uh, maybe that American army recaptured a couple of German-captured Katyushas and liberated some Canadian POWs, just pretend that they're special forces even though I'm using the rules for officers. See, my WW2 soup army is historically plausible, and totally not just a flimsy excuse at powergaming.


I was waiting for the mental gymnasts to appear for my (and it appears yours) main issue with soup.

I mean, it's not like GW produces a game or anything that allows you to run these combined arms forces without squeezing them into a game not designed for such things without it looking incredibly stupid and convoluted. No, not at all. No such game exists...


Games Workshop Delenda Est.

Users on ignore- 53.

If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran



South Africa

Martel732 wrote:
Kayback wrote:
Lotta people here talking about cheese not soup.


There's no real difference.


Well one is an interesting mix of flavours, the other is bland.

No seriously. Adding a squad or two of allies can enhance the feel of your army. There is something to be said for mono-lists and they shouldn't get the short end of the stick - which we can all agree on - I just think that allies shouldn't be made useless either.

 Grimtuff wrote:

The two are synonymous in 8th and you know it.


HAHAHAHahahahahaha. True. At least is isn't beardy as well.

KBK 
   
Made in us
Keeper of the Flame





Monticello, IN

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
With the changes revealed for the next edition revealed, it seems like GW seems to be continuing with punishing people who make armies made up of different codices. While I do think that adjustments need to be made when cheesy combos get out of control, I don't see anything wrong why it's so bad with having broadly allied factions part of the same army. In the lore, SM frequently fight alongside Knights, Sisters, and Guard, while Chaos faction like DG and TS often fight alongside other CSM warbands. Eldar factions do team up, and so forth. Different factions working together can play off each others' talents, but it's not like they are inherently overpowered. Why does there seem to be this attitude that making an army consisting of allied factions seem to be such a bad thing?


Look up the RPG term "munchkin", and you'll figure out why it's bad.

www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 Just Tony wrote:
Look up the RPG term "munchkin", and you'll figure out why it's bad.


Because of this?

Spoiler:

7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




I haven't played Munchkin in forever so I might just pick that expansion up when this all blows over.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Terrifying Doombull




 Gadzilla666 wrote:
One thing that hasn't been mentioned about soup that I don't like is that certain factions are expected to soup. Gw seems to have designed most chaos factions to work as soup. Sorry, I don't want to have to use other armies, I should be able to play my Night Lords as a pure army without losing anything.

I'm fine with not getting all the toys, but the ones I get should work. That means better balanced codexes. Csm and loyalists shouldn't want to take a knight, for instance, our own super heavys should be good enough to take. Maybe not as good as a knight but still good enough to actually be viable.


Yeah, chaos is in a weird spot, and it seems really baffling (and that it survived into the v2 codex is utterly absurd).
No rules should produce the results it does. For example:

Pure Word bearers army, dark apostles, chaos marines, sorcerer, etc. You get your (crappy) legion trait. But then you want to go a step fluffier, and include some daemons for the legion known for binding daemons. Woops, legion trait goes away, despite lessers being in the CSM book.

But wait, you can take detachments of daemons from the daemon book and not lose any traits and if you do them right with herald plus correct daemon types by detachment, you get their locus bonuses as well for each detachment and a larger range of daemons. There is absolutely no reason to take the first route (daemons in your WB detachment) rather than the latter. There's no excuse for having rules that work this way.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Voss wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
One thing that hasn't been mentioned about soup that I don't like is that certain factions are expected to soup. Gw seems to have designed most chaos factions to work as soup. Sorry, I don't want to have to use other armies, I should be able to play my Night Lords as a pure army without losing anything.

I'm fine with not getting all the toys, but the ones I get should work. That means better balanced codexes. Csm and loyalists shouldn't want to take a knight, for instance, our own super heavys should be good enough to take. Maybe not as good as a knight but still good enough to actually be viable.


Yeah, chaos is in a weird spot, and it seems really baffling (and that it survived into the v2 codex is utterly absurd).
No rules should produce the results it does. For example:

Pure Word bearers army, dark apostles, chaos marines, sorcerer, etc. You get your (crappy) legion trait. But then you want to go a step fluffier, and include some daemons for the legion known for binding daemons. Woops, legion trait goes away, despite lessers being in the CSM book.

But wait, you can take detachments of daemons from the daemon book and not lose any traits and if you do them right with herald plus correct daemon types by detachment, you get their locus bonuses as well for each detachment and a larger range of daemons. There is absolutely no reason to take the first route (daemons in your WB detachment) rather than the latter. There's no excuse for having rules that work this way.

To be fair it does seem very much like GW can't decied if Choas marine's are supposed to represent the legions of old horus heresy, or if they are supposed to represent the rag tag warbands and cults that is more inline with the 40k lore

However that's still not an argument that supports the 8th edition system of add allies it's all upsides no downsides those are all for those filthy mono codex players.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/25 18:11:05


 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

Aye, I don't think GW has had a clear idea on what they've wanted CSM's to be since they released the 4th edition book in 2008. They've been mixing modern Renegades who for some reason have HH-Legion era equipment but no current Loyalist gear, and Legions with afterthought rules, weird mixes and differentiations between Cult units vs "Marked" units, and inconsistent ideas on how they should interact with other forces of Chaos.

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

 Vaktathi wrote:
Aye, I don't think GW has had a clear idea on what they've wanted CSM's to be since they released the 4th edition book in 2008. They've been mixing modern Renegades who for some reason have HH-Legion era equipment but no current Loyalist gear, and Legions with afterthought rules, weird mixes and differentiations between Cult units vs "Marked" units, and inconsistent ideas on how they should interact with other forces of Chaos.


I disagree. I think GW has a very clear idea what they want the CSM's to be. It is just that CSM players don't want their army to be the 40K equivalent of Cobra for the Space Marine GI Joes to beat each week.

The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.

Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
Aye, I don't think GW has had a clear idea on what they've wanted CSM's to be since they released the 4th edition book in 2008. They've been mixing modern Renegades who for some reason have HH-Legion era equipment but no current Loyalist gear, and Legions with afterthought rules, weird mixes and differentiations between Cult units vs "Marked" units, and inconsistent ideas on how they should interact with other forces of Chaos.


I disagree. I think GW has a very clear idea what they want the CSM's to be. It is just that CSM players don't want their army to be the 40K equivalent of Cobra for the Space Marine GI Joes to beat each week.



Least its better than Tyranids who everyone beats up!

I mean I guess in fairness Tyranids do beat up several Space Marine chapters; but darn it we've not killed one yet!!

A Blog in Miniature

3D Printing, hobbying and model fun! 
   
Made in us
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade





Voss wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
One thing that hasn't been mentioned about soup that I don't like is that certain factions are expected to soup. Gw seems to have designed most chaos factions to work as soup. Sorry, I don't want to have to use other armies, I should be able to play my Night Lords as a pure army without losing anything.

I'm fine with not getting all the toys, but the ones I get should work. That means better balanced codexes. Csm and loyalists shouldn't want to take a knight, for instance, our own super heavys should be good enough to take. Maybe not as good as a knight but still good enough to actually be viable.


Yeah, chaos is in a weird spot, and it seems really baffling (and that it survived into the v2 codex is utterly absurd).
No rules should produce the results it does. For example:

Pure Word bearers army, dark apostles, chaos marines, sorcerer, etc. You get your (crappy) legion trait. But then you want to go a step fluffier, and include some daemons for the legion known for binding daemons. Woops, legion trait goes away, despite lessers being in the CSM book.

But wait, you can take detachments of daemons from the daemon book and not lose any traits and if you do them right with herald plus correct daemon types by detachment, you get their locus bonuses as well for each detachment and a larger range of daemons. There is absolutely no reason to take the first route (daemons in your WB detachment) rather than the latter. There's no excuse for having rules that work this way.


I thought that daemons that were summoned were not put into the same detachments as those that summoned them (CSM or other daemons), and thus no traits and loci were lost.
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






Bottom line is, soup should be limited to narrative only.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 Vaktathi wrote:
Aye, I don't think GW has had a clear idea on what they've wanted CSM's to be since they released the 4th edition book in 2008. They've been mixing modern Renegades who for some reason have HH-Legion era equipment but no current Loyalist gear, and Legions with afterthought rules, weird mixes and differentiations between Cult units vs "Marked" units, and inconsistent ideas on how they should interact with other forces of Chaos.

They got it right with the 3.5 codex, then screwed it up in the 4th edition codex and haven't been able to find the plot since. Or when they do they lose it again, like they did in 8th after they invalidated Traitor Legions.

And what lore says the legions are now all "ragtag warbands and cults"? Have you read the description of the massing of the legions in The Lords of Silence? Does that sound "ragtag"? Even warbands should still act like the legions they belong to. Tenth Company were poor, but they still fought like Night Lords, because they were Night Lords. Word Bearers would still fight like Word Bearers. Iron Warriors like Iron Warriors.

I don't understand how they got it so right once and can't do it again.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
Aye, I don't think GW has had a clear idea on what they've wanted CSM's to be since they released the 4th edition book in 2008. They've been mixing modern Renegades who for some reason have HH-Legion era equipment but no current Loyalist gear, and Legions with afterthought rules, weird mixes and differentiations between Cult units vs "Marked" units, and inconsistent ideas on how they should interact with other forces of Chaos.

They got it right with the 3.5 codex, then screwed it up in the 4th edition codex and haven't been able to find the plot since. Or when they do they lose it again, like they did in 8th after they invalidated Traitor Legions.

And what lore says the legions are now all "ragtag warbands and cults"? Have you read the description of the massing of the legions in The Lords of Silence? Does that sound "ragtag"? Even warbands should still act like the legions they belong to. Tenth Company were poor, but they still fought like Night Lords, because they were Night Lords. Word Bearers would still fight like Word Bearers. Iron Warriors like Iron Warriors.

I don't understand how they got it so right once and can't do it again.

So they got it right with 3.5 codex, wasn't that the codex that broke third edition?

As for the fluff maybe the depends on who's fluff your reading but most of the time choas is described as a mix of cultits, some marines and then demons.
Not really seen much thats all marine's with no demons or cultists/renegade guard.

Though I'm not sure if thats deliberate or if GW wrote themselves into a hole and are hoping no-one will notice if they just up and retcon some stuff.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

Ice_can wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
Aye, I don't think GW has had a clear idea on what they've wanted CSM's to be since they released the 4th edition book in 2008. They've been mixing modern Renegades who for some reason have HH-Legion era equipment but no current Loyalist gear, and Legions with afterthought rules, weird mixes and differentiations between Cult units vs "Marked" units, and inconsistent ideas on how they should interact with other forces of Chaos.

They got it right with the 3.5 codex, then screwed it up in the 4th edition codex and haven't been able to find the plot since. Or when they do they lose it again, like they did in 8th after they invalidated Traitor Legions.

And what lore says the legions are now all "ragtag warbands and cults"? Have you read the description of the massing of the legions in The Lords of Silence? Does that sound "ragtag"? Even warbands should still act like the legions they belong to. Tenth Company were poor, but they still fought like Night Lords, because they were Night Lords. Word Bearers would still fight like Word Bearers. Iron Warriors like Iron Warriors.

I don't understand how they got it so right once and can't do it again.

So they got it right with 3.5 codex, wasn't that the codex that broke third edition?

As for the fluff maybe the depends on who's fluff your reading but most of the time choas is described as a mix of cultits, some marines and then demons.
Not really seen much thats all marine's with no demons or cultists/renegade guard.

Though I'm not sure if thats deliberate or if GW wrote themselves into a hole and are hoping no-one will notice if they just up and retcon some stuff.
99% of Imperium conflicts don't involve Space Marines. Should we restrict you to only using Space Marines one in every hundred battles?

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

The thing about 3.5 is that at the time, we had an inverse situation to what we currently have. CSM were SM +1. They had the toys of the Imperium, but could also bring Daemonic units and had remarkable customization with nearly 100 wargear / gift upgrades to choose from.

I think it’s swung back too far. CSM are now like SM +1, -2 in terms of available options, lesser Chapter Tactics, alternative gear, etc. Just my take, of course.

Chaos used to be one Codex with several (current) factions in it. So I have no issue with allies and multiple detachments here. Becomes a soup issue when the best of several codices are skimmed for the cream of them all. Compared to Orks, Tau, Necrons and Tyranids that are effectively forced to draw from a single factions resources, its poor implementation.

One way to break it would be to get rid of fluff-based restrictions. Unpopular. Another would be to write fluff, giving all factions more autonomy to have allies of convenience. Nids would pretty much need the Newcron treatment and get some degree of individual personality... perhaps multiple personalities within the singular Hivemind? Unpopular. You don’t need to say it.

So balancing “allies” in a way that prevents “soup” would need some kind of either immersion break (free-for-all allies) where anyone can skim from anyone, or an enlarging of the Xenos allies list (lesser immersion break?).

I don’t mind allies. Let’s you dip your toes into a second faction without going all-in to get a “standard” size game in your area. I think that’s good.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/25 19:16:30


 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

Ice_can wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
Aye, I don't think GW has had a clear idea on what they've wanted CSM's to be since they released the 4th edition book in 2008. They've been mixing modern Renegades who for some reason have HH-Legion era equipment but no current Loyalist gear, and Legions with afterthought rules, weird mixes and differentiations between Cult units vs "Marked" units, and inconsistent ideas on how they should interact with other forces of Chaos.

They got it right with the 3.5 codex, then screwed it up in the 4th edition codex and haven't been able to find the plot since. Or when they do they lose it again, like they did in 8th after they invalidated Traitor Legions.

And what lore says the legions are now all "ragtag warbands and cults"? Have you read the description of the massing of the legions in The Lords of Silence? Does that sound "ragtag"? Even warbands should still act like the legions they belong to. Tenth Company were poor, but they still fought like Night Lords, because they were Night Lords. Word Bearers would still fight like Word Bearers. Iron Warriors like Iron Warriors.

I don't understand how they got it so right once and can't do it again.

So they got it right with 3.5 codex, wasn't that the codex that broke third edition?

As for the fluff maybe the depends on who's fluff your reading but most of the time choas is described as a mix of cultits, some marines and then demons.
Not really seen much thats all marine's with no demons or cultists/renegade guard.

Though I'm not sure if thats deliberate or if GW wrote themselves into a hole and are hoping no-one will notice if they just up and retcon some stuff.
The 3.5 codex had a lot of gameplay/competitive issues (in both directions, and had plenty of both broken gimmicks and absolute garbage), but had a clear idea on what it wanted to portray and how it viewed CSM's, even with the inclusion of Daemons. There were issues of execution and how it related to game balance, as is typical with GW, but the basic vision and structure of that particular codex was really well done. The subsequent 2008 4E book had its own issues with balance (hooray Lash Princes!) but really lost the feel of the faction.

There's lots of CSM fluff that doesn't involve daemons or human troops, just as there's lots of Marine stuff without involving the Guard or the Inquisition or Sisters or the AdMech.

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Ice_can wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
Aye, I don't think GW has had a clear idea on what they've wanted CSM's to be since they released the 4th edition book in 2008. They've been mixing modern Renegades who for some reason have HH-Legion era equipment but no current Loyalist gear, and Legions with afterthought rules, weird mixes and differentiations between Cult units vs "Marked" units, and inconsistent ideas on how they should interact with other forces of Chaos.

They got it right with the 3.5 codex, then screwed it up in the 4th edition codex and haven't been able to find the plot since. Or when they do they lose it again, like they did in 8th after they invalidated Traitor Legions.

And what lore says the legions are now all "ragtag warbands and cults"? Have you read the description of the massing of the legions in The Lords of Silence? Does that sound "ragtag"? Even warbands should still act like the legions they belong to. Tenth Company were poor, but they still fought like Night Lords, because they were Night Lords. Word Bearers would still fight like Word Bearers. Iron Warriors like Iron Warriors.

I don't understand how they got it so right once and can't do it again.

So they got it right with 3.5 codex, wasn't that the codex that broke third edition?

As for the fluff maybe the depends on who's fluff your reading but most of the time choas is described as a mix of cultits, some marines and then demons.
Not really seen much thats all marine's with no demons or cultists/renegade guard.

Though I'm not sure if thats deliberate or if GW wrote themselves into a hole and are hoping no-one will notice if they just up and retcon some stuff.

3.5 got it right in the way it allowed the legions to behave like they should, not like a bunch of renegades with inferior equipment and tactics, and all effectively the same besides color scheme. Not in raw power, which is what you're talking about. I don't want the power back, I just want my army to play like it should, not like Black Legion with lightning bolts on their armour.

And yeah, that's how they're portrayed in a lot of lore, lore where they're the "Cobra to loyalists G.I.Joe" as previously mentioned. Not in their own.
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

 catbarf wrote:
nekooni wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
I think maybe you've misunderstood the question. Karol is asking what such an army is supposed to represent from a fluff perspective, since the Imperium does not regularly deploy integrated combat units consisting of Imperial Guard with Knights and led by Space Marines. These are typically independent assets; often used in the same operations, but with their own independent chains of command, logistics, and deployment.

This is rather different from taking, say, a 1000pt detachment of Guard along with a 1000pt detachment of Blood Angels, where each is based around a Battalion and represents a functionally coherent fighting unit in its own right.


But how is that different?
Two batallions on one hand
A batallion, superheavy detachment and Supreme command on the other hand.

The triumvirate is in charge, but all the other marines are busy elsewhere,or really just the three guys were sent (ignore that they're captains, think of them as movie marines) in the first place.

The castellan is the leader of the knights, but the marines are in charge.
Same with the guard.

This could be staight out of a novel, as long as you ignore the marine ranks.


'Its the same thing, as long as you pretend the Marines are something they're not, and come up with a contrived backstory/excuse'?

Is that really the angle you want to go with?

Uh, maybe that American army recaptured a couple of German-captured Katyushas and liberated some Canadian POWs, just pretend that they're special forces even though I'm using the rules for officers. See, my WW2 soup army is historically plausible, and totally not just a flimsy excuse at powergaming.


You asked for a narrative to explain this, I gave you one. It's fine if you don't like it, its not well thought out. I don't play at tournaments nor do I bring lists that weird, but this whole "oh my God I can't accept that your list does not fit my view of how the standard imperial task force would operate" thing is honestly just stupid in a universe that big. There are examples that could work as reference, for example Badab.

I'd rather just be honest about it and say "I'm not going to play your tournament tryhard list".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/25 19:45:53


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: