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.

So just because a few people play the game in a weird way everyone else is suppose to have to deal with a worse rule set and be play the game in a way they do not want?

Also just because IG or ad mecha fight on the same planet as marines doesn't mean they fight side to side. those cases are extremly rare, and a non small reason to it is that non marine forces are not able to keep up with mariens, specialy in the more dangerours enviroment.

Karol wrote:
So just because a few people play the game in a weird way everyone else is suppose to have to deal with a worse rule set and be play the game in a way they do not want?

Also just because IG or ad mecha fight on the same planet as marines doesn't mean they fight side to side. those cases are extremly rare, and a non small reason to it is that non marine forces are not able to keep up with mariens, specialy in the more dangerours enviroment.

Yes. Its similar to the rule of 3.

But really I wouldn't worry about it much. They have suggested it will cost CP to unlock other factions.
But they also suggested many (all?) factions will get more CP.
So you may be slightly worse, but if you are married to your multi-faction mix, you can probably carry on running it without great concern.

Tyel wrote:

Karol wrote:
So just because a few people play the game in a weird way everyone else is suppose to have to deal with a worse rule set and be play the game in a way they do not want?

Also just because IG or ad mecha fight on the same planet as marines doesn't mean they fight side to side. those cases are extremly rare, and a non small reason to it is that non marine forces are not able to keep up with mariens, specialy in the more dangerours enviroment.

Yes. Its similar to the rule of 3.

But really I wouldn't worry about it much. They have suggested it will cost CP to unlock other factions.
But they also suggested many (all?) factions will get more CP.
So you may be slightly worse, but if you are married to your multi-faction mix, you can probably carry on running it without great concern.

Boy, this will totally save the day of all those guard/knight/blood angel players who built their army because they enjoy the fluff behind it so much and would continue playing them in this combination out of love to their army no matter how much the game around them changes.

Karol wrote:
So just because a few people play the game in a weird way everyone else is suppose to have to deal with a worse rule set and be play the game in a way they do not want?

Also just because IG or ad mecha fight on the same planet as marines doesn't mean they fight side to side. those cases are extremly rare, and a non small reason to it is that non marine forces are not able to keep up with mariens, specialy in the more dangerours enviroment.

All im saying is that instead of bitching about soup you should bitch about balance, if that's what this is about. Instead of just saying "well CP farming and cherry picking suck" you're claiming that soup itself is the issue for fluff reasons?

If I want to play Grey Knights with Sisters of Battle I'm not necessarily "power gaming", I'm just playing the prelude to a certain incident. Going "oh my God why would you send both witch hunters AND daemon hunters to fight my daemons" is kinda weird.


* I should add that with "you" I don't necessarily mean you, Karol, but the initial argument by eg catbarf


And a last edit: just out of curiosity, is it "acceptable" to have both tanks and infantry and artillery in a single imperial Guard detachment, or do you have to bring these in separate detachments and preferably of different regiments, too? Which one do you prefer to play against?

One can make the argument that soup makes balance worse.

I don't agree with that-soup makes balance HARDER, but if enough effort is put in, the balance can still be good with soup. And, quite honestly, even without soup, the game still has garbage balance.

nekooni wrote:
And a last edit: just out of curiosity, is it "acceptable" to have both tanks and infantry and artillery in a single imperial Guard detachment, or do you have to bring these in separate detachments and preferably of different regiments, too? Which one do you prefer to play against?

Yeah, if we're going to complain about detachments *needing* to be fluffy, are we not allowed to take Leman Russes and infantry together? God forbid you took a Leman Russ and a Basilisk in the same list. And is that a Space Marine Scout in the same detachment as a Terminator? Oh, the horror!

I mean, I personally actually do organise my armies by detachment (so, my Leman Russes are a separate detachment to my infantry), but no-one should be forced into that.

This is the crux of what I’m getting at. Putting whatever dudes you want on the table is not an issue. I like the idea that in an entire Galaxy, there’s room for unusual or even typical groups that could fall outside of a single Codex working together.

My concern is balance related, and seems to be at least acknowledged with the forthcoming rules.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

nekooni wrote:
And a last edit: just out of curiosity, is it "acceptable" to have both tanks and infantry and artillery in a single imperial Guard detachment, or do you have to bring these in separate detachments and preferably of different regiments, too? Which one do you prefer to play against?

Yeah, if we're going to complain about detachments *needing* to be fluffy, are we not allowed to take Leman Russes and infantry together? God forbid you took a Leman Russ and a Basilisk in the same list. And is that a Space Marine Scout in the same detachment as a Terminator? Oh, the horror!

I mean, I personally actually do organise my armies by detachment (so, my Leman Russes are a separate detachment to my infantry), but no-one should be forced into that.

Given the way sub faction bonus work having to pay CP for that next level of optimisation seems justified.

If you bring a Brigade of catachan, that makes more sense than 3 Tallern tank commanders, a battaliin of cadian infantry and catachan detachment of 2 basilisks, a wyvern and a named charictor.

I think that the Jan 2019 WD was a watershed for Soup. It showed that GW was indeed tracking, and the nerfs to Soup followed. The most obvious offenders were reined in, but there is more work to be done! The Ahriman Supreme Command Detachment supporting non-TS forces is one. Having said that, anything goes in Narrative Play!

Lets say for argument sake that in 9th Ed you start with 10 CPs at 2000 points and under. Lets say you pay 1 CP for each additional detachment from your Codex, and 2 CP for detachments outside your Army Codex. I suppose we'll need some form of rule for Battle-Forged armies where you declare your Army Codex. Perhaps >50% of your points and Warlord must come from that Codex? So the real Soupers would be down to 6 CP to start the game before they've even used any other pre-game Strats. You would really want those Knights and Smash Captains! In 8th you get extra CPs for taking two Minimum Battalions. Now, you might just go for a Brigade.

I could get behind something like that.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I think that the Jan 2019 WD was a watershed for Soup. It showed that GW was indeed tracking, and the nerfs to Soup followed. The most obvious offenders were reined in, but there is more work to be done! The Ahriman Supreme Command Detachment supporting non-TS forces is one. Having said that, anything goes in Narrative Play!

Lets say for argument sake that in 9th Ed you start with 10 CPs at 2000 points and under. Lets say you pay 1 CP for each additional detachment from your Codex, and 2 CP for detachments outside your Army Codex. I suppose we'll need some form of rule for Battle-Forged armies where you declare your Army Codex. Perhaps >50% of your points and Warlord must come from that Codex? So the real Soupers would be down to 6 CP to start the game before they've even used any other pre-game Strats. You would really want those Knights and Smash Captains! In 8th you get extra CPs for taking two Minimum Battalions. Now, you might just go for a Brigade.

I could get behind something like that.

I think it's even more simplistic than that you start building your list your faction is I'm going to guess determined by your warlord.

I think it will be more than 10CP at 2k many lists hit around 15 and they talk about it going up.

Mono faction mono subfaction starts with 20 CP

Add in 1 additional subfaction detachment to not loose bonuses -1CP

Want to bring long another detachment for another codex, -1CP for aditional detachment , -2CP for additional codex.

If you wanted to go full super soup your be down 6CP, that would be quite a hit

 JNAProductions wrote:
One can make the argument that soup makes balance worse.

I don't agree with that-soup makes balance HARDER, but if enough effort is put in, the balance can still be good with soup. And, quite honestly, even without soup, the game still has garbage balance.

Not sure really.

In theory 100 points is 100 points - but some things are always going to have more on-table synergy than other things.

So for example Doom and Jinx buffing non-Eldar Eldar shooting. These abilities were considerable force multipliers, so even if you were going to take mainly DE/Harlequins (all the bikers all the time) - you'd be silly not slotting in a Farseer.
But this raises the issue of balance about whether DE/Harlequins should be nerfed because... of those abilities. Or those abilities should be nerfed, because they are boosting superior non-Eldar Eldar shooting. But that shooting should be superior because they were not designed with the fact you would buff them via those psychic powers. So you either get a situation where its balanced if you do take those psychic powers - or they are too good because you don't.

So I think the change was quite reasonable - and while it diminishes the reasons to bring a Farseer in a list which isn't mainly Craftworlds you can still do it if you want to.

I look at say GW's massive reaction to Ahriman+2 DPS+Plaguebearers and friends - and sure, that list was a bit obnoxious to play. I think, as the_scotsman has suggested, people disproportionately hate tough "control" style lists.
But to my mind GW didn't really nerf the soup component. They could have gone with something like "the character rule only applies to units from your own faction". Instead they significantly nerfed key units for TS and Plague Bearers by raising the points, with the result of further harming the mono-factions, when they weren't exactly dominating tournaments to begin with.

For armies like R&H, there is no way to soup so you’re basically screwed

 greatbigtree wrote:
This is the crux of what I’m getting at. Putting whatever dudes you want on the table is not an issue. I like the idea that in an entire Galaxy, there’s room for unusual or even typical groups that could fall outside of a single Codex working together.

My concern is balance related, and seems to be at least acknowledged with the forthcoming rules.

If you aren't given incentives to use your own units because they perform terribly, Allies will always appear to be the bad guy even though that's not the heart of the issue. GW is likely going to forget this as usual and we will end up with another mess of balance for units.

Ice_can wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

nekooni wrote:
And a last edit: just out of curiosity, is it "acceptable" to have both tanks and infantry and artillery in a single imperial Guard detachment, or do you have to bring these in separate detachments and preferably of different regiments, too? Which one do you prefer to play against?

Yeah, if we're going to complain about detachments *needing* to be fluffy, are we not allowed to take Leman Russes and infantry together? God forbid you took a Leman Russ and a Basilisk in the same list. And is that a Space Marine Scout in the same detachment as a Terminator? Oh, the horror!

I mean, I personally actually do organise my armies by detachment (so, my Leman Russes are a separate detachment to my infantry), but no-one should be forced into that.

Given the way sub faction bonus work having to pay CP for that next level of optimisation seems justified.

If you bring a Brigade of catachan, that makes more sense than 3 Tallern tank commanders, a battaliin of cadian infantry and catachan detachment of 2 basilisks, a wyvern and a named charictor.

Actually, not much more sense. Guard novels generally have several infantry regiments from various worlds, a tank regiment from another world, and artillery maybe associated with one of the others but just as often not.
The Munitorum just issues orders to whoever happens to be in the subsector and not otherwise engaged (or engaged in something that doesn't matter as much as the new crisis)

The only thing that doesn't really happen is the multiple tank commanders or the artillery battery with a random Special Idiot.

But a Cadian regiment backed by Valhallan tanks (or whatever mix)? Happens a lot.

Voss wrote:
...Actually, not much more sense. Guard novels generally have several infantry regiments from various worlds, a tank regiment from another world, and artillery maybe associated with one of the others but just as often not.
The Munitorum just issues orders to whoever happens to be in the subsector and not otherwise engaged (or engaged in something that doesn't matter as much as the new crisis)

The only thing that doesn't really happen is the multiple tank commanders or the artillery battery with a random Special Idiot.

But a Cadian regiment backed by Valhallan tanks (or whatever mix)? Happens a lot.

Depending on the Regiment (GW uses the term inconsistently) that could easily be ten thousand infantry and thousands of tanks. Are they really integrated enough at the tactical level that tank squadrons are attached to the foot units at the company level within an efficient chain of command that's effective at letting them share CP?

Soup is wonderful for a casual game, and has been, and continues to be, a complete nightmare for the competitive scene. It opens up abusive combinations that the playtesters never foresaw.

That, and paired with gaining access to all the stratagems from all souped armies, all relics, and the way that CP is generated, it creates an instant crutch to any army that has access to a cheap battalion of allies, leaving a few armies completely out in the cold.

I just started the game so I can’t comment on balance, but with help from people on this board and another i was able to create a really neat Knights/Admech that’s fluffy and functional at the same time. I even finished painting and assembling my first knight and I was really proud of how it came out.

I’m worried that whatever changes they make are going to throw all that work out the window. ☹️

Soup is considered horrible because supposedly, you can create some pretty broken combos that are outright unstoppable.

Supposedly.

Keep in mind we're talking about something unbalancing an already unbalanced game. So it's essentially someone whining because you pissed in the piss puddle.

While rare combined arms regiments do exist within the the Imperial Guard, mixed regiment armies are typically the norm in terms of background, in that instance at least "souping" sub-factions isn't terribly unfluffy the way it is with many other factions, and in fact goes all the way back to 2E, where the sample army in the 2E Imperial Guard codex including both Cadian and Catachan command squads, and the rules for army construction dictating that for each command squad or command HQ you can include up to three squads of that regiment type.

However, at the same time, there weren't different rules for different regiments and subfactons in 2E, just different model lines, so there wasn't really any cheesing out to do in that regard at the time, there was no gameplay advantages to wring out of it one way or the other

 Khalith wrote:
I just started the game so I can’t comment on balance, but with help from people on this board and another i was able to create a really neat Knights/Admech that’s fluffy and functional at the same time. I even finished painting and assembling my first knight and I was really proud of how it came out.

I’m worried that whatever changes they make are going to throw all that work out the window. ☹️

You'll still be able to field them together, there just won't be strong incentives and rewards for doing so over a mono-faction army it sounds like.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Soup is considered horrible because supposedly, you can create some pretty broken combos that are outright unstoppable.

Supposedly.

Keep in mind we're talking about something unbalancing an already unbalanced game. So it's essentially someone whining because you pissed in the piss puddle.

Tournament results over the course of the edition proved pretty conclusively that it was abusive and required several active adjustments in Errata/FAQ, and while nobody will claim the game is perfectly balanced, there's also plenty of room to identify and fix obvious outliers and mechanics that cause issues and incentivize the wrong sort of outcomes.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Tournament results over the course of the edition proved pretty conclusively that it was abusive and required several active adjustments in Errata/FAQ, and while nobody will claim the game is perfectly balanced, there's also plenty of room to identify and fix obvious outliers and mechanics that cause issues and incentivize the wrong sort of outcomes.

The problem is, as I understand from some source I have (one that you're free to doubt, by all means- however you can go back through my post history and look at the last time I referenced this person and how much of that has just been proven true)....

The 'playtesters' are a combination of in-house players and external sources. Those external sources aren't going to tell GW that something sucks or needs to be redone, it's always going to be awesome and great and perfect (or much of the time, at least) because that's how they get their free toys earlier so they can do their reviews.

Supposedly. Take it with a grain of salt, won't offend me.

Ice_can wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

nekooni wrote:
And a last edit: just out of curiosity, is it "acceptable" to have both tanks and infantry and artillery in a single imperial Guard detachment, or do you have to bring these in separate detachments and preferably of different regiments, too? Which one do you prefer to play against?

Yeah, if we're going to complain about detachments *needing* to be fluffy, are we not allowed to take Leman Russes and infantry together? God forbid you took a Leman Russ and a Basilisk in the same list. And is that a Space Marine Scout in the same detachment as a Terminator? Oh, the horror!

I mean, I personally actually do organise my armies by detachment (so, my Leman Russes are a separate detachment to my infantry), but no-one should be forced into that.

Given the way sub faction bonus work having to pay CP for that next level of optimisation seems justified.

If you bring a Brigade of catachan, that makes more sense than 3 Tallern tank commanders, a battaliin of cadian infantry and catachan detachment of 2 basilisks, a wyvern and a named charictor.

I'm talking something like the Cadian 3rd Infantry being supported by tanks from the Cadian 193rd Armoured. Despite functioning mechanically identically, they would be different detachments from a fluff perspective.
So, something like the Cadian 3rd, who might have 6x Infantry Squads, 2 Commanders, alongside their own Command Squads and a Commissar, being supported by the 193rd Armoured, with a Leman Russ Commander, his 3 squadrons of Leman Russes, and 3 Hellhounds. In game, I should have no reason not to play these as a Brigade, but in lore, they'd be classed as a Battalion and Spearhead respectively.

Is that the kind of fluffy gameplay we're after? Because I wouldn't want to enforce that.

Admittedly, if they get rid of soup, it'd stop people from saying "Just add CSM to your Daemons to plug their gaping holes!"

PenitentJake wrote:
My issue is that doctrines already fixed the SOUP problem.

Now, they've added another fix, and it might turn out to be over correcting- kinda like you don't need to limit the number of detachments someone can take if the only detachments that give you enough CPs to survive are Battalions and brigades.

If they go after sub faction soup too hard, there's a huge risk that it invalidates a key concept in the campaign I've spent a year and a half designing.

I am not calling you out specifically but the mindset 100%. The only play style 40k rules should have in mind is competitive play because all other types can be flubbed by whomever is playing. Hell I did that back in 4th edition when I wanted to ally my Orkz with my Blood Angels army, my friends and I just ignored the rules that said we couldn't do that (Specifically that they wouldn't function near one another) and just played. It didn't hurt anyone to break those rules for my fun narrative games.

From a game standpoint, balance should be the #1 priority and if something is broken like Allies (Soup) than fix it, if you want to play a narrative campaign with your allied soup army...go for it, nobody is stopping you, and if your opponent wont play against it, than have a discussion with them or find someone who will.

Soup has been broken since Day 1 of 8th because if you are Imperial, Chaos or Eldar you have an immediate advantage over anyone else with Imperial having the biggest advantage. Orkz, Crons, Tau and Nids (Up until recently) didn't have any allies they could use. So trying to balance the game was impossible which is why the loyal 32 was ever a thing.

SO why is Soup hated? because people in the competitive meta will use anything to get an advantage so they did their best to exploit the allies rule.

I really really want to re-emphasize this point though. If you aren't a competitive tournament player then any new rules regarding allies are irrelevant, just talk to your opponent before hand and get the ok from them.

nekooni wrote:
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".

I never asked for a narrative to explain it. I said there's a difference between what is obviously a tryhard soup list that doesn't fit the fluff, and one that simply mixes reasonably standalone detachments as one would expect in a combined-armed force.

You then argued that they're the same thing... as long as you come up with a contrived backstory to explain it, and assume that the Marines (who are smash captains on the tabletop) are actually just randoms.

Give me an excerpt from any fluff relating to Badab that supports the idea of a couple of Space Marines with jetpacks and hammers leading a Guard detachment accompanied by several Knights and I will eat my umble pie.

If every army gets the same amount of CP based on game size, it really levels the playing field between armies with a lot of models in the range and armies with only a handful.

It makes armies with limited access to troops viable, which means it's awesome for Imperial Agents. Inquisition has Zero troops choices.

But now, 2000 points of Inquisitors, accolytes, assassins and null maiden vanguards get just as many CPs as Brigade + Battalion + other.

As for paying CP for additional detachments from your core dex, that only makes sense if they invent new benefits for detachments- the only impact they had on the game previously was determining command points (now moot, because they aren't awarded based on detachment) and keeping your factions neatly separated, which is still relevant. So you pay a CP cost per ALLIED detachments, but you're free to use as many detachments as you want from your core dex.

They may have a small cost for out of subfaction detachments too, but I hope not; if they do, DE absolutely need an exemption to it, because the system would put them at particular disadvantage.

Finally, I want to respond to the smash captain thing, where buddy did come up with a story, and it was shot down. Before I get into it though, let me acknowledge that this particular built was so good for it's time that it was kinda cheesy even with a story, and that the VAST majority of people who used that particular build were probably doing it to win, even if they could pull out a viable story.

But one of the styles of campaign play that I frequently use does make this kinda thing not only possible, but probable.

I have three planets in my campaign setting; the first has 8 settlements with 25 territories each and one city with 45 territories. Factions deploy with a single settlement, and must divide to hold territory within that settlement. Some players control multiple factions and deal making is encouraged.

Cults are recruiting citizens under the Imperial Radar, and factions have to assign units from their detachments to investigate events at particular territories.

Now, within that campaign environment, the odds that a BA captain leaves his battleforce to hold the beachhead while he goes to investigate a different territory based on critical intelligence, and in this territory, he encounters a battalion of Guard who are preparing to secure the site for the arrival of an Imperial Advisor. Realizing that the cultist's objective in the territory is probably the assassinating of that Advisor, the Captain informs the Guard Commander of the danger, and the two forces agree to work together.

There is a Knight House on the planet, but as Knights are too large to occupy settlements, their role in the Planetary defense network is to occupy the wide open spaces BETWEEN the settlements. But when the full scale of the cultist threat becomes known, assuming the guard have a functioning comm unit on the table, Company Commander X, a long time friend of the House calls in a favour, and the knight joins the fray as reinforcements.

Now given our particular dynamic, this story would probably be spread out over an arch- it would be a 40k scale game with a guard loss that triggers the need for the advisor, and a 40k game for the BA to claim a territory as a base of operations within the settlement. Then a kill team game for the cult to find out about the Advisor's eminent arrival. Then the BA do a recon kill team to find out where the cult is. Then two 40k battles fought simultaneously- one at the BA base, which forced the captain to leave his force behind, and the other begin this epic convergence of the threefold army.

Also, with us, the Knight player and the Guard player might even consider a set of historical battles to explore how the relationship between the Knight House and the Guard formed.

Now again, obviously the player who brings his smash cap/ loyal 32/ knight to a tournament isn't doing that; they are playing to win.

Obviously, you can tell I'm looking forward to Crusade rules.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Admittedly, if they get rid of soup, it'd stop people from saying "Just add CSM to your Daemons to plug their gaping holes!"

"Daemons shouldn't even be an army in 40k. Go play AoS or play CSMs instead!"

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
For armies like R&H, there is no way to soup so you’re basically screwed

R&H needs a full rewrite under this system, as if a detachment of them won't give you cp but in fact cost them they don't currently bring anything to the factions they can allie with to be worth it. The only thing they have that other chaos armies don't is lots of indirect fire and snipers. Without a way to buff the artillery it just isn't that good, and as much as I love my Marauders I just don't think my sneaky mercs will be worth it. The army needs strategems, warlord traits, and functional covenants and demagogue devotions back.

I'll say being able to just buy a start collecting tempestus scion box and mix them with my Sisters of Silence and Custodes or mixing a force of grey knights with sisters of battle and dark angels or an imperial knight feels great.

For someone with as much lack of focus to his buying habits that was a god send to be able to field 2000 point armies. They are terrible and I lose a ton but damm If I'm not having fun with it. And I'll keep doing the same even with this new system were the more focused force you have the more CP you have. I have always tought that was how it should have been from the beginning.

2nd Ed soup:

Which IIRC you couldn't go above 25% of your points which remains a far better method of maintaining faction identity while allowing for some thematic alliances.