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 I've seen people complaints about soup lists and I wanted peoples opinions.

I've been running an Ordo Hereticus list since 5th Ed comprised mainly of Sisters, Imperial Guard, Inquisitors, Assassins and Grey Knights. These days this takes the form of a 1500pts of either Sisters or IG then another 500pts detachment of whatever I fancy and I've added AdMech and Custodes since 8th started.



I don't min/max, don't use the most optimal units but if I said I played "Imperial soup" on here I'd likely get a lot if hate thrown my way. Sometimes soup lists are fluffy. Sometimes people playing soup lists because they want to build an army out of multiple aspects if the Imperial armies. Personally I love that I can run a soup list without my opponents permission now. If you accuse every soup list of being WAAC then you're soupaphobic.

#notallsoups

So, you run a very un-fluffy list that also isn't very good at winning games, and we're supposed to believe that this is a thing we should want to have in the game?

It's not unfluffy.

I really don’t understand your point.

It seems like your saying…

1. Soup is hated as people just pick the best stuff from 4-5 lists and win games and tournaments with it.
2. This makes soup bad.
3. I play with soup that is fluffy and I don’t win with it, and I love soup.
4. Soup should be considered good.

Did I miss something?

There is no need to defend soup.

The revenue results of soup entirely justifies its existence.

It is not going anywhere, it was the obvious evolution of their business model for the game.

This is the way of Warhammer going forward.

Enjoy!

I think the OP is saying that soup gets a bad name, or is painted with too broad a brush... that when an opponent sees an army with multiple Imperial factions built in, their cheese radar starts pinging. I'm also an unapologetic Imperial soup player who blends Sororitas, Ministorum, Militarum, and Inquisition into (IMO) a fun, fluffy, and somewhat-but-not-too competitive list. Lists like mine don't win tournaments and don't get a bad reputation at the local shops, but they hold up pretty well within the fluff and are fun to play and to play against. That can't always be said of some of the Guilliman/Gunline Guard armies out there.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
There is no need to defend soup.

The revenue results of soup entirely justifies its existence.

It is not going anywhere, it was the obvious evolution of their business model for the game.

This is the way of Warhammer going forward.

Enjoy!

If it didn't exist people would complain about not having allies.

Now tell me - where exactly is the profit motive in removing allies for the most popular team in 7th - Tau and Eldar?

 MacPhail wrote:
I think the OP is saying that soup gets a bad name, or is painted with too broad a brush... that when an opponent sees an army with multiple Imperial factions built in, their cheese radar starts pinging. I'm also an unapologetic Imperial soup player who blends Sororitas, Ministorum, Militarum, and Inquisition into (IMO) a fun, fluffy, and somewhat-but-not-too competitive list. Lists like mine don't win tournaments and don't get a bad reputation at the local shops, but they hold up pretty well within the fluff and are fun to play and to play against. That can't always be said of some of the Guilliman/Gunline Guard armies out there.

This, thank you.

Also when did I say I lose all the time? I said I don't play the optimal units. Like I din't spam Dominions and don't even own a repressor. Nor do I play Cawl and dakka bots. The fact that people translated that into "I don't win" speaks volumes about attitudes that people have on here. I think I've only lost once this edition.

I don't care as much about Imperium soup as Chaos and Eldar soup.

Eldar soup is ridiculous, oh look a ragtag force with a LEGENDARY HERO, some random dark eldar kabalites, and some Alaitoc guys all banded together with the common goal of dying so reapers don't have to.

Or chaos, "I, the mighty Mortarian, shall join this band of khorne alpha legion, along with some random tzeentch that's going to deep strike. feth the rest of Nurgle, these are my new bros."

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Now tell me - where exactly is the profit motive in removing allies for the most popular team in 7th - Tau and Eldar?

It's the exception that proves the rule, as they say.

Used to be CSM and Daemons shared a codex, then GW realized they could split them, expand the Daemons line and sell both to the same players.

Used to be Harlequins and Dark Eldar didn't exist, see above.

Used to be that GSC hadn't been anything other than FW specials, see above.

The list goes on.

"Soup" being hated entirely comes from people who just cherry-pick the "best" units without care for theme or background. If people were taking lists that made thematic sense and weren't just picking the most optimal choices from half a dozen armies, I don't think soup would be such a huge problem.

Wayniac wrote:
"Soup" being hated entirely comes from people who just cherry-pick the "best" units without care for theme or background. If people were taking lists that made thematic sense and weren't just picking the most optimal choices from half a dozen armies, I don't think soup would be such a huge problem.

This game would have to become an RPG instead of a competitive tabletop wargame.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
"Soup" being hated entirely comes from people who just cherry-pick the "best" units without care for theme or background. If people were taking lists that made thematic sense and weren't just picking the most optimal choices from half a dozen armies, I don't think soup would be such a huge problem.

This game would have to become an RPG instead of a competitive tabletop wargame.

Implying it actually is a "competitive tabletop wargame", which is up for debate as far as if it really fits that criteria, or if people are just adamant about shoving a round peg into a square hole.

 Marmatag wrote:
I don't care as much about Imperium soup as Chaos and Eldar soup.

Eldar soup is ridiculous, oh look a ragtag force with a LEGENDARY HERO, some random dark eldar kabalites, and some Alaitoc guys all banded together with the common goal of dying so reapers don't have to.

Or chaos, "I, the mighty Mortarian, shall join this band of khorne alpha legion, along with some random tzeentch that's going to deep strike. feth the rest of Nurgle, these are my new bros."

1) Any tournament list is going to be pretty much fluff-ridiculous. Look at Guilliman completely abandoning his marine brothers to lead guardsmen, or celestine showing up at pretty much every skirmish involving over 50 people to fling herself suicidally into the enemy lines.

2) Eldar soup is among the least fluff-ridiculous examples out there. The various types of eldar work together all the time. Outcasts, corsair warbands, kabalite mercenaries, and harlequin-brokered treaties are commonplace, even if you turn up your nose at the recent Ynnari fluff.

The current allied situation makes complete sense from a fluff standpoint, it just has to be fixed from a competitive one, with more penalties for players who want to create a mishmash of factions for their face-stomping tournament list.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:


Used to be CSM and Daemons shared a codex, then GW realized they could split them, expand the Daemons line and sell both to the same players.

So they never should have expanded daemons? And previously they were their own soup, but then making them be able to be soup - that's bad, too?

Used to be Harlequins and Dark Eldar didn't exist, see above.

Dark Eldar were an army before allies were a thing.

Used to be that GSC hadn't been anything other than FW specials, see above.

What exactly do they have to do with soup?

The list goes on.

By that do you mean it ends right there?

Soup is for fluff and storytelling as that is where it does it best.
The sooner soup is illegal in matched, the better for the game.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
Soup is for fluff and storytelling as that is where it does it best.
The sooner soup is illegal in matched, the better for the game.

Yeah because Ynnari players, Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, etc. This is such a short sighted view point that ignores the fact that part of the game is constructed around soup being an element in list building. At this point people who whine about soup are the 40k equivalent of people shouting about how the kids are ruining everything.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
Soup is for fluff and storytelling as that is where it does it best.
The sooner soup is illegal in matched, the better for the game.

Yeah let's destroy Assassins/Inquisition/any other "ally" army all together!

Or just... remove faction benefits if your army includes more than one <faction> and give any unit intended to be allied/mercenary (not just SOS, Inquisition whatever but also stuff like Scourges, basic Custodes infantry squads if you like, 1 Deatwatch kill team, commmonly fluff-based ally stuff) a rule that allows them to be added with no penalty.

the_scotsman wrote:
Or just... remove faction benefits if your army includes more than one <faction> and give any unit intended to be allied/mercenary (not just SOS, Inquisition whatever but also stuff like Scourges, basic Custodes infantry squads if you like, 1 Deatwatch kill team, commmonly fluff-based ally stuff) a rule that allows them to be added with no penalty.

Yea, I see no reason to take the list building away. Just give some penalty and we're good.

Wayniac wrote:
Implying it actually is a "competitive tabletop wargame", which is up for debate as far as if it really fits that criteria, or if people are just adamant about shoving a round peg into a square hole.

Subjective argument is subjective?

Objectively, GW and many players are attempting to treat it that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
By that do you mean it ends right there?

No, I just had no interest in detailing all the Imperium faction expansion, creation of entirely new factions, re-purposing of fantasy models for 40k. Seriously, if you want a novel read a book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
So they never should have expanded daemons? And previously they were their own soup, but then making them be able to be soup - that's bad, too?

I think you're well aware that's not what I said at all.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Or just... remove faction benefits if your army includes more than one <faction> and give any unit intended to be allied/mercenary (not just SOS, Inquisition whatever but also stuff like Scourges, basic Custodes infantry squads if you like, 1 Deatwatch kill team, commmonly fluff-based ally stuff) a rule that allows them to be added with no penalty.

Yea, I see no reason to take the list building away. Just give some penalty and we're good.

Doesn't even need to be a big penalty. Just enough to bump it from the first tier in competitive players' minds - "Broken OP game-shatteringly BS" to the second and only other tier - "unplayable trash garbage lower then dirt unviable"

I don't like soups but I don't want to erase them from 40k.

I mean soups should be legal but worse than ANY list made using a single book.

Otherwise imperium and chaos soups could be unstoppable, having the chance to choose units from several books without drawbacks.

I do think that some factions should be merged into a single one though, most of the factions that the OP bring into his list should be part of the same codex. Grey knight, SoB, inquisition, ad mech and custodes. There's no reason to split them up into different book, other than the possibility for GW to sell more books.

Three imperium books should be enough and they would prevent powerful soups. Because, let's be honest, no one is really against soups, we're all against bringing cheap and effective AM stuff in other lists. Or allying celestine to AM or SM armies.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
So they never should have expanded daemons? And previously they were their own soup, but then making them be able to be soup - that's bad, too?

I think you're well aware that's not what I said at all.

Yea. Let's put it in context.

I owned TS and Tz Daemons (of which most existed before CD). I was able to take them as a single army.
Then they split them and I was unable to do so.

According to you they did that to get more sales and "sell both to the same players". Well, they were already selling both to me.
So let's be clear - you effectively state removing soup was a way to get revenue.

And then they made allies so that I could combine them again.
And so then according to you adding soup was a way to get revenue.

Or maybe they just expanded on armies that had well established lore and had interesting model opportunities? And gave people an avenue to collect different armies and still play "legal" games without the need to wait for 2,000 points?

On the surface it sounds like we're saying the same things, but your statements come across as cynical ploys to trick customers instead of simple rules to let people use models in ways that make sense for the universe. The sales will follow without the need of some nefarious bean counter plot dictating "allies or you're fired".

 Blackie wrote:
I mean soups should be legal but worse than ANY list made using a single book.

So that's great for the soup haters, but it means that all those soup sales will dramatically reduced. Which is contrary to the business goals of GW.

 Blackie wrote:
I don't like soups but I don't want to erase them from 40k.

I mean soups should be legal but worse than ANY list made using a single book.

Right - because I should be punished for liking my Death Guard/NurgleDemon setup or TSons/Tzeentch Demons setup.

I don't have a problem with soup, just the way GW chooses to fix soup. By raising point values you hurt the pure lists to limit soup but it actually hurts pure lists more.

Soup is fine as a concept. It's just that balance is out of whack so people cherry pick the best from multiple codexes instead of just one. Fix balance and you should see fewer cheesy soup lists.

Besides, certain factions rely on soup to function as a faction: Inquisition for example is the epitome of soup by the fluff, and Ad mech use knights all the time but that's also soup.

Let's not forget another very important point: soup allows GW to market new models to more players (marine, ad mech and guard players could all want the new armiger for example), as such it is the best way to ensure max profits without making more space marines. And let's be honest, we don't need more marines.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
On the surface it sounds like we're saying the same things, but your statements come across as cynical ploys to trick customers instead of simple rules to let people use models in ways that make sense for the universe. The sales will follow without the need of some nefarious bean counter plot dictating "allies or you're fired".

I wouldn't say trick customers. I did not intend to imply that value was not created in the process.

Also, I tend to present business decisions in the most cynical light possible because, well, it's usually correct.

But you're right, it's not a trick, or a ploy, it's simply business. What annoys me is this argument that GW is somehow going to get rid of allies/detachments/soup (pick a term you like) because players think single codex armies should be dominant. That is stupid. Dumb. Idiotic. Incapable of doing basic math dumb. At the most basic level why would I settle for getting $40 from you for a single codex when I can get $200 for 5 (yes, I know you're a pirate, some of us aren't).

At the core of it, Soup is good for the game. It allows people to play the models they have, way more easily. This is a big step up from 7th, where you couldn't just bring a cool unit, you had to find a detachment that made it workable, or even allowed.

All of the problems with soup vanish if units are properly costed in the first place.

The thing is, units will just have to be costed with soup in mind. So units like Guardsmen should go up in price, and heavy mortar teams, etc. Because Imperium having the ability to staple on a battalion for basically nothing, while also getting the best screening units in the entire game, is a bit silly.

If we're looking at soup from a lore compliant standpoint, it does get silly, but that kind of thing is really up to the playerbase to moderate.