Soups and 8th Edition

[totgeboren]

I wonder if completely removing Strategies and CP from the game would make this problem better or worse.

 

I think the idea at the start was for CP to reward fluffy or balanced armies (battalion gives that impression at least), to give them an edge that would balance them against one-trick-pony armies. But the way it is implemented means that min-max armies are rewarded over themed armies, and the more you min-max and spam, the more CP you get.

 

I think step one for allies is rather easy. The 'main' faction terms is decided by the detachment that contains the Warlord. Any detachment that uses units that does not share those terms (that are in effect allies), can only be chosen by use of the Patrol detachment.

 

You know, the really thematic one with some Troops and HQ, and the option for stuff, but which does not for some reason give CP, while the ones that allows for spamming does....

[Schlitzaf]

The existence of speciality detachment is so armies like Deathwing are playable without Belial-type Units changing them to troops

[totgeboren]

Yeah, the Outrider detachment are for the likes of White Scars bike armies and so on.

 

But those are after all fringe armies, and if they really need extra CP such units could be given a keyword like "Outriders". Then give those detachments a rule that says "If all mandatory units in this detachment share keyword X (Vanguard, Outrider etc), the Detachment generates 1 CP." Include HQ or not, that they reward spam is still a problem.

 

Bikes could be Outriders, Terminators Vanguards, Leman Russes might be Spearhead. TS Sorcerers might get the Supreme command keyword to represent Cabals.

 

Dunno, I just think it's odd that you get extra CP for including a IG HQ and 3 Heavy Support, but Including a little IG Patrol of a HQ, Troops and a mix of other stuff gives nothing?

 

Rogue Psykers got a massive price hike sure, but before they did, was it really necessary to reward players who spammed them with extra CP on top by use of the Supreme Command Detachment?, 

 

The current system rewards soups in too many ways, especially picking "the best" unit from many sources and spamming them.

 

Still, the only place for allies should be via the Patrol Detachment in my opinion.

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by totgeboren

[Boudan]

In all seriousness, I thought this was a thread about warhammer-themed soup, and I was very interested.  I don't really mix armies.

[Feral_80]

I would say, to keep things simple, either of these could do:

 

- you can only use stratagems and army traits from your warlord's detachment's codex

- armies with detachments from 2+ different codexes do not get the 3 free CP base. Special rules to circumvent this would be needed for some minor factions however.

[Khornestar]

I like the current detachment system and being able to mix and match to my heart's content.

 

Some of the consequences/nuances of it are... less than great? A little clunky, maybe? 

 

The limitations of the system seem rather arbitrary at times (my juggerlord not getting his World Eaters trait because...?), but no matter what the system is, players are going to min-max the out of it. That's what we do. Not every player, and not all the time, but finding the most efficient way of spending resources is just a natural thought process for many humans - especially gamers. Having more CP than my opponent because I figured out the cheapest way of building detachments that in no way diminishes the power of my list compared to his doesn't exactly feel right. His codex/faction doesn't have the same options, so I'll always have more CP than him if I choose to.

 

In some ways, it really isn't that different compared to getting free stuff for using formations in the last edition. With a grain of salt, you can consider the ability to shoot twice with a powerful shooty unit (e.g. Slaanesh Obliterators) the same as having more points than the opponent.

 

I dunno, this response isn't 100% related to the "soup"/ally/detachment system but it's interwoven with it. I'm not sure CP being tied to unit choices is the best idea. Perhaps just not with the current system, maybe there could be better ways of handling it.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Juggernut

[Schlitzaf]

Tgboren, when I say speciality detachment I am referring to “1 HQ + 3 Non-Troop Units of Same Type”. Beside Superheavy/AirWing Speciality the other speciality detachments follow that formula (well maybe and supreme command which might be 3 HQ. But I think it’s 4?). I call them speciality because niche armies

[Halandaar]

Even this whole discussion about Imperial Guard and CP generation stems from the fact that what really should be a significant aspect of the Imperial Guard's identity in this Edition (easy access to large quantities of CP) is instead a an easily-accessible strength of the Imperium as a whole. Detachments just make it far too easy to slot a powerful aspect of one army into a multi-faction list with little to no trade-off.

 

Exactly this.

 

8th edition was heralded as bringing back the appeal of focused armies by giving them benefits that would counteract the fact they aren't mixing and matching the best stuff from multiple sources. Instead what we got was every faction having it's own abilities that it could then bring into a mix and match scenario with no downside at all.

 

I initially felt like the faction rules for Battle-Forged armies should only apply if the entire army is made up of units from the same Codex, rather than just the entire detachment. I suppose though, there are some scenarios where the narrative does actually support soup armies (particularly among the Imperial forces) and you might want to support that; removing the bonuses for anything except "pure" armies would probably kill soup altogether. What about a compromise:

• Primary Detachment - If your army includes detachments chosen from more than one Codex, only the detachment with the most units may benefit from their faction rules for Battle-Forged detachments. (If you have two or more detachments with an identical number of units, then you must choose one to be considered the Primary Detachment for the purposes of this rule)

This would nerf things like minimum CP-farm Guard batallions and 3-Tank-Command Supreme Command detachments as part of Imperial Soup armies by disallowing them from gaining Regimental Doctrines and Objective Secured. But by specifying that it's on a Codex-basis, it still rewards the use of multiple detachments if all your forces come from one book. There are some situations where small Elite forces as part of larger armies is desirable. How about;

• The Emperor's Finest - Adeptus Custodes, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Deathwatch, Grey Knights, Space Marines and Space Wolves detachments may always benefit from their rules for Battle-Forged detachments, even if they are not the Primary Detachment in your army.

This means that they still benefit from their full range of abilities if used to supplement a Guard or Mechanicus force, which makes narrative sense. That could safely apply to Chaos Marines and Harlequins as well. I'm not sure if any of this is appropriate, or enough, but it seems like an improvement over what we have now.

[Shockmaster]

Armies only being able to use Stratagems from their own book and that they personally generated seems fine to me.

 

I am just wary of punishing everyone who prefers to use Matched Play because of the existence of hardcore competitive play at tournaments, as the idea of armies being "pure" seems strange to me.

 

Nothing wrong with choosing to limit your army as a personal choice but when the background material is filled with obvious allies, for example Chaos Marines & Daemons(who should never have been separate factions at all IMO).

 

GK & Ordo Malleus(again should be in the same book still)

 

In general any members of the Imperium other then maybe Sisters & Wolves.

 

As even Craftworld & Dark Eldar have been shown to ally when it suits them against non Eldar.

 

Hopefully this is something tournaments themselves fix rather then GW going in heavy handed to destroy the creativity they have opened up for us all. 

Edited February 2, 2018 by Shockmaster

[MARK0SIAN]

One small change that might have an impact would be something between battalion and brigade or at least narrow the gap in CPs. Jumping from 3 additional CPs to 9 is a massive bonus for armies that can field the numbers like guard. Whereas other factions will realistically never be able to field a brigade in a game. This means that those factions who can just about field battalions would need to field 3 of them just to compete with a single brigade.

 

I’d like another detachment between battalion and brigade that maybe required 3 troops and 1 each of elite, FA and HS that gave 6 CP to help out armies hat struggle to get brigades

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

I personally strongly dislike soup lists. I run mono armies. My DG are all DG, Space Wolves are all SW, Emperor's Children are all EC, etc. I play for the fluff and lore and watching people cobble lists together just for the edge in a game is deflating.

 

An excellent point if you presuppose that WAAC gaming is the only point of a soup list and that it is not possible to create a fluffy list with a soup.

 

My Renegades would heartily disagree with you, but they're busy being driven to their deaths by their Heretic Astartes 'allies' in order to (and don't tell them this, ok?) summon the Violet Heart and bring about a Daemonic Apocalypse. 

[Schlitzaf]

I concur with the above is playing my Vostroyan and Templars unfluffly? I’ve been doing it sense 5th Edition (in apoc games and then in 6th after it was legal). I added an AdMech Force recently, because I finally could take a second allied detachment. And I it was a force I wanted to play for awhile.

 

My Templars could fills what I use my AdMech and Vostroyans for, but I like the additional models and conversion opportunities I get

[MARK0SIAN]

I agree, it’s extremely fluffy to field a soup list.

 

In fact if you look at most of the lore, the white dwarf stuff, black library novels and even some of the codex entries most of the time the Imperium forces are fighting as some kind of soup.

 

It’s pretty rare in any of the books outside the Heresy series for a faction to be fighting entirely on their own. Even the Space marines, half the time they’re fighting alongside guard or admech forces, even if they’re only bit players in the story. In fact, it’s actually (ironically) the Imperial guard who fight without other factional suppprt in most of their fluff but even there there’s plenty of stories with the inquisition, admech, sisters, space marines etc lending a hand.

 

There’s nothing wrong with taking a mix of Imperium units in a soup, it’s very fluff accurate. The problem is trying to make sure they’re not just always a better choice, they need to have some restrictions and downsides. On the flip sides some of the individual faction codexes badly need a look at to ensure that a pure force of say Grey Knights is just as viable on its own as a soup army that includes them.

 

Same goes for Chaos, I’m a lot less familiar with the various codexes but I’m sure a lot of their players could point to stuff that isn’t useful outside of a soup.

 

Stop soups from being overpowered or easily exploited but don’t stop soups :)

[Kinstryfe]

Maybe since the big draw to allying in cheap troops seems to be for cp, it's worth revamping that process. I once got very negative responses to this, but I do think that they've missed the boat by not releasing codex specific detachments that can kind of equalize the CP gap. Something like "Demi-Company: 1 Space Marine Lieutenant, 3 Tactical Squads, 1 Assault Squad, 1 Devastator Squad, +3 CP", or stuff like that for each army that's really low on model count. Reward "fluffy" composition to make it a viable alternative to allying in guard/renegades.

[Schlitzaf]

I stand by the same thing I said last time

“Tactical Squad”

 

RIP Black Templars.

[Feral_80]

Is it me, or had GW originally promised to introduce army-specific detachments in 8th ed?

It seems to be one of those things that were lost on the way, along with the army-building app (?).

[Beams]

Maybe since the big draw to allying in cheap troops seems to be for cp, it's worth revamping that process. I once got very negative responses to this, but I do think that they've missed the boat by not releasing codex specific detachments that can kind of equalize the CP gap. Something like "Demi-Company: 1 Space Marine Lieutenant, 3 Tactical Squads, 1 Assault Squad, 1 Devastator Squad, +3 CP", or stuff like that for each army that's really low on model count. Reward "fluffy" composition to make it a viable alternative to allying in guard/renegades.

No. They should never do that. All that does is make the same issue as 7th editions formations.

 

Admech gets Warcon which is amazing, and then all sisters get is a glorified CAD that removes ObSec and replaces it with a once per game reroll 1 on armor saves.

 

If we want balance, there should be no "free" stuff to factions, that all factions don't have access to. I mean, just look at Codex vs Index, and the huge power gulf there.

[Tamiel]

I'd like to see competitive play be focused around mono-armies. That seems to be the path towards a more stable and enjoyable meta.

[Schlitzaf]

No, what they said was that more themed armies get more benefits than unthemed. They did this mechanically in game by looking Army Composition In Detachment. If they didn’t do it in this way. Their be no point to have detachments. And instead have just done Sigmar 25% or something. (Which I am vehemently against).

 

There in theory should be ‘5’ Layers of Benefits for Purity vs Soup

1) Strategetic Capability; an Armies natural flaws and weakness. A pure list will highlight both, a pure Marine list should in theory be better a precision strike than a Gaurd/Marine Hybrid. A pure Marine list will also suffer its lack of long term attrition ability more than a hybridized one

2) Unit Rules and Auras; Marine’s Cpt Rerolls only benefit (Chapter) and Gaurd can only use orders on (Regiment)

3) Army Rules; Chapter Tactics, Regimental Traits, etc and Strategems. These require you to section your arm into distinctive elements (Detachments) vs just throwing everything into one thing. Army Rules enforce a “Salad Bowl” style to list building

4) Relics; Had the DG FAQ not came out. You could only take Relics from Warlord’s (Army). Despite that faq if you want to get pedantic, you can take the Strategem. But you cannot actually give anyone a Relic. Sense no unit in your army fits (Army with Same Warlord). Through it gets complicated for deviant chapters Iike BA/DG/Etc. Whom are ___ Astartes Chapter’s and Thus fit Criteria (Army w/ Same Warlord required by Relics). This has about same restriction that 3 has, but at same time more narrow as army benefits are limited to one of the ingredients in the salad (so only one of the salad’s ingredients is allowed a dressings).

5) Warlord Traits. This is the final layer. Like 2, it’s limited mechanically mostly to (Army) when they are auras. And only allowed to access them when you are a specific (army). 5 is something while accessed by the same qualifications of 3. It is more akin to in mechanics to 4. 3 buffs are for most part nudges into a playstyle. 4/Relics generally improves on what is already their, Relics are not too different than Warlord Traits infact. (Some like Crusade Helm are both Warlord Traits and Relics). So why are Warlord the most specific? (Despite being the least specific).

Because the warlord (bar DG ruling unless you are incredibly pedenatic), unlocks the 4th Level. Warlord Traits, are also unlike Relics Free. And don’t require anything ‘specific’ yet are army defining. My two favorite marine traits, Rites of War and Angel of Death. I play a BT Tide List. Rites gives two layers of shock immunity, alongside Cenos. In melee, there is high casualty counts, and sometimes the Additional -1 makes a massive difference. For sake of example, kill 3 Marines. Only on a 6, does another die. The additional -1 means 5 or 6. Increasing the chance by double. By contrast the Ultra Trait, which gives CP back on using Strategems. Most Strategems are shooty, and more Marine Strategems are generally expensive. It makes Orbital into a only 2 CP effectively. And more generally it flavors conservation and steady damage vs Alpha Shooting. Tallern who fall back and still charge per their warlord trait. Want to get stuck in pull back.

 

Really the issue of purity is in 4. Imho. Relic Ruling really be undone

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

I am not arguing that a soup list is always or necessarily fluffy, for clarity.

 

Just that it is entirely possible for it to be fluffy and that WAAC gaming is not the only reason to take a soup list.

[Kinstryfe]

 

Maybe since the big draw to allying in cheap troops seems to be for cp, it's worth revamping that process. I once got very negative responses to this, but I do think that they've missed the boat by not releasing codex specific detachments that can kind of equalize the CP gap. Something like "Demi-Company: 1 Space Marine Lieutenant, 3 Tactical Squads, 1 Assault Squad, 1 Devastator Squad, +3 CP", or stuff like that for each army that's really low on model count. Reward "fluffy" composition to make it a viable alternative to allying in guard/renegades.

No. They should never do that. All that does is make the same issue as 7th editions formations.

Admech gets Warcon which is amazing, and then all sisters get is a glorified CAD that removes ObSec and replaces it with a once per game reroll 1 on armor saves.

If we want balance, there should be no "free" stuff to factions, that all factions don't have access to. I mean, just look at Codex vs Index, and the huge power gulf there.

Counterpoint: There already is "free stuff" here. My AM army rocks no fewer than 13CP at 2k, sometimes more. My Ultras 1st company at 2k is rocking about 5 if I don't take a special character to lead them. If the game is supposed to be balanced by Points, why do my AM get 8Cp worth of "free stuff" over my Ultras? Wouldn't a fair and equal system give you CP by Points or Power Level, rather than by Detachments?

 

To clarify, there's always a knee jerk reaction when I propose this that I'm suggesting a system like 7th edition, where you get free transports and other free stuff. I'm not advocating for that, I'm simply suggesting that there by a way for armies to be competitive with CP counts. Right now one of biggest complaints of soup lists isn't that your AM army can take a couple squads of Marines, or your sisters having some allies grey knights, it's that every Imperial Army out there is starting to include min/maxed Militarum detachments to get extra CP to use with the good stuff. Giving ways for small unit size armies to have some extra CP /without needing/ to use allied detachments seems like the best way to do it. Giving specialized Detachments seems like a sensible way, giving a CP bonus for taking "balanced and fluffy" lists. You could take a Guilliman gunline at 2k with 7 CP, or field a "fluffier" list with a Demi-Company, Scouting Party, and Reclusium Conclave with 10, giving you a CP benefit for not just going with the optimized, killier list. Or give all "elite", small count armies (marines, Custodes, harlequins?) a rule where all detachments are worth one extra CP, or just start then with 5 instead of 3 if the list is "pure" enough.

 

tl:dr Free models and stuff bad, CP equality good.

[Feral_80]

That makes no sense. Stating that having more CPs is 'free stuff' is like stating that since Marines have librarians and Necrons don't, Marines get psychic powers 'for free'. You don't pay points for the CPs themselves (well, actually you *do*, in various ways), but that does not mean they are 'free'. They are supposed to reflect the character and diversity of an army and, above all, they are supposed to be a matter of balance. AM gets more CP because they are supposed to desperately need them more than other armies in order to be competitive, since they are mere humans fighting all kinds of supernatural horrors. 

 

It has nothing to do with free stuff. It's game design, diversity, and balance. Now you can argue that the balance is poor overall, but that is an entirely different matter. Arguing that all armies should get the same amount of CP makes no sense, it is simply part of their characterization to rely more or less on stratagems. And that, in itself, is a good thing because it adds variety. It is the overall game balance that is problematic.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Feral_80

[Kinstryfe]

I play both AM and Marines. Saying that AM needs the CP more is very, very incorrect. I usually have so many I'm blowing them on inessential rerolls and I still never seem to run out. Marines, it's much easier for them to be gone in a flash. How does that make sense? An army of regular humans is more than twice as good at tactical flexibility than the Imperium's elite?

 

It is down to game design and balance, but that's the exact same thing that this thread is about: how do soup lists upset game balance, and is there a way to make them less overpowering. Aside from banning allies, really, what's left, since the overwhelming objection to using allied detachments is when they're used to ally in a bunch of cheap AM to get more CP to use on the better parts of the army. I've never seen anyone raise concerns about a Marine army allying in a couple Custodes, or a guard army with a couple units of Grey Knights. So there's a limited number of options.

 

Option 1: Give "pure" armies more ways to naturally have more CP.

Option 2: Reduce the effect that allies have on CP totals.

Option 3: Remove the option for soup armies.

 

That's pretty much it. Until one or more of those is done, things will stay the same, and every somewhat competitive Imperial Army will have allied AM for CP to be used on the main detachment.

[Feral_80]

That is *exactly* the point: allies brings imbalance to the CP system, because they allow a low-CP army to use a high-CP army to farm them. You do not restore balance by giving the same amount of CPs to everybody - you just scew high-CP armies that way, and buff low-CP ones. You do it by limiting the way people can abuse this apparent hole in the game, which is likely the result of a poor, hastily written allies system.

 

Corollary: as an AM player you should be well aware that CPs are not 'free' at all for us, because - at the very least - in order to get them we pay in term of rigidity in army composition, which *is* absolutely a cost, although not one paid in points.

[Finkmilkana]

Just looking at the currently most common soup:

 

Elite Marines that use expendable guardsmen to screen for them while they do the important stuff.

 

While I agree that from a balance point that is problematic (though the cause is not only CPs, but also that marine troops are relatively bad), that is exactly how most Marine chapters utilize local guard forces in engagements. I really don’t see how anyone can claim this particular combination is unfluffy.

And from a “tactical realism” point, why would you as a commander not make use of your more common (and expendable) troops to bind the enemy and make sure he doesn’t outflank you?

The only valid arguments I’ve seen in this thread against soup seem to be: I don’t like them and I think they are unbalanced. The first one is obviously a personal preference, but is easily solved by not Playing against/with them.

For the second point I’m also a bit sceptical if “easy souping” is really a problem. Imperium simply has a lot of very small factions that without allies would never be competitive (not that most of them are right now either way). I would trust GW more that they can balance units for certain roles (and then balancing the meta factions against each other). That they will truly balance a 20 model Custodes armie against 200 model guardsmen horde is just something I don’t see happening ever (at least not on a competitive level).

Having the ability to shore up the inherent weaknesses of a small factions by allying in things you lack seems like a far better deal (and more easy to balance) than having many small faction unplayable or stuck in a rock/paper/scissor loop because it lacks the ability to do X well.