Soups and 8th Edition

[Kinstryfe]

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.

I think we're both needlessly arguing over like 20% when we both agree on 80% of the issue. We both agree that there's a problem that they need to fix. I'm just throwing out ideas on how to fix it, not necessarily fighting for any one in particular. I'd just like to see them figure out a fix that still allows for strong theme options in both pure and mixed armies.

[Soder]

I'm glad this topic was started here and got a lot more attention than the one I tried to start over in the GK forum.

 

I definitely don't think GW should do away with allies but that being said something needs to be done to either provide a buff to mono-build armies and/or some sort of drawback or cap on allies. There have been some good suggestions already here that I do not believe would be game breaking.

 

I really do believe this was a huge oversight on GW's behalf. #playtesting!

Edited February 2, 2018 by Soder

[Atrus]

I dont consider myself a souper. Usually i run mono army, but when i do mix in something else, its usually a knight that has been heavily modified to look like a part of the army. Or i'll throw in a few inquisitors so as to relive my nostalgic days of codex witch hunters which is where i first started. I like that i can take them in a list and have it be fluffy. D be sorely disappointed if i couldnt as id then have a handful of inquisitors that would do nothing but collect dust.

 

I think for the average casual gamer like myself, soup is not a problem at all, its just a convenient way to make a nice fluffy/themed/storybased army to enjoy on the table in a format the majority of people will play by default.

For the average competitive player, i think theyre the only ones that have a problem as traditionally believed: these are the ones who live to exploit/break/game the system.

[Happy-inquisitor]

In open or narrative play mixed faction - 'soup' - lists are no problem at all. It makes for a very easy gaming experience and lets players slowly transition from one army to another, that last part is especially important for the younger players who have little cash and have to wait for Xmas/birthdays to build an army.

 

It can get a bit questionable in matched play and the sheer number of possible combinations of things here probably mean that bad game experiences will keep creeping into the game as codexes are released. Sure those can be fixed a few months down the line but another bad rules interaction will be along to replace it and some players with 'chase the dragon' of those dodgy rules interactions.

 

My personal fix for that would be to have a declaration of faction for each list based on at least one detachment fully qualifying as that faction. The list as a whole can then only access special Stratagems/artifacts etc available to that exact faction and only apply them to units in detachments which qualify as that faction. This hugely cuts down on the weird interactions of possible rules and hence on some of the oddball things which can happen. I think it would also give a strong positive encouragement to lists which are overwhelmingly single faction.

 

As for the core rules, leave them be. Some of this goofy stuff is actually fun in narrative games.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I like the framework that the different formations (FOC charts) have, but I think its lead to two main issues.

 

1) There isn't a benefit to running a pure codex army. Each army has its strengths and weaknesses but when you can miss and match detachments, and still gain access to all the stratagems, and units its a lot easier to make up for them.

 

2) Armies are pointed differently so CP don't scale well. Its made worse by two of the strongest books Eldar and Guard having a much easier time building CP because they have access to cheap units in every slot. Granted if Alaitoc gets nerfed (which seems likely) that will help address at least part of the problem.

 

I think that there are multiple ways that GW can address this. To address the lack of benefits for running a one codex force they could either give armies additional perks if the entire force is from one book, or have different formats where there are additional army building restrictions.

 

As for scaling they could make the FOC command bonus have a point threshold (so a brigade has to be 1500 points for example). They also could list some units as not counting towards "slots" in a FOC to even things out a bit.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Black_Star

[Claws and Effect]

I'm planning on a list eventually that matches the forces present in Phil Kelly's story in Damocles.

 

Raven Guard, White Scars, and Catachan led by Straken.

 

I suppose I could be cheesy and use it just to maximise my CP, but I really just want to accurately represent an army from a story I liked.

 

Since I can only use Strategems on the units of that faction, it curbs some of the abuse. I can't use Strike From The Shadows on a unit of Guard plasma Vets, for example.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Claws and Effect

[A.T.]

1) There isn't a benefit to running a pure codex army. Each army has its strengths and weaknesses

On a related note to this - armies are not created equal. GW have been making the situation worse with their many 'sub' faction releases rather than consolidating the outlying books into armies that can stand on their own.

[DuskRaider]

I find it a little unfortunate that I have to take an allied detachment to make what should be a Nurgle Daemonkin army ala the old Khorne one (Legion + Daemons), but it's still acceptable and allows me to create a whole other army if I so choose... three if you count Renegades and Heretics. Prior to this I only played all three in Apocalypse games.

[Kinstryfe]

I find it a little unfortunate that I have to take an allied detachment to make what should be a Nurgle Daemonkin army ala the old Khorne one (Legion + Daemons), but it's still acceptable and allows me to create a whole other army if I so choose... three if you count Renegades and Heretics. Prior to this I only played all three in Apocalypse games.

I kinda feel like even if ally rules went away CSM Armies should still be able to take Daemons, Imperium armies should still be able to take Custodes/Inquisition/SoS/Grey Knights, and Aeldari and Drukhari should still have access to Harlequins. Those seem to the allies that make absolute sense, even in a no-allies system, at least in my take of the floof.

[Schlitzaf]

Why can’t my Marines ally Gaurdsman? There are numerous flavor examples of Astartes and Gaurds Units (PDF or actual AM) fighting alongside one another

[Kinstryfe]

There are lots of examples of Guard and Astartes fighting alongside each other, but in the majority of instances it's typically portrayed as a whole lot of Guard, and a small number of Marines. There's the occasional exception (the 20 or so guardsmen helping to defend Sotha, for one example), but that's a bit rarer. Ultimately, almost everything is justified in the fluff somewhere. Astartes and Necrons, Aeldari and Imperium, Orks and Guard, all have fluff justification for precident. Ultimately though I think that if GW were to limit allies, it would likely be in an attempt to prevent elite armies from allying in chaff. I'm in favor of one extreme or the other. Either limit allies a lot, or open up allies to all sorts of theoretical situations. If they limit it a lot, I'd find it makes more sense for a "Guard army to ally in a small number of Marines" than for "a Marine army to ally in a small number of Guard." On the other hand, they could embrace the fluff fully and acknowledge that if the reason is right, Harlequins will fight alongside Orks and T'au will fight alongside Chaos Marines.

[Schlitzaf]

I mean isn’t the reverse true for Chaos Marines? Most stories have small number of Daemons and large number of Chaos Marines rarely does the narrative focus on 1 Sorcecor/Kabel summoning large number of Daemons. Several Marine stories like Ryn’s World and Helsreach while most of the cast are Marines their is a implicit large number of Gaurdsman. And a of 10-20, or even 30-40 Marines is a significant portion of a Marine fighting Formation which is a 100 Astartes

[MARK0SIAN]

I would go further and say that in Black library books, the number of times that marines fight alongside at least some other element of the Imperium’s armed forces actually outweighs the number of times they fight totally by themselves.

 

Even the Space Marines Battles series have lots of examples of space marines fighting alongside allies. People exploiting the allies system is something that needs fixing but there are plenty of ways to do it without stopping people taking allies.

[NatBrannigan]

I like the soups. I get that they can be abused easily to take a strong force that the GW designers never intended to see the light of day but on the flip side of that particular coin, some people play for fun.

 

My Imperium force all comes from the same system (of my own design to protect me from over-zealous fluff writers!) and is aesthetically designed to represent this. There's also a bit of fluff to go with it. I like to use a combined force sometimes and appreciate that I have options to easily do this. However when I include an Inquisitor or some Marines in with my Guard my army tends to get worse as far as tabletop strength goes. No-ones going to be complaining about that!

 

A simple solution? Keep the options for "Soup" armies open and if a tournament or group doesn't like that they can just say no allies. Job done. 

[Xwingt65]

Is it really that big of a problem outside the competitive tournament scene? I am genuinely asking, since I don’t see it crop up much, besides with my groups single power gamer?

[Crimson Ghost IX]

I think the really hardcore crowd is always going to break the game when possible.

I think GW is inclined to watching these folks and balancing from their cheese as needed, so that is good.

 

I feel the story is full of examples of soup armies.

I see the resistance of long time players (like myself) to bringing allies etc. 

It is still kinda the new way or not deeply traditioned yet.

 

That said...

 

I am in a position where I own several armies that can go out together where previously I saw them as mono in the past.

It is actually pretty fun building combined forces from them and leads to good games in my opinion.

 

Remember at the end of the day two people are playing; of perhaps differing ability and access to models, and pick forces acccordingly is my thought.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Crimson Ghost IX

[Brother Captain Ed]

While these threads often just turn into a cacophony of everyone posting their ideas and not listening, I'll throw mine out anyway.

 

More options is inherently a strength.  Anytime you have more options, you will have more chances at creating unintentional combinations or, more likely, just access to the most cost efficient ones without the limitations of internal balance (such as it is).  Since more is always better, the most obvious course of action should be to offset the benefit of having the "best" options from multiple codexes by adding abilities to those who make choices from a smaller group of units.

 

My solution is to add a universal rule called something like "Unity of Command."  Basically, "If each detachment in your army contains the same <Keyword>, apply that <Keyword>'s Unity of Command to models in each detachment." 

 

---DISCLAIMER: These are suggestions and not "OMG this is the best benefit evar(!), dieonmysword" ideas.  I'm not looking for feedback on them, they are fillers.---

 

As each <Keyword> gets progressively narrower, you have can have more and more thematic benefits associated with it. 

 

So, for example, <Imperium> and <Chaos> would have Unity of Command: None.  I.e., what we have now.  If you have three <Imperium> detachments your benefit is taking conscripts with Guilliman or whatever it is the cool kids are doing these days.  But...!

 

You could then have Unity of Command: <Adeptus Astartes> or <Heretic Astartes>: "Gain 1 Command Point.  In addition, whenever your opponent makes a Battleshock roll, add 1 to the result."  (Or whatever.)  So now our three detachments gain a benefit for being space marines, but you can still take a Raven Guard gunline with Blood Angels assault marines. (Or whatever.)  Each detachment retains the benefit of its parent codex, but gains one for further sharing keywords.

 

Now, let's narrow all the way down.  Let's say I only want to play Ultramarines.  So, I get the Unity of Command: <Adeptus Astartes> above (as all <Ultramarines> detachments are also <Adeptus Astartes> detachments) and Unity of Command: <Ultramarines>: "When you spend a command point on Scions of Guilliman, select two Infantry and/or Biker units instead of one.  They both gain the benefit of Scions of Guilliman." (Or whatever.)

 

Essentially, the more homogeneous your list, the more "extra" benefits you gain.  To preserve the flavor of factions like <Inquisition>, you could add something to the effect of "<Inquisition> units do not count when determining an army's Unity of Command, but do not gain the benefit of any Unity of Command." And, since Chaos is kinda soupy by design, a similar function could be built in for <Daemons>.

 

In my opinion, rewarding players for voluntarily limiting themselves is the best way to maintain at least some internal balance while still allowing for fluffy (or competitive), multi-faction lists.  Just my $0.02

Edited February 6, 2018 by Brother Captain Ed

[Schlitzaf]

I mean I’ll be honest I don’t think Daemons be treated as same as Inquisiton, given they are fully fleshed army unlike real soup only units/armies just personally

[Lord_Caerolion]

They are included in the Death Guard/Thousand Sons codexes though, without the appropriate keywords, and are pretty heavily tied into factions like the Word Bearers.

[Lysere]

Having spent some more time thinking about it I feel it would be better not to reward people for taking only one faction since that will boost smaller games that don't have as much of an issue with soup lists, but instead reward people for not using all of their detachments.

 

Most competitive settings are using the three detachment limit at the moment, so rather than give someone some extra command points for only taking one faction (or something similar) they could instead reward them with more command points for using less than the maximum number of detachments. This will force soup lists to give up their bonuses if they want the extra command points and reward people for making a list that can easily fit into a single detachment. It would have to be 2-3 points for each detachment you pass up to make it useful at all since it would give you a reason to not just take another spearhead or vanguard detachment.

 

Just a thought.

[BitsHammer]

I've actually been considering souping up a bit lately, mostly so I can turn my project ADHD into a cohesive army via building a Keyword: Imperium army around an Inquisitor. I've considered not going keyword Imperium but honestly too many different HQs seems like more of an issue than a help, and I don't really want to use all those strategems and relics (or army traits). So I guess my soup is fluffy not crunchy????

[Schlitzaf]

Lysere that is honestly best suggestion all thread. If we established the following rule

“All Battleforged Armies start with 1 Detachments. For each multiple of thousand rounded up, a battleforged army may have one more detachment. A 2000 Point army will thus have 3 Detachments. A 3000 4 Detachments.” Then add the following “if you are running less than your maximum number allowed of Detachments you gain CP

 

My main issue is that I worry it push Speciality Detachments even further away. I’d almost want to see Speciality Detachments changed to 2 Command Points, Battlelion 4, and have Patrol Give 1. I guess serious question, do we see nerfing Detachment spam as a proper neutering of souping. Or do we souping as a means to enable CP through Detachment spam as the issue. This does fix the latter, or will likely increase CP from 6-7 to 8-9 for non-Gaurd armies. Which is functionally the difference of being able to interrupt an opponent once. (Auspex Scan and Interruption).

[A.T.]

I guess serious question, do we see nerfing Detachment spam as a proper neutering of souping. Or do we souping as a means to enable CP through Detachment spam as the issue. This does fix the latter, or will likely increase CP from 6-7 to 8-9 for non-Gaurd armies. Which is functionally the difference of being able to interrupt an opponent once. (Auspex Scan and Interruption).

The latter can be more easily fixed by allowing CPs generated by detachments to only be used by other detachments from the same codex.

 

So the 6CPs generated by your guard detachment are held separate from the 1CP you have for your command group of blood angels jump captains (for instance).

 

That one change kills off all of the 'soup for CP' lists immediately and cleanly.

[Mileposter]

I posit that removing the 3 Detachment limit might help as well. Haven't done the math on it for the overall, but I know some lists that work well in a pure setting if you could have 4/5 Detachments (Spearheads and Vanguards or the like) that can't really measure up with the 3 limit.

 

Could be off base, so I'll let others handle the math on it, but from anecdotal experience it seemed the positives outweighed the negatives.

[Lysere]

Lysere that is honestly best suggestion all thread. If we established the following rule

“All Battleforged Armies start with 1 Detachments. For each multiple of thousand rounded up, a battleforged army may have one more detachment. A 2000 Point army will thus have 3 Detachments. A 3000 4 Detachments.” Then add the following “if you are running less than your maximum number allowed of Detachments you gain CP

 

My main issue is that I worry it push Speciality Detachments even further away. I’d almost want to see Speciality Detachments changed to 2 Command Points, Battlelion 4, and have Patrol Give 1. I guess serious question, do we see nerfing Detachment spam as a proper neutering of souping. Or do we souping as a means to enable CP through Detachment spam as the issue. This does fix the latter, or will likely increase CP from 6-7 to 8-9 for non-Gaurd armies. Which is functionally the difference of being able to interrupt an opponent once. (Auspex Scan and Interruption).

 

I'll use the list I took to the LVO as a benchmark for how I feel this should work since specifics will require a lot more work to nail down. The list I ran was a scion detachment, a mechanicus detachment, and a lone knight. I built the list specifically to include mechanicus so I could get the most mileage out of the knight, everything else they brought along was just the icing on the cake.

 

The #1 advantage that souping should provide is obviously the mix of factions. The command points gained for the detachments are almost secondary when you consider the number of potential units, relics, and stratagems that you gain by taking a mix. A pure imperial knight army isn't going to be nearly as good as a knight army with a small detachment of mechanicus. By adding in the scions as well I gained natural deep strike options and hard hitting plasma that can't be killed turn 1 making my list better able to mitigate some of its natural disadvantages.

 

The easiest way to soup is to take an ally of guard or other cheap infantry units. These detachments are usually there just for the command points. With my idea from before you'd actually be rewarded more command points by not taking them thus making it an actual decision. Do you want more command points, or do you want the versatility another faction can provide?

 

If done right I don't think you'd need to adjust the command points for the specialty detachments since you could gain quite a few by focusing your list. Yeah the detachment only gives 1 but if its the only detachment you use and you only use the one faction you could pick up 4 or more beyond that.

 

Edit: To add to that thought I also feel its important to encourage people to actually make use of the detachments they take. Right now if you have a list with 2 HQs and six elites/heavies/fast attack choices your best way to take them is two of their specialized detachments meaning you have a dozen or so unused slots that you'll never fill. My suggestion would make it beneficial to actually cram everything into a single detachment instead since it would actively reward you more command points. If you wanted the two halves to be different chapters or something then you'd have to give up a command point or two instead of the current situation where you'd have an extra over someone using only the one detachment.

Edited February 8, 2018 by Lysere