Do you feel 8th Edition is Soup Edition ?

[Exilyth]

A big problem with balancing discussions is that there are currently at least 3 metas:

A ) GW GT (CA2018 missions)

B ) ITC (custom missions, choice of custom objectives)

C ) ETC (CA2018 missions, less randomized objectives)

which are very different from each other. Each meta has its own strong and weak units and its own problem lists.

 

Obviously, A) is how GW intends the game to be played and is what they tend to balance for.

Obviously, the more a format deviates from A), the more likely it is to suffer from imbalances.

 

 

But to get back to the topic of soup:

 

Back in the day, during 3rd edition, GW released codex: eye of terror. This book contained rules for playing the Lost And The Damned faction - a 'mortal followers of chaos' army drawing from three books (eye of terror, imperial guard, chaos) in an era where 'soup' was unheard of and 'allies' were some funky special rule for large games, buried deep in chapter approved.

 

I used to run a list with a Defiler and a Leman Russ and a bunch of mutants and some other stuff.The list I used used to be rather weak in my local meta, but it was quite fluffy.

Only years later did I find out that one of the reasons LaTD didn't get new rules was that some people used plague zombies, combined with a rule which would nowadays get marked as open/narrative play only, to run endlessly respawning hordes of chaff.

 

So, whether a soup is more than its ingredients depends a lot on who cooks the list.

[Leif Bearclaw]

One thing about GW... is the amount of factions they have & how the interact.

 

Name one competitor to 40K that has more than 8 factions...

 

(Chaos Marines [ inc TS & DG], Chaos Demons, IK, Space Marines [inc GKs, DW, DA, BA, SWs], Ad Mech, Guard, Sisters, Tau, Craftworld, Dark Elder, Quins, Necrons, Nids, GSC,)  Thats over 14 Factions & 22 Army books and a couple of factions that are index / WD... all having to be unique!

 

So if you want soup to go away compeleley then expect the demise of a lot of factions and other homogenization in order to make it balanced.

Um, no? For soup to go away all that needs to happen are changes to (biggest case, complete removal of) the ally rules. 40k has had multiple editions with no ally rules (beyond some very specific ones like in the old Inquisition dexes). Yet it's always had a plethora of factions to choose from. Removing soup does not require homogenisation of factions, one could in fact argue the opposite, that going back to monodex only would make forces more unique, as you wouldn't be able to compensate for inherent weaknesses of a dex by adding soup.

 

 

 

 

I agree, but it is fluffy. The combined arms approach is how the Imperium conquered the galaxy to begin with.

 

Except it actually isn't all that fluffy at 40k scale. Yes the Imperium employs combined arms, but not at a sub-Company level of deployment. A couple of dozen Marines teaming up with a small platoon of Guardsmen isn't the norm by a long shot. For a good example, consider the Siege of Vraks. The DAs didn't bring a small pile of Kriegers along when they raided the spaceport. Or the first Red Scorpion deployment. A proper 'Army of the Imperium' operation, but one where 100+ Marines are the forlorn hope, holding the breach until thousands of Guardsmen and a couple of Titans show up to consolidate. That's how the Imperium does combined arms, at an Epic (the game) scale, with multiple 'detachments', not a handful of individuals teaming up for a gunfight. The 40k soup, loyal 32 type, 'combined arms' is far closer to Huron's Tyrant's Legion than Guard/Astartes combined ops, and that was definitely heresy.

[Wayniac]

A big problem with balancing discussions is that there are currently at least 3 metas:

A ) GW GT (CA2018 missions)

B ) ITC (custom missions, choice of custom objectives)

C ) ETC (CA2018 missions, less randomized objectives)

which are very different from each other. Each meta has its own strong and weak units and its own problem lists.

 

Obviously, A) is how GW intends the game to be played and is what they tend to balance for.

Obviously, the more a format deviates from A), the more likely it is to suffer from imbalances.

 

 

But to get back to the topic of soup:

 

Back in the day, during 3rd edition, GW released codex: eye of terror. This book contained rules for playing the Lost And The Damned faction - a 'mortal followers of chaos' army drawing from three books (eye of terror, imperial guard, chaos) in an era where 'soup' was unheard of and 'allies' were some funky special rule for large games, buried deep in chapter approved.

 

I used to run a list with a Defiler and a Leman Russ and a bunch of mutants and some other stuff.The list I used used to be rather weak in my local meta, but it was quite fluffy.

Only years later did I find out that one of the reasons LaTD didn't get new rules was that some people used plague zombies, combined with a rule which would nowadays get marked as open/narrative play only, to run endlessly respawning hordes of chaff.

 

So, whether a soup is more than its ingredients depends a lot on who cooks the list.

Your first point is spot on too.  As long as the game is fractured into different types that do their own thing, it will be very hard to do anything to balance it because GW may balance on the assumption you're using CA missions, but then ITC does their own thing with more emphasis on listbuilding which skews their meta, and they are the ones giving GW feedback.

[Karhedron]

Except it actually isn't all that fluffy at 40k scale. Yes the Imperium employs combined arms, but not at a sub-Company level of deployment. A couple of dozen Marines teaming up with a small platoon of Guardsmen isn't the norm by a long shot.

If that is the entire force you are probably right. But battles are sometimes supposed to represent "flashpoints" in a larger front. Those 20-30 Marines could be part of a Company+ sized deployment and the Guardsmen part of a large regiment. What we are witnessing in a particular battle could be justified to be immeadiate forces with the rest of the army(ies) engaging just beyond the tabletop or marching up to reinforce etc.

 

Whatever the shortcoming of soup, it is not too hard to justify fluff-wise.

[Ishagu]

Yeah what we see on the tabletop is always just one snap shot of a larger battle. Imagine the battle continues for miles in every direction, but the game is just a brief moment of a small part of the war.

 

Unless people actually think wars are decided by 4 tanks and 60 guardsmen over 6 turns? lol

[Claws and Effect]

Soup isn't going anywhere, and I don't think it should. It is perfectly thematic for a handful of Chaos Marines to have a horde of cultists with them. Same with Guardsmen and Loyal Marines.

 

It's really only game breaking in the hands of WAAC players who are aiming to get the most benefit from the least investment. Those players aren't going to change, and if soup is done away with they're just going to latch on to the next broken mechanic that gives them an advantage.

 

Demanding that GW get rid of a mechanic you don't like isn't going to solve the problem. I say that because soup lists aren't the problem, the players who abuse it are. Anything done about it should be at the tournament rules level and not from GW themselves.

 

Matched play rules are not just used for competitive play, but also by people playing pickup games at the local game store because it requires the least discussion of rules before the game.

 

And honestly, it's not GWs job to reign in WAAC players. It's ours.

 

If someone brings a list that abuses soup to a pickup game, just refuse to play them. Those players will either eventually fall in line and grasp that non competitive means don't abuse the rules. Or they'll go complain on Reddit and ragequit.

 

Saying "I don't like what Joe did with his list, make that illegal!" is going to create more problems than it solves. Ideally we want GW to have as much of a hands off approach to list building rules as possible.

 

Me? When I get around to it I'm going to build a list of Raven Guard, Catachan, and a single Freeblade Knight (not a Castellan, but whichever pattern the Obsidian Knight was) because that combination of forces was present for the Damocles campaign.

[Subtleknife]

Soup should be allowed however at the moment there is no downside to it. In fact, you are limiting yourself by playing monodex. This should be the other way around. I do think GW have quite got that aspect right.

[Rik Lightstar]

I think faction abilities should all have 2 entries, you get the first entry (on the current level of power) if you have a Battle-Forged Detachment as now. But the second entry is only available if your entire force is compiled of the same faction and sub faction. eg ALL Ultramarines or ALL CADIANS.

 

Rik

[Claws and Effect]

I think faction abilities should all have 2 entries, you get the first entry (on the current level of power) if you have a Battle-Forged Detachment as now. But the second entry is only available if your entire force is compiled of the same faction and sub faction. eg ALL Ultramarines or ALL CADIANS.

 

Rik

I'd be on board with this idea.

 

Keep it the same as it is now, but add an additional bonus if every unit in your list shares the most specific keyword (Chapter, Craftworld, Hive Fleet, etc.)

 

No idea what those additional bonuses could be, but they should be thematic and strong enough to encourage using a single codex for your whole list. But not so strong they become the new game breaking thing.

[Rik Lightstar]

 

I think faction abilities should all have 2 entries, you get the first entry (on the current level of power) if you have a Battle-Forged Detachment as now. But the second entry is only available if your entire force is compiled of the same faction and sub faction. eg ALL Ultramarines or ALL CADIANS.

 

Rik

I'd be on board with this idea.

 

Keep it the same as it is now, but add an additional bonus if every unit in your list shares the most specific keyword (Chapter, Craftworld, Hive Fleet, etc.)

 

No idea what those additional bonuses could be, but they should be thematic and strong enough to encourage using a single codex for your whole list. But not so strong they become the new game breaking thing.

Existing abilities +1 in a lot of cases. So Cadians are re-roll all failed hits instead of 1s, Ultramarines can Fall Back, Shoot AND Charge, Salamanders get to re-roll more than 1 of each result.

 

It has to be good enough that bits worth taking another 650 points of Marines instead of a Knight and 32 Guardsmen.

 

Rik

[Ishagu]

I think the game has been a soup since 6th edition, and it was actually a lot worse than it is now, funny enough.

 

People have short memories but we used to have UNITS comprised of pieces from multiple books.

 

Often theme focused players make a fuss, but their complaints are only really valid in a competitive setting. In local events and games we should be able to arrange the kind of games we enjoy more.

 

For the record I much prefer thematic lists and armies built up from fewer sources.

[Panzer]

Soup is neither good nor bad in itself. What's bad is the balancing between soup and mono armies.

[Ishagu]

Soup will always be better because not every army is capable of dealing with everything in the same way.

 

Marines are elite, they will never dominate in terms of board control. Adding Guardsmen fixes this.

Chaos Astartes are better off in this regard with their Cultists.

 

I think loyalist Astartes armies should have access to mortal soldiers. For example the Ultras command vast armies of highly trained and we'll equipped regular human assets. Give us access to those lol

[Panzer]

There will always be something better, no question. Perfect balance doesn't really exist with so many variables. However the gap between soup and mono armies is unnecessarily huge.

[Ishagu]

I think that if the sub factions were more seperate the meta would be more exciting, but there would have to be a few exceptions.

[Doghouse]

I think soup is fine for the most part, it is very thematic to see Guard fighting alongside Astartes or Ad Mech. 

 

I think the problem for me is more to do with the need to go soup to make your army more competitive. An army should really be able to stand on it's own two feet and not feel the need to have to go with allies but that is bad for sales in some respects. The impression I have always gotten in the past is that they started pushing allies so that people may then expand those allies into a second army.

 

8th feels like a very combo/aura heavy edition to me and soup benefits that style of play by opening up access to things your main army may not have but work well with what you do have. I see a lot of tournie players on youtube talking about the game like it's Mortal Kombat, take this move add that buff and you get a unit doing something unexpected effectively increasing it's value in game for which it may not be pointed for.

 

Mono army approaches being encouraged with more interesting bonuses would be nice but like I say I think it would impact their potential sales.

[Rogue]

Oddly, though, making allies more open partly alleviates that issue.

 

I'm currently playing a Cult army, and my wife is slowly building up an Ad Mech force. Next week, we're playing them as an allied force against Death Guard and Black Legion.

 

Thematically, it's pretty valid - my Cult has grown up on an Ad Mech controlled world, so the Ad Mech contingent are brood brothers with flavour.

 

Practically, Cult and Ad Mech don't overlap at all. The Dominus can't repair my tanks, the Primus can't buff the vanguard. It's not tournament legal, but it's also far less gamey than just dropping in a 32 for the perks.

[Lord Raven 19]

Maybe for each detatchment that is not your warlord's faction you have -2cp?

[Guest Triszin]

 

 

I think faction abilities should all have 2 entries, you get the first entry (on the current level of power) if you have a Battle-Forged Detachment as now. But the second entry is only available if your entire force is compiled of the same faction and sub faction. eg ALL Ultramarines or ALL CADIANS.

 

Rik

I'd be on board with this idea.

 

Keep it the same as it is now, but add an additional bonus if every unit in your list shares the most specific keyword (Chapter, Craftworld, Hive Fleet, etc.)

 

No idea what those additional bonuses could be, but they should be thematic and strong enough to encourage using a single codex for your whole list. But not so strong they become the new game breaking thing.

Existing abilities +1 in a lot of cases. So Cadians are re-roll all failed hits instead of 1s, Ultramarines can Fall Back, Shoot AND Charge, Salamanders get to re-roll more than 1 of each result.

 

It has to be good enough that bits worth taking another 650 points of Marines instead of a Knight and 32 Guardsmen.

 

Rik

 

I like this a lot.

[Karhedron]

Maybe for each detatchment that is not your warlord's faction you have -2cp?

That could work. Even simpler, make the +3CPs for being battle forged only apply if all detachments fully match on Keywords (i.e. monodex). Not a perfect fix but it tones down things like the Loyal32 a bit without crippling the ability to take allies.

 

On a practical note, GW don't want to cancel soup since an allied detachment often ends up leading to a whole new army. I started with 1 Knight and now have a full household in the works. 

[Rik Lightstar]

 

Maybe for each detatchment that is not your warlord's faction you have -2cp?

That could work. Even simpler, make the +3CPs for being battle forged only apply if all detachments fully match on Keywords (i.e. monodex). Not a perfect fix but it tones down things like the Loyal32 a bit without crippling the ability to take allies.

 

On a practical note, GW don't want to cancel soup since an allied detachment often ends up leading to a whole new army. I started with 1 Knight and now have a full household in the works. 

 

 

I don't want them to cancel Soup, it's a good thing, but I want it to be a viable option, not the ONLY SENSIBLE option.

 

Rik

[Slasher956]

Not caught up all the thread but it appears the concensius is split along the lines of keep soup but:

 

Either remove some of the bonus' of doing soup (ie the +3 CP or Warlords Faction only generates CP)

                            

                                OR

 

Buff the faction bonus if you only have the one faction keyword

[Ishagu]

So here's my question:

 

Are your experiences that everyone is running a soup?

 

In a purely competitive setting this really isn't an issue as those interested in winning will put together winning combinations. Recently, the ITC has changed the faction rules so you'll actually see a lot more mono lists than before.

In a friendly setting, isn't it up to each micro community to police itself? Why aren't people driving a more thematic focus where people bring mono armies?

 

The competitive scene is undergoing change for the coming season, and people need to feel more empowered to shape their local experiences outside of tournaments. I personally have a very competitive local scene, but myself and the others also appreciate more thematic armies so we tend to run mono lists outside of actual events.

[Panzer]

My personal experience in a friendly setting is that people actively avoid playing soup lists for the same reason they don't bring LoWs to each game ... because they feel it's too cheesy compared to the opponent who plays a mono army.

[Midlight]

At my local club, most people will have a mono codex army. There is 1 guy who does the whole soup thing, but he goes to a lot of tournaments so its understandable. Everyone knows if you have a game against him you will be getting stomped by whatever the current 'soup of the day' is.

I don't really see much soup anywhere else than that