Why do people continue to say "Soup?"

[Trevak Dal]

Because people don't know what words mean anymore. Look at people using the word decimate in contexts it doesn't work in.

 

You cannot decimate a building. You can destroy, obliterate or annihilate it. Because how do you kill 1/10th of a building with the other 9/10ths?

I've played battlefield bad company 2, you can decimate the building in question by taking out a support wall with a underslung grenade launcher.

 

It makes a doorway...and weakens the building, but that's it. Less "resources" to take more damage, so kinda decimating it.

 

It's just evolved and was a word replacement in cartoons and anime for Kill in some instances.

[MARK0SIAN]

I think Closet Skeleton has come closest to my personal understanding of the term soup. To me, soup is just a random mixture of the best units from several codexes thrown together without any real coherency or force structure.

 

Allies on the other hand are two (or more) coherent forces that make sense as a structured force when they’re together or they’re two sepearate structured forces working together.

 

The easiest way to tell if it’s a soup or allied list (for me) Is to ask: does it just contain the optimal units from 2 or more codexes or would those forces really field that detachment as a stand-alone force to send as allies?

 

So if it’s just loyal 32, a Castellan and smash captains. They’re optimal things from those codexes, that would be soup for me.

 

But if you had a guard brigade filled with a cohesive and comprehensive force who had taken a knight too, that’s allies.

 

Likewise, would a space marine chapter really send a single (or even multiple) captains with jump packs to help an ally? Probably not so it’s soup.

 

But would a space marine chapter send a spearhead or vanguard detachment to help some allies? Yes absolutely so I would class that as allies.

 

These are just how I view it and how I use the term allies or soup so it may not be the way most (or even any) consider it.

[Ishagu]

If I see Nurgle Daemons/Marines alongside Tzeentch Daemons/Marines I can't help but be put off.

 

It's very anti-lore, and it's a common soupy mix for maximum benefit.

[Panzer]

It's not really anti-lore. There are occasions when opposing subfactions team up. Not too long ago we even had a Khorne and Slaanesh team up.

[MrZakalwe]

"Soup" is a pejorative for "I don't like your list" relative to any list that draws from more than a single codex. Its use says more about the person using it than it does about the lists (and players) they are sneering at.

I refer to my own IMPERIAL list as Imperial Soup so it's not always pejorative.

 

I call it Imperial soup because that's a fair description of it- also with a Knight, Imperial Guard, Ad-mech, and an assassin listing the individual ingredients as allies would take far longer.

[Rogue]

It's not really anti-lore. There are occasions when opposing subfactions team up. Not too long ago we even had a Khorne and Slaanesh team up.

Depends how far back you go. A lot of the early Chaos stuff had Nurgle and Tzeench as intense rivals, unable to ally together; likewise Khorne and Slaanesh. So an army could never include units specific to more than two of the gods at the same time.

[Ishagu]

In the most recent novels I'm reading the Nurgle Daemons are always worried about Tzeentch acting against their plans. They literally talk about in Dark Imperium 2

[Prot]

Because people don't know what words mean anymore. Look at people using the word decimate in contexts it doesn't work in.

 

You cannot decimate a building. You can destroy, obliterate or annihilate it. Because how do you kill 1/10th of a building with the other 9/10ths?

 

Throughout history words change meaning. This is a fact. The amount of words you use 'incorrectly' compared to their literal meaning a hundred years ago would blow you away. 

 

As far a soup? I come from an era where you played a codex. To me it is a fitting nickname to describe something severely beyond that framework. 

 

It's just slang.

[Fajita Fan]

I love fluffy lists that combine different armies (i.e. Inquisitor/Gray Knights/IG) but doing it to max out special rules and hero bubbles is pretty lame.  

[Dosjetka]

Once you've all clarified the issue, perhaps you could instead call it Imperial consommé?

[ERJAK]

Because people don't know what words mean anymore. Look at people using the word decimate in contexts it doesn't work in.

 

You cannot decimate a building. You can destroy, obliterate or annihilate it. Because how do you kill 1/10th of a building with the other 9/10ths?

Words mean what society says they mean. If the majority agree that 'Decimate' just means 'destroy' then it does.

 

All meaning is arbitrary and ephemeral.

 

Also if you make a 10 floor building with one great floor and 9 crap floors and deliberately let/make the 9 crap floors collapse the on great floor, you have decimated that building. You lack imagination.

 

As for soup, soup has ALWAYS been a valid term for both intra and inter detachement allies, since it comes from the 'throw everything in a bowl together' nature of soup. Some people created an arbitrary distinction in their mind for arbitrary reasons because people don't act rationally.

 

If you have a better term for current soup lists, feel free to try and get it to catch on.

[Plaguecaster]

If I see Nurgle Daemons/Marines alongside Tzeentch Daemons/Marines I can't help but be put off.

 

It's very anti-lore, and it's a common soupy mix for maximum benefit.

Have you never read any of the Daemons of Chaos lore at all or do you only bother reading your loyalist stuff?

daemonic incursions happen all the time asthe Daemons aren’t always so picky about fighting alongside their rival god forces if by doing so serves a purpose it’s just after the battle they’ll probably be rivals / enemies again

 

Soup is just min maxing/ cherry picking the best bits for benefit, yes GW May of limited the really bad cases of it with the 3 detachment rule and more stricter keywords but to deny that it is no longer a problem is ludicrous.

[Ishagu]

I've read plenty. They are in constant battle against each other and only co-operate in extremely rare occasions.

Yet I see them together more often than not.

[Lord_Caerolion]

 

If I see Nurgle Daemons/Marines alongside Tzeentch Daemons/Marines I can't help but be put off.

 

It's very anti-lore, and it's a common soupy mix for maximum benefit.

Have you never read any of the Daemons of Chaos lore at all or do you only bother reading your loyalist stuff?

daemonic incursions happen all the time asthe Daemons aren’t always so picky about fighting alongside their rival god forces if by doing so serves a purpose it’s just after the battle they’ll probably be rivals / enemies again

 

Soup is just min maxing/ cherry picking the best bits for benefit, yes GW May of limited the really bad cases of it with the 3 detachment rule and more stricter keywords but to deny that it is no longer a problem is ludicrous.

 

 

It used to be, back in the day, that the diametrically-opposite Gods wouldn't cooperate unless fighting under Abaddon or some other amazing general, but Khorne/Slaanesh and Nurgle/Tzeentch would otherwise just spend all their time screwing their opponent over. You outright couldn't take Slaaneshi auxilliaries in a Khornate Daemonic Legion, etc. They also couldn't take Tzeentchian/Nurgle allies at the same time, for the same reason.

[Evil Eye]

I have very mixed feelings on the whole "soup" debacle. I feel it's very much like more or less any "creativity mechanic"- it allows for the freedom to make really cool stuff, but it also allows for people to pull off exploitative groxdung. Soup is an unfortunate side effect of having what I personally consider to be a pretty well done allies mechanic via the keywords system, but to be honest I'd rather we had soup than the whole thing was written off and we were stuck with mono-Codex forces only thanks to the actions of a few malefactors. For tournament play I agree that some standards should be put in place to avoid such nonsense but I'd rather these were written as optional "touney mode" rules rather than being baked in to the base rules.

 

It's not even limited to tabletop games, or even mechanics thereof; as someone that enjoys (despite being very bad at) Soul Calibur, I've seen just as many people use the character maker to create schlong monsters as to make really cool original fighters. It's annoying but as someone who loves character customization I can accept a few Slaaneshi Chaos Spawn every now and again.

 

TLDR: Freedom to do cool stuff comes with drawbacks but I'd rather we had it than not.

[Panzer]

There's nothing wrong with soup in general. As in 'soup' simply being multiple different factions in the same army. The only problem is with some specific kinds of soup where the powergap becomes too wide compared to mono-codex armies. Something GW hopefully is going to fix by giving bonuses like Combat Doctrines to mono-codex armies now.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I remember people describing armies with multiple fractions in 7th edition as soup lists. I think the term caught on in 8th and GW tried to define it when they fixed how detachments were created. IMO they didn't want a negative connotation allies because they always want us expanding our collections. So while I understand the OPs frustration getting people on the same page with slang is tough.

[Zephaniah Adriyen]

I have very mixed feelings on the whole "soup" debacle. I feel it's very much like more or less any "creativity mechanic"- it allows for the freedom to make really cool stuff, but it also allows for people to pull off exploitative groxdung. Soup is an unfortunate side effect of having what I personally consider to be a pretty well done allies mechanic via the keywords system, but to be honest I'd rather we had soup than the whole thing was written off and we were stuck with mono-Codex forces only thanks to the actions of a few malefactors. For tournament play I agree that some standards should be put in place to avoid such nonsense but I'd rather these were written as optional "touney mode" rules rather than being baked in to the base rules.

 

It's not even limited to tabletop games, or even mechanics thereof; as someone that enjoys (despite being very bad at) Soul Calibur, I've seen just as many people use the character maker to create schlong monsters as to make really cool original fighters. It's annoying but as someone who loves character customization I can accept a few Slaaneshi Chaos Spawn every now and again.

 

TLDR: Freedom to do cool stuff comes with drawbacks but I'd rather we had it than not.

 

This. Every word of this. Including liking Soul Calibur. And being very bad at it.

[chapter master 454]

Ah if only Soul Calibur got my interest. However I hate the controls in it, they aren't tight enough for me...or at least they feel REALLY gummy/floaty/inconsistent (playing astaroth this is important, I need the game to know when I meant down, down forward or down back. Like seriously important).

 

I know this is tangent but...english is a funy broken language like our game. Ghoti can be pronounced as Fish (very famous example) or if you like to be pedantic like me then it isn't a Quad Bike but actually a Quike! (because Bike is short for Bicycle and so the 4 wheel version should be a Quad-Cycle and similar to that of a Trike! Because if it were a Quad Bike it would have 8 wheels since that means 4 bikes!)

This kind of illustrates the same with soup really but far more nebulous.

 

I feel like I'm about to get a crozius to the dome just for my pedantry!

[Medjugorje]

 

Alternative Title: Words are Supposed to Mean Things!!!

 

Okay, so this is just me venting.

 

In 7th Edition, you had an allies system that let you stick together different armies. Some people disliked this, others liked it, whatever. It's fine. People had opinions. 

 

In 8th Edition, the new keyword phenomenon introduced a new possibility: "Soup" detachments! You could put 30 guardsmen, 5 space marines, 10 sisters of silence and an Onager Dunecrawler all in the same detachment. People correctly identified that this was very silly, and came up with a silly (and slightly denigrating) word to describe this practice: "Imperial Soup."

 

All of this, so far, is fine.

 

GW agreed that this practice was silly and put a stop to it. The Imperium keyword was disallowed from being used as the basis for a detachment, meaning that to have multiple Imperial codices in the same battleforged army you needed to have full, proper detachments from each one. That is to say, they essentially reinstated the Allies system.

 

Okay, so we're all good, right? Soup no longer exists. There are no more soup lists.

 

Except... people still use the term. They've just expanded it to refer to literally any allies at all. 

Why? 

 

Soup was never really about having multiple different factions in the same detachment. You are making the same mistake as GW here when they declared that "soup is off the menu" (such a ridiculous claim). Soup is having multiple different factions in the same army and that still exists unchanged.

 

 

THIS +1

 

it doesnt matter if the the different armies are played in different detachments or not... There are many People who played 40k without allied Forces. No matter they like this or not... its just mean that is not the (for many People) standard thing to Play one army.

 

[Medjugorje]

I feel "soup" is three Codices or more in the same army.

For example, my Knight/Custodes/BA 2k list is a soup list.

Also, don't hate me for running a Knight/Custodes/BA list, it is my attempt to fight back against local powergamers. Plus, I just like the models.

correct - this is what YOU feel. There is no higher instance who decided what is a soup. It was a term used for something and if it changed ---> ist okay.

[Claws and Effect]

Reached a decision.

 

I'm calling it gumbo from now on. It's more accurate :)

 

For the non-Americans who aren't familiar with the term, gumbo is a dish from Creole cuisine that originated around New Orleans. It is made by literally taking anything you have on hand and throwing it in a pot with some usually very spicy seasonings. Figured I'd clarify as names of food can be confusing across cultures. Kind of like how any dessert dish can be called pudding in Britain and the person calling it that isn't wrong. That confuses me. And how any carbonated soft drink is called Coke in some parts of the Southern US.

[kombatwombat]

The OP only understands the term Soup as referring to the very narrow definition GW applied, which is multiple different armies in the same Detachment. There was only a brief window at the start of 8th where this was possible. The use of the term Soup predates 8th Ed, and continues today, nearly two years after that brief window. So Soup as a slang term does not and never has referred to GW’s narrow definition.

 

There’s no firm definition, but current and historical usage both seem to indicate that Soup refers to at least the concept of cherry-picking the best units from multiple armies, and it may extend to allies in general depending on people’s point of view. The term isn’t necessarily insulting, but GW’s making Soup lists in general much stronger than Pure ones has led to a bit of a negative connotation.

 

We don’t know if GW grossly misunderstood the term and people’s issues with Soup this edition, or if it was a cynical tactic defining Soup as intra-Detachment mixing so they could say they fixed the fans’ issue without harming their sales potential.

[Vermintide]

It's Soup, with a capital S, when it's an army without a coherent and obvious alignment or fluffy cohesion.

An army with 3 knights, a Guard and a Blood Angels batallion is Soup. Which faction would you say it is mostly? Is it Guard with fire support? Knights with ground support? Smash Captain and Friends?

Whereas you could do something similar and have 3 Knights with a bunch of Skitarri and Kastelan dakka-bots to support them, which is still soup, and it's still pretty cheesy, but nobody is gonna criticise you for it. It's not obvious try-hard meta-gaming min-max Soup, it's delicious fluffy soup (even if it would be brutal to fight against). You'd look at that army and say "Oh, sweet, a Mechanicus army with lots of robots. Makes sense."

I think there's still a lot of folks around who find the very idea of allies blasphemy, back from the days where there was no such thing. I can sympathise, because you can't make a serious argument about segregating the fluff from the game. If you go down that road, then why bother painting your minis? Why even use models? Why not just use Lego? Why not just write RHINO on a square piece of cardboard? The narrative is integral to the game.

[ERJAK]

It's Soup, with a capital S, when it's an army without a coherent and obvious alignment or fluffy cohesion.

 

An army with 3 knights, a Guard and a Blood Angels batallion is Soup. Which faction would you say it is mostly? Is it Guard with fire support? Knights with ground support? Smash Captain and Friends?

 

Whereas you could do something similar and have 3 Knights with a bunch of Skitarri and Kastelan dakka-bots to support them, which is still soup, and it's still pretty cheesy, but nobody is gonna criticise you for it. It's not obvious try-hard meta-gaming min-max Soup, it's delicious fluffy soup (even if it would be brutal to fight against). You'd look at that army and say "Oh, sweet, a Mechanicus army with lots of robots. Makes sense."

 

I think there's still a lot of folks around who find the very idea of allies blasphemy, back from the days where there was no such thing. I can sympathise, because you can't make a serious argument about segregating the fluff from the game. If you go down that road, then why bother painting your minis? Why even use models? Why not just use Lego? Why not just write RHINO on a square piece of cardboard? The narrative is integral to the game.

I'm not really up on my fluff, why do knights refuse to work with guard and blood angels again?