Souping: You, I and Us.

[Schlitzaf]

Lets lay a few ground rules:

This is not a thread to bemoan 8th-9th paradigms nor it is a thread to bemoan the existing of souping. Or how “competitive” it is required to be or otherwise.

 

Okay moving on.

 

Soup:

The community “disliked” the soup of 8th resulting in -a massive curtailing of the incentive to soup. Detachment works, Mono Faction bonus etc. The purpose of this discussion, we are talking 2

Styles of Mono’ness and within the styles each has their own level.

 

“Army”: Checked on army wide level.

‘Army’ “Wide” Cat 1: This is requirement of the ARMY to share a Codex Level Keyword (Adeptus Astartes). Flavorfully this is a supposedly a representation of a unified system of tactics drawn from a common source (the Codex Astartes). (Combat Doctines)

 

Army “Wide” Cat 2: This is next stage of Mono’ness. An army that fills Cat 1 if it fills Cat 2. If an army has (SELECTABLE) Keyword like (CHAPTER) and every unit in that army has same (SELECTABLE) keyword this represents that command structure having innate familiarity with each other wnd their units. To point they fight more “effectively” (Super Doctrines).

 

“Force”/Detachment: Checked On Detachment Level.

 

Detachment Cat 1: If every unit is from the same Codex Keyword you unlock certain generic “strats”/Relic/WT. This similar to above Army Cat 1. But it also represents in theory HOW a force fights. While latter is more a representation of a force familiarity with each other.

 

Detachment Cat 2: If a force is fill 1 and every unit WITHIN a detachment is shared (SELECTABLE) then you are granted subfaction tactics/strats/etc. This represents how a force can independent conduct war without needing to compromise.

 

In theory the diff between Army/Detachment: Former represents command structure and the respective units familiarities with one another. While the latter is how a force personally conduct itself.

 

So then:

Souping has 3 Layers-

Mega Soup: BIG Faction Keyword (with biggest being Imperium, Aeldari, Chaos, and Tyranids are biggest examples here). To be battleforged you need to share 1 “Faction” Level Keyword.

-This was Level people bemoaned. With led to modern 9th Detach and introduction of Army Level Mono Bonus. Specificallg IG 800 pt Brigade, Castallen and the Hammer Character Battlalion.

Faction Soup: Ie Codex Keyword. While normally a word like Adeptus Astartes. It can be something like NURGLE. This is a more restriction keyword than above. But explicitly is faction is just this keyword you get srmy/detachment level bonus. There is Detachment/Army Level Mono Faction depending Soup you go.

-This is what got banned recently. Due to people cherry picking “best” units for a subfaction. And running barious subfaction types to get everything. Orks, and Sisters.

Pure: Every Unit has same keyword all the way down. You get all the toys and fun.

-This is “restriction” certain armies (AGENT Units, Tau Auxillaries, Freebootas, Harlies, UNALIGNED, and certain Chaos Units) ignore.

 

With that said in mind, at risk at causing violating the guidelines I set above (to emphasis not here to complain),

1) The current dynamic is it good?

-Before anyone gets into “weirdness”. Its a tabletop game not reality.

-More specifically if its not good at which of the four or types levels does it break down. And why?

2) If Current Dynamic is NOT good, how would you fix it?

-The purpose of each is reward you for more pure faction you are. The levels are: Army CodexKey/Subfaction or Detach CodexKey/Subfaction.

 

I personally dislike the system, one of the greatest joys of 8th was me bringing Vostroyan and Templars. As well as not feeling bad about doing so. That said, this is whay GW decided on. So I’d like to see a return to Detachment “level” or specifically. Patrols like to see get seperated to Patrol which is whay we think of it today. With a changing to 1 Hq, 0-2 Specialist Slots (ie only 2 slotted units of a Elite/Fast/Heavy TOTAL slot), 1-3 Troops. And costing 1 CP.

 

Becoming “Patrol” while actual Patrol becomes closer to classic standard force org. 1 HQ 2 Required Troops. Except 0-2 Max Slots except for Elites 0-4. My two cents

 

*There are army of renowns which Army Level Restrictions.

Edited February 4, 2022 by Schlitzaf

[WrathOfTheLion]

I think trading away the top level rule for multi faction soup is acceptable. I don't know if it's the most elegant, but it doesn't stop you from doing it, but it generally gives incentive not to. I think this is better in general. You can still run your Vostroyans and Termplars, but you are going to lose out on some things.

Sub-faction soup being limited in competitive play is totally fine with me. You can still do it in any narrative game, and in reality at the tournament/matched play level, that was always being done to give the shooty bonus to your shooters, and the choppy bonus to your choppers.

 

The patrol detachment mechanism for Harlequins seems like GW being a bit coy with essentially implementing Allied Detachments again. I personally really like this, and I hope that they roll it out to limited things. The armies that I think really need this are small ones, such as Harlequins or maybe an Inquisition detachment later, and really thematic ones (Chaos Daemons).

 

So I would like to see Inquisition expanded, maybe housed somewhere like the Guard codex as it's not out yet, and then allow Imperial factions to take a patrol of that.

 

Similarly, I would like to see any god-aligned Chaos faction able to take a patrol of their respective Daemon allies, i.e., Death Guard taking a detachment of Nurgle Daemons.

 

I think for balance reasons, this needs to be generally limited in scope to allow you to keep your big faction bonus.

Edited February 4, 2022 by WrathOfTheLion

[jaxom]

And here I was typing away when the New Post notification came up and WrathOfTheLion covered things so well!

I think part of the matched play issue with Harlequins is that they have such a small toolbox compared to other forces. Removing the Aeldari or Drukhari models in the same list is a more noticeable hamstringing to their ability to adjust to any sort of matched play meta (i.e. the tournament scene). I imagine we'll see a similar rule for Militarum Tempestus patrol detachments when the Astra Militarum codex is released. No more mixing Scion detachments within an army, but still can have a 'normal' detachment and a separate Scion detachment.

 

I do think that stratagem access should be limited by shared FACTION keywords, pretty much the opposite of the current rules. A Space Marine army with ADEPTUS ASTARTES, WHITE SCARS, and DARK ANGELS should only get access to ADEPTUS ASTARTES strats, in my opinion.

Edited February 4, 2022 by jaxom

[Schlitzaf]

I think trading away the top level rule for multi faction soup is acceptable. I don't know if it's the most elegant, but it doesn't stop you from doing it, but it generally gives incentive not to. I think this is better in general. You can still run your Vostroyans and Termplars, but you are going to lose out on some things.

Sub-faction soup being limited in competitive play is totally fine with me. You can still do it in any narrative game, and in reality at the tournament/matched play level, that was always being done to give the shooty bonus to your shooters, and the choppy bonus to your choppers.

 

The patrol detachment mechanism for Harlequins seems like GW being a bit coy with essentially implementing Allied Detachments again. I personally really like this, and I hope that they roll it out to limited things. The armies that I think really need this are small ones, such as Harlequins or maybe an Inquisition detachment later, and really thematic ones (Chaos Daemons).

 

So I would like to see Inquisition expanded, maybe housed somewhere like the Guard codex as it's not out yet, and then allow Imperial factions to take a patrol of that.

 

Similarly, I would like to see any god-aligned Chaos faction able to take a patrol of their respective Daemon allies, i.e., Death Guard taking a detachment of Nurgle Daemons.

 

I think for balance reasons, this needs to be generally limited in scope to allow you to keep your big faction bonus.

I would also like to see said “patrol” limited to codex (FACTION) vs (SUBFACTION) for benefits they can get and/or just tactics. Edited February 4, 2022 by Schlitzaf

[MARK0SIAN]

I think it’s important to state that a lot of the objections to souping in 8th that have resulted in the stricter system we have now are not the fact that souping existed. Most of the objections were that souping was objectively better than running a ‘pure’ army and had no downsides, it was all upsides. ‘Pure’ armies could rarely compete, even in a casual game.

 

I quite like the current system. There are good bonuses for keeping an army pure and the benefits that can still be gained from souping now have a cost to offset them. Now sometimes that cost may be a little too high but largely I’d keep the current system intact as I think it largely works well.

[Schlitzaf]

I think it’s important to state that a lot of the objections to souping in 8th that have resulted in the stricter system we have now are not the fact that souping existed. Most of the objections were that souping was objectively better than running a ‘pure’ army and had no downsides, it was all upsides. ‘Pure’ armies could rarely compete, even in a casual game.

 

I quite like the current system. There are good bonuses for keeping an army pure and the benefits that can still be gained from souping now have a cost to offset them. Now sometimes that cost may be a little too high but largely I’d keep the current system intact as I think it largely works well.

That a very complicated statemenr only somewhat true. As by end of 8th we had a multiple purity faction armies (Marines) who dropped Allies due to Mono Army Level. And even before then the Castallen Soup slowly getting replaced by Mono Imperium Builds.

 

Soup actually had a downside in that often the army would lose effectiveness on higher level play. Due to often the armies themselves having only indirect synergy. Like it was only Year 2 we saw Soup > Mono. If you look at the data.*

 

*also the rusty/loyal battlelions. Were actually garbage. Sense you were taking 3 Chars anyways for Marines. And 3 Scouts (and lessee extent 3 Firstborn Marine Squads) actually costed the same. And you should be taking tje 4th marine character anyways.

 

It was something casuals believed to be true. But it wasn’t.

[techsoldaten]

To respond to the questions:

 

1) In some cases the current soup is good

 

2) It could be improved

 

Personally, soup never bothered me and many complaints about it seem to relate to a different problem. Beginning in 8th, it became very hard for some factions to build a TAAC list. There's just too many situations where you can't prepare in advance without tailoring your list to the opponent. 8th ed soup magnified the problem by incentivizing players for taking more detachments.

 

Current soup rules are good for encouraging people to build thematic armies and make them work. In particular, Ork and Space Marine builds impress me, some of the current restrictions force players to work within constraints that lead to more balanced forces instead of investing in high-risk, all or nothing lists. That's not a bad thing and I suspect, in the long term, this approach will help reduce Codex creep.

 

Where it could be improved: current soup rules are extraordinarily bad for building thematic armies not specified in the Codexes.

 

One of my armies is Grey Knights. If I'd like to build a Daemonhunters force with Inquisitorial Guard, I have to take a hit on CP, there's no synergy between the 2 forces, and I lose Tides on the main force. This is bad, it's either all PA troops or it's nerfed.

 

Another one of my armies is Chaos Space Marines. If I want to run Daemons alongside a Black Legion force, I can do it without major penalty specifically because neither army has a 9th ed Codex. But, if I'd like to run Daemon Primarchs with a Nurgle Detachment, I have to give up so many special rules it's not worth it. 

 

To characterize the problem a better way: the current soup come at the expense of creativity and flexibility from the game. While I might decide to sacrifice a super doctrine to play something fluffy, being penalized for doing so feels like punishment. Being punished because GW could not be bothered to specifically issue rules for the army they used to support is unappealing.

 

In the long term, feels like this approach to soup means players will have less of an incentive to own more than one army. I've always played CSM and Daemons, but the 6th edition Allies chart got me a little more serious about playing Orks and Guard because I could include units with my main force. I don't think I would have done that if there was a serious penalty involved with fielding both a Warboss and a Chaos Lord.

 

So I look forward to the next iteration of this constraint on list-building, and hope it swings away from penalizing the player with the loss of doctrines, detachment taxes, and the like. I'm not sure what a better system would look like, but it should not involve punishment. 

[MARK0SIAN]

 

I think it’s important to state that a lot of the objections to souping in 8th that have resulted in the stricter system we have now are not the fact that souping existed. Most of the objections were that souping was objectively better than running a ‘pure’ army and had no downsides, it was all upsides. ‘Pure’ armies could rarely compete, even in a casual game.

 

I quite like the current system. There are good bonuses for keeping an army pure and the benefits that can still be gained from souping now have a cost to offset them. Now sometimes that cost may be a little too high but largely I’d keep the current system intact as I think it largely works well.

That a very complicated statemenr only somewhat true. As by end of 8th we had a multiple purity faction armies (Marines) who dropped Allies due to Mono Army Level. And even before then the Castallen Soup slowly getting replaced by Mono Imperium Builds.

 

Soup actually had a downside in that often the army would lose effectiveness on higher level play. Due to often the armies themselves having only indirect synergy. Like it was only Year 2 we saw Soup > Mono. If you look at the data.*

 

*also the rusty/loyal battlelions. Were actually garbage. Sense you were taking 3 Chars anyways for Marines. And 3 Scouts (and lessee extent 3 Firstborn Marine Squads) actually costed the same. And you should be taking tje 4th marine character anyways.

 

It was something casuals believed to be true. But it wasn’t.

Yes, by the END of 8th we had multiple pure faction armies but only because GW had acted on the complaints about soup having no downside. The marine doctrines were a direct answer to that.

 

Soup armies didn’t really lose out on synergy because you built in whatever synergy you wanted. Smash captains, Castellan, jetbike captains and even lists that were largely mono always benefited from sticking in a cheap CP battery to power up the stratagems. The loyal 32 were definitely not garbage. They were a cheap way to supercharge lists. If you were playing marines then you may not have wanted them as much but knights and Custodes definitely benefited.

[Schlitzaf]

That was NOT loyal 32, it was 700-800 point brigade. That saw play in those armies. The Loyal 32 did nothing. The CP battery wasn’t useful because other armies had CP Regen via other methods.

 

The Loyal 32 also took a shot due to giving up several secondaries. The perception was that it was good but it just wasn’t.

 

The IG Force people took and won with 700-900 point IG Brigades.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I think the current system is better, but I have two issues with it. First of all, not every fraction has a mono-fraction bonus. I like that they're giving you extra rules for not taking an ally, but I really feel like Chapter Approved should have provided these to the books that don't have any. They could adjust them as they go and get feedback before the codex was updated.

 

My second issue is there are exceptions, and I think they need to have a more universal way of handling it. Personally I'd like to inquisitors, and assassins have army of renown rules, and maybe give each fraction an ally that they can take a small patrol of. For Orks & Crons let them use subfraction soup because they don't really have a natural ally.

[MARK0SIAN]

That was NOT loyal 32, it was 700-800 point brigade. That saw play in those armies. The Loyal 32 did nothing. The CP battery wasn’t useful because other armies had CP Regen via other methods.

 

The Loyal 32 also took a shot due to giving up several secondaries. The perception was that it was good but it just wasn’t.

 

The IG Force people took and won with 700-900 point IG Brigades.

You are only talking about a handful of matches when you talk about tournament matches and that’s where ITC secondaries in 8th occurred. Soup (including the loyal 32) was present in an enormous amount of matches in 8th edition. Just on this board, souping was a hugely complained about problem in the previous edition for the reasons I have outlined.

 

I genuinely can’t understand how you can say loyal 32 did nothing. It allowed people to essentially buy CP for a very small amount of points, particularly CP short armies like Custodes and knights.

[Schlitzaf]

 

That was NOT loyal 32, it was 700-800 point brigade. That saw play in those armies. The Loyal 32 did nothing. The CP battery wasn’t useful because other armies had CP Regen via other methods.

 

The Loyal 32 also took a shot due to giving up several secondaries. The perception was that it was good but it just wasn’t.

 

The IG Force people took and won with 700-900 point IG Brigades.

You are only talking about a handful of matches when you talk about tournament matches and that’s where ITC secondaries in 8th occurred. Soup (including the loyal 32) was present in an enormous amount of matches in 8th edition. Just on this board, souping was a hugely complained about problem in the previous edition for the reasons I have outlined.

 

I genuinely can’t understand how you can say loyal 32 did nothing. It allowed people to essentially buy CP for a very small amount of points, particularly CP short armies like Custodes and knights.

Because it actuallt does nothing? Like its 180 points on the table that contributes nothing to the tabletop. The units die to a swift breeze. What made Loyal 32 ‘good’ was not the loyal 32. Its the fact you could take 32 GaurdBros. 6-9 Heavy Teams, Cheap Rattling Snipers etc.

 

That actual 32 was worthless and most cases you were better just taking an actual Bat or themed specialist detachment of your army then paying 180 point tax for 6-8 CP*. Even Knights, full knight force could get 9-12 CP from knights. (3 Big Boy Knights in Sup Heavy Detach gave 9 or 12 cp). At around 400-700 points looking at around 1400-1600. 2-4 Amigers for rest.

 

IG 800 point Brigade was the actual issue more than the cheap CP battery.

 

*Functionally 5 sense most armies had their own CP Regen

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

That was NOT loyal 32, it was 700-800 point brigade. That saw play in those armies. The Loyal 32 did nothing. The CP battery wasn’t useful because other armies had CP Regen via other methods.

 

The Loyal 32 also took a shot due to giving up several secondaries. The perception was that it was good but it just wasn’t.

 

The IG Force people took and won with 700-900 point IG Brigades.

You are only talking about a handful of matches when you talk about tournament matches and that’s where ITC secondaries in 8th occurred. Soup (including the loyal 32) was present in an enormous amount of matches in 8th edition. Just on this board, souping was a hugely complained about problem in the previous edition for the reasons I have outlined.

 

I genuinely can’t understand how you can say loyal 32 did nothing. It allowed people to essentially buy CP for a very small amount of points, particularly CP short armies like Custodes and knights.

Because it actuallt does nothing? Like its 180 points on the table that contributes nothing to the tabletop. The units die to a swift breeze. What made Loyal 32 ‘good’ was not the loyal 32. Its the fact you could take 32 GaurdBros. 6-9 Heavy Teams, Cheap Rattling Snipers etc.

 

That actual 32 was worthless and most cases you were better just taking an actual Bat or themed specialist detachment of your army then paying 180 point tax for 6-8 CP*. Even Knights, full knight force could get 9-12 CP from knights. (3 Big Boy Knights in Sup Heavy Detach gave 9 or 12 cp). At around 400-700 points looking at around 1400-1600. 2-4 Amigers for rest.

 

IG 800 point Brigade was the actual issue more than the cheap CP battery.

 

*Functionally 5 sense most armies had their own CP Regen

They didn’t contribute nothing though, they contributed the CP. plus a few bodies to zone out deep strikes or hold backfield objectives. Now how much value that was is up for debate but you’re continually asserting that they contributed literally nothing when that is just patently untrue.

[Schlitzaf]

If your list is properly constructed and built. The Loyal 32 do not add anything the list.

[MARK0SIAN]

If your list is properly constructed and built. The Loyal 32 do not add anything the list.

They literally added the CP and models but I feel like we’re going in circles with this so I’ll end it there on that front.

 

On a more general note though, whether you’re talking about the guard brigade or loyal 32 it doesn’t really matter. It doesn’t change the fact that for a long time in 8th edition there were a lot of upsides to souping and no downsides and it was this element of the system that generated most of the complaints as opposed to the fact that soup was possible.

 

I think the current system where souping is still possible but has downsides is preferable. Especially after they added in the sensible exceptions for things like agents of the imperium.

[Schlitzaf]

That what important understand there were downsides and they ARE important to understand.

 

The Castallen + IG Brigade + Smash Battalion. Worked because on a macro level synergization. For how rhe forced themselves were designed. They were completely independent from each other. And is why Loyal 32 is bad.

 

A Loyal 32 just tossed into an army runs into its not self sufficient and adds nothing. And gives up kill points in some missions, secondaries in ITC etc. Once you tried a trult interwoven soup army in 8th (on a micro level its why manu Dark Eldar were only 1 of the DE Factions).

 

Or why a list like Gulliman + Ultras work. A soup list can only function when the soup elements are designed to basically function as individual army segments. Subfactions demonstrate this concept well too sense each segment of the army is basically divorced from each other it doesn’t matter.

[BloodyB]

I enjoy running Imperial soup lists. For me, a lot of the fun of the soup list comes from the exact same place as my initial playing of BA, the array of splendid colours and varied units. When I started, I played a field of red, broken up with gold and black, and now I have added the silvery steel of Grey Knights, the sombre blues of my Imperial Knights, the jubilant greens of my Soroitas order and the acidic yellows of my Adeptus Mechanics. While I could easily paint and show-off these models, I couldn't see them arrayed on the field in battle likemI could my beloved BA, not until the advent of 6th edition, and at last my tiny force of Grey Knights found the support of the Sons of Sanguinius!

 

Ever since I have been playing many lists that can guarantee an exciting game. Jump Infantry lists with a small cadre of assault marines and Inceptors being supported by numerous Pteraxii and a handful of Seraphim, or a clanking onslaught of Kastelans and Dreadknights crushing all in their path, lead by my new Knight Magaera. I enjoy the soup themes that can occur, and with the advent of the Indomitus Crusade, I had hoped to see some nice rules for these forces being used. I was a little disappointed by the White Dwarf offering recently, but not overly so.

 

I think Warhammer is massively improved by the presence of 'souping' for less competitive play. I help run a small group for some kids nearby, and having 5 in the group has made it tricky in the past, but the Chaos players love teaming up now and it cheers me up no end to hear them planning what they want to buy and how they want to paint it to match their warband.

 

At the top end I think it does little except let older codices do silly stuff like stack a minus 12 on LD tests or something. It isn't powerful like it used to be, but it is still kind of funny to see a Night Lords warband fill their power armoured undercrackers because of three psykers and Pvt. Smith's lucky lasgun shot. I think losing Combat Doctrines or equivalent is worth the price.

[ThePenitentOne]

For tournament play, or even casual competitive play, I think the GT 2022 Mission Pack rules are fine.

 

For Narrative and Crusade, I think the changes to the detachment system that came with 9th edition are enough on their own. Paying for extra detachments with CP rather than getting CP is enough of a deterrent in story based play- especially when the choice to soup or not to soup truly is driven by the story.

 

I also think the Torchbearer Fleet and War of Faith Crusade rules for multifaction armies are fabulous.

Edited February 4, 2022 by ThePenitentOne