“Soup” and Agent Rules

[Schlitzaf]

So let me outright say: I like “souping”. It was awesome for me to be take a small force of Vostroyan (500-600 points for those curious) alongside Templars in 8th. And when Soup was taken to the back and shot in 9th, I didn’t mind because everyone was affect. But now the introduction of “Agent” rules infuriate me. 

We have 3 types of “Agents”:

Aeldari Agents (Harlequins)

Chaos (Cypher, Abbaddon, Chaos Knights, looking like Daemons have a coming version)

Imperium (Imperial Knights, Inquisition, Assassins, Rogue Trade, etc)

Then we got “agenty” units:

Kroot/Auxillary, Corsairs, Scions etc. So on and so forth. 
 

——————

Reason I hate it, I don’t want rando inquisitior in my list. I want a “full” (ie a Patrol of Units. 1 HQ, 2-3 troops, 1-2 other) of “coherent” units. I want “mortals” alongside my marines. Etc. When 9th/Doctrines happened I was fine. Everyone in same situation I was in. (And at the time it still angered me because “Soup OP” was actually wrong. And proponents if it where hypocrits. Sense as long as keyword wasn’t “Imperium” it was fine and dandy).

Why can Chaos Marines or Aeldari factions take a cohesive “functional” force of Daemons or Harlies and retain their abilities while I get left in the cold? Its been over a decade sense 3.5, while “Daemonkin” books existed, we also had “allied” detachments in those eras. The castallen detachment by the end, so on and so forth. 

And before folks but “Marines eight billion datasheets!”

Loyalists have 98 “unique” Datasheets

Chaos have 38 “unique” vanilla Datasheets

Almost double right? Well let us look at them. 

HQ: Loyalists, “6” Unique (7 Cpt, 3 Lib, 4 Chap, 2 Tech, and 6 Liutanant. 18 Datasheets)

HQ: Chaos “6” Unique, (5 “Lord” Level, 3 Sorcecors, 1 Apostle, 1 Tech, and 1 “mortal”. 11 Datasheets)

And apoc/banner are double/triple redundant datasheets. Before we even get into fact, aggressors vs tactical vs relic terminators, or Reivars vs Assault Marines vs Bikers. Or how we have “3” Tactical Level Troops, “3” Infilitraty Troops. I could do the whole math. But once you curate fact atleast a third of the datasheets are literal “clones” with only aethestics differences. You are down to 63. But then even that, of tbise remaining clones, several units are similar in functional to be basicallg the same (Landspeeders vs Attack Bikes). Its really honestlt xloser to properlt 30-40 functional unique. Now this isn’t to say Chaos Marines don’t have tbis issus (Havocs vs Oblit, Chosen vs Possessed, Deamon Engines, Cultist vs Cultist, etc) but its not nearly to same extent. Loyalist 3-5 Unit fill a similar army construction role, Chaos have 1-3.

Why is it okay or reasonable for not Imperium to be able to combined arms in a coherent fashion? Take fully “functional” (ie a patrol worth of units) aethestically coherent force and not for anyone else?

And before someone comes and loyal 32, remember loyal 32 was competitively garbage outside very specific lists. What was competitive was 600-800 point gaurdsman brigade. 

[Evil Eye]

I completely agree; the desire to fight against "soup" armies basically went much too far and reduced us to "Entire dinner of one ingredient". Avoiding people being able to use exploitative combinations of units from multiple armies shouldn't mean that genuinely cool, fluffy mixed armies get rendered unplayable or totally useless even at the most fluffy, casual level.

I think it's not a unfixable problem; Age of Sigmar has pretty decent ally rules that allow a main force of, say, Orruk Warclans to be taken alongside Gloomspite Gitz (or vice versa) allowing for AoS Orcs and Goblins to be a thing! So it CAN be done. The problem is that for 40K in particular, which has a more complicated relationship to factions and alliances (you couldn't categorize armies into Grand Alliances, and even if you could some armies wouldn't get on with others within the same GA) which would require more complex rules, and GW either doesn't want to make the game too complex for fear of being inaccessible...or is using that as an excuse to avoid having to put actual effort into rules writing.

My solution? Blend the Keyword system with a return of the Allies Matrix, or rather, Matrices. Instead of having one main Matrix in the rulebook, you have a much simpler matrix in every Codex that tells you who you can and can't ally with, with a caveat for "future" armies (if we get another Votann case) of "If a future release is not included in this Matrix, check the relevant Codex".

This can be fairly in-depth without being too needlessly complex or bloated. Case in point, for an Imperial army you can simply say "Armies or units with the CHAOS Keyword can never be allied in" and leave it at that. It's only for faction-internal relations that things need to get more complex. Using the Imperium again, "Space Marines can include [X] amount of INQUISITION units, except for Space Wolves- due to their poor relations with the Inquisition, they may only take [Y] amount, and only from this list". Likewise for custom factions you could actually include relations with other factions as choices in the creation stage. If I wanted to create the Red Hunters I could select the "Good Inquisitorial Relations" trait- "You may include double the amount of INQUISITION units to a regular army". Meanwhile if I wanted a less favorable relation I might pick "Shaky Inquisitorial Relations"- "You may only include half the amount of INQUISITION units". And if I were making Celestial Lions, "Loathes the Inquisition"- "You may not include any INQUISITION units". These traits would be mutually exclusive of course, but would also have interactions with other traits. For instance, IIRC the Celestial Lions are chums with the Black Templars and the Space Wolves, neither of whom are terribly fond of the Eye that Sleepeth Not, and thus you can take a certain amount of units from those factions (or factions with the same trait) with no penalties.

 

[Emperor Ming]

Typical gw, create a rule, then create a pile of rules/faqs that's get around said rule

[Schlitzaf]

18 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

I completely agree; the desire to fight against "soup" armies basically went much too far and reduced us to "Entire dinner of one ingredient". Avoiding people being able to use exploitative combinations of units from multiple armies shouldn't mean that genuinely cool, fluffy mixed armies get rendered unplayable or totally useless even at the most fluffy, casual level.

I think it's not a unfixable problem; Age of Sigmar has pretty decent ally rules that allow a main force of, say, Orruk Warclans to be taken alongside Gloomspite Gitz (or vice versa) allowing for AoS Orcs and Goblins to be a thing! So it CAN be done. The problem is that for 40K in particular, which has a more complicated relationship to factions and alliances (you couldn't categorize armies into Grand Alliances, and even if you could some armies wouldn't get on with others within the same GA) which would require more complex rules, and GW either doesn't want to make the game too complex for fear of being inaccessible...or is using that as an excuse to avoid having to put actual effort into rules writing.

My solution? Blend the Keyword system with a return of the Allies Matrix, or rather, Matrices. Instead of having one main Matrix in the rulebook, you have a much simpler matrix in every Codex that tells you who you can and can't ally with, with a caveat for "future" armies (if we get another Votann case) of "If a future release is not included in this Matrix, check the relevant Codex".

This can be fairly in-depth without being too needlessly complex or bloated. Case in point, for an Imperial army you can simply say "Armies or units with the CHAOS Keyword can never be allied in" and leave it at that. It's only for faction-internal relations that things need to get more complex. Using the Imperium again, "Space Marines can include [X] amount of INQUISITION units, except for Space Wolves- due to their poor relations with the Inquisition, they may only take [Y] amount, and only from this list". Likewise for custom factions you could actually include relations with other factions as choices in the creation stage. If I wanted to create the Red Hunters I could select the "Good Inquisitorial Relations" trait- "You may include double the amount of INQUISITION units to a regular army". Meanwhile if I wanted a less favorable relation I might pick "Shaky Inquisitorial Relations"- "You may only include half the amount of INQUISITION units". And if I were making Celestial Lions, "Loathes the Inquisition"- "You may not include any INQUISITION units". These traits would be mutually exclusive of course, but would also have interactions with other traits. For instance, IIRC the Celestial Lions are chums with the Black Templars and the Space Wolves, neither of whom are terribly fond of the Eye that Sleepeth Not, and thus you can take a certain amount of units from those factions (or factions with the same trait) with no penalties.

 

So kinda like the “ally” system in AoS?

[Evil Eye]

24 minutes ago, Schlitzaf said:

So kinda like the “ally” system in AoS?

Pretty much! Albeit perhaps a bit more complicated just by virtue of 40K's more defined (and numerous!) faction lines.

[Closet Skeleton]

On 7/25/2022 at 5:16 PM, Schlitzaf said:

And before folks but “Marines eight billion datasheets!”

Loyalists have 98 “unique” Datasheets

Chaos have 38 “unique” vanilla Datasheets

Its not about the number of datasheets in the main faction, its about the number in the allied faction. Inquisitors and Assassins aren't going in any list except as allies while Knights and Harlequins have very few options. Even with Knights you have to choose either a freeblade or be Admech so its based on very specific fluff.

The rumoured daemon allies rules only allows one god, which massively cuts down the datasheets you're allowed.

Its only Brood Brothers who get a ton of options but a lot of those are units who were taken out of the Genestealer book only recently.

You can't play Dark Eldar with 500 points of aspect warriors and keep power from pain. Its not that Marines are being treated unfairly, its just that the precise combo you want hasn't had a rule written for it.

Edited July 27, 2022 by Closet Skeleton

[Noserenda]

Whats actually stopping you just taking some guard alongside your marines? Just talk to your opponents. GW isnt going to break the door in and demand you play tournament style all the time.

[Schlitzaf]

3 hours ago, Closet Skeleton said:

Its not about the number of datasheets in the main faction, its about the number in the allied faction. Inquisitors and Assassins aren't going in any list except as allies while Knights and Harlequins have very few options. Even with Knights you have to choose either a freeblade or be Admech so its based on very specific fluff.

The rumoured daemon allies rules only allows one god, which massively cuts down the datasheets you're allowed.

Its only Brood Brothers who get a ton of options but a lot of those are units who were taken out of the Genestealer book only recently.

You can't play Dark Eldar with 500 points of aspect warriors and keep power from pain. Its not that Marines are being treated unfairly, its just that the precise combo you want hasn't had a rule written for it.

So why shouldn’t I be allowed to take an Inquistor + Acolytes and keep doctrines. I don’t want 1 rando dudebro inquistor. I want a “full” cohesively looking force (ie 1 HQ 1-2 “Troops” 0-1 Other). 
 

Why can Harlies and Daemons have functional semi “well rounded”  ‘armies’ while I am stuck with 1 rando dudebro.

[Kythnos]

12 minutes ago, Schlitzaf said:

So why shouldn’t I be allowed to take an Inquistor + Acolytes and keep doctrines.

So what you are saying is that you are aware that you actually can add the allied detachment you like, but feel that your Army has to give up too much for that option, right?

I can understand that being an annoyance, but feel that is actually a rather simple solution to prevent too many unplanned combinations.

[Schlitzaf]

then why do Harlies and Daemons get off “scot” free. If it was “1 dudebro/unit can be added w/o breaking” kt be whayever but yoj can legally take “functional” armies for certain agents.

[Son of Sacrifice]

8 hours ago, Schlitzaf said:

then why do Harlies and Daemons get off “scot” free. If it was “1 dudebro/unit can be added w/o breaking” kt be whayever but yoj can legally take “functional” armies for certain agents.

I don't understand this either. Most of my favorite novels feature Space Marines and Imperial Guard fighting side by side. 

[Special Officer Doofy]

Complain about redundancy all you want, marines have far more selections than all of chaos marines + one God, by a good amount.

Let's look at something like fast attack. Death guard has 2 Daemon engines and chaos spawns, so 3 total. Nurgle daemons get plague drones and I think the rumors are nurglings are going to FA and furies are not in the book. So 5 choices total. Marines get 3 firstborn speeders, 3 Primaris speeders, first born bikes, scout bikes, Primaris bikes, attack bikes, the new quad, inceptors, suppressors, AND assault marines with Jump packs. That is way more selection, so yes there is some redundancy, but 14 choices >>> 5 choices from 2 codexes. Even if you count all 6 speeders as one, and all the bikes as 1, and the attack bike/quad as 1, that's still 6 vs 5 from two codexes, and 2 of the 5 don't get any bonuses from their codex if taken with them.

[Lord_Ikka]

Play Narrative or talk to your opponent- you are talking about themed armies, which isn't what Matched Play is for. Matched Play is designed around balanced competition between factions (regardless of the actual balance, that is the core of the gameplay format), and having factions allied together that aren't explicitly written to fight together can create imbalances. Imperium codices in 9th ed are not designed to allow for souping beyond individual units like Inquisitors or Freeblade Knights. Aeldari are designed to give the option to soup, but have built in restrictions for Harlequins when they do (not being able to use X rules, etc..). Harlequins do not get off "scot free"- they aren't able to use Luck of the Laughing God or use Aeldari Strands of Fate die, which are two pretty important bonuses to those armies. When Daemons come out, the rumors we've got so far suggest that they will be restricted in certain ways as well, so GW is clearly trying to limit souping in 9th for Matched Play.

Its pretty clear that the days of souping are pretty much done with in 9th in the Matched Play game mode- they aren't balancing codices in a way that would allow it without doing a lot of retroactive fixes. Narrative is going to be the way to go there, as you are not required to follow a lot of the Matched Play updated rules. 

[Schlitzaf]

4 hours ago, Putrid Choir said:

Complain about redundancy all you want, marines have far more selections than all of chaos marines + one God, by a good amount.

Let's look at something like fast attack. Death guard has 2 Daemon engines and chaos spawns, so 3 total. Nurgle daemons get plague drones and I think the rumors are nurglings are going to FA and furies are not in the book. So 5 choices total. Marines get 3 firstborn speeders, 3 Primaris speeders, first born bikes, scout bikes, Primaris bikes, attack bikes, the new quad, inceptors, suppressors, AND assault marines with Jump packs. That is way more selection, so yes there is some redundancy, but 14 choices >>> 5 choices from 2 codexes. Even if you count all 6 speeders as one, and all the bikes as 1, and the attack bike/quad as 1, that's still 6 vs 5 from two codexes, and 2 of the 5 don't get any bonuses from their codex if taken with them.

……and attack biker/quad are basically landspeeders. Inceptors/Suppressors are functionally the same. So yes.

Also the argument of more datasheets = more tactical flexibility. Its patently wrong. There are nuances of differences. But on macro scale they aren’t that functionally different. 

Also as pointed the lore haa Imperium forces doing a combined arms approach all the time.

[Commander Dawnstar]

5 hours ago, Schlitzaf said:

Inceptors/Suppressors are functionally the same.

Apologies if I'm splitting hairs here, but like ... they're really not. They're definitely aesthetically similar and both shooty jump pack Primaris, but there's a whole point of Toughness and a Wound's difference in their statlines, and the things you might pick Suppressors for (their range and ability to deny overwatch) aren't things you can get from Inceptors. If you had to choose one to field in your list it wouldn't just be an arbitrary decision between two near-identical units. You'd have clear reasons for picking one over the other.

I'll absolutely give you the Attack Bike/Invader/Land Speeder comparison though. They're all very much occupying the same design space.

---

GW's approach to soup absolutely can feel arbitrary and unfair, but then that's hardly anything new for them. Space Marines might not be able to incorporate units from another faction in the same manner CSM can, but at the same time CSM have no rules for creating custom warbands to parallel the loyalists' rules for successors. That's just how things seem to go and often there isn't any clear rhyme or reason for why ideas seem to be applied or interpreted unevenly.

I like allies as a concept - I used to run Templars and Sisters in a Castellans detachment to invoke Gathering Storm fluff - but personally I'm of the mind that they create all kinds of problems in 40k because there simply isn't a way to implement them 'fairly.' The Imperium will always have the widest range of allies to draw on if given any real freedom, while some Xenos factions would gain absolutely nothing from changes in that direction unless we moved back in the allies matrix direction ... and that's how you get TauDar. Letting people draw upon a wider range of options without meaningful drawbacks erodes faction identities and makes it easier to shore up any designed weaknesses of your primary faction, and if not everyone enjoys the same breadth of options then that risks making things very uneven indeed.

I'd be down for GW establishing and fleshing out more standalone ally minifactions to serve as allies (i.e. bulk out the Inquisition with Tempestus Scions), but I'd rather they left broader scope allied factions for Narrative and Open play. A big name Codex really should be able to stand by itself.

[Schlitzaf]

More options doesn’t equate to more tactical flexibility. “More” options leads to simplification of “choices” sense best option would outshine the rest (ie yoj cannot have Tactical Term/RelicTerm/Aggressors all be equally “good” at the same time likewise with Landspeeders/Attack Bikes/Atv. 
 

And Dawnstar if this process was done at all “fairly” (I could an inquisition vangaurd instead of 1 dudebro inquistor for example ala Harlies being taken as a Patrol), I wouldn’t “care”. 

Also Inceptor/Suppressor is that both are units designed/focused to cut down medium to heavy infantry (assault bolter/plasma/autocannons) and “deep strike”. Now granted they are far more different than Atk Biker vs Lspeeder. But core strategic army role is the same. I’ll admit that is a more forced comparison.

Also why should I have to play Crusade when other factions don’t? Like I’d love Harlie “you get patrol detachment w/o inbuikt factional benefits but don’t lose your own” for Inquisition (well and IG thay me being selfish)

[ThePenitentOne]

Must confess I read OP and skipped the rest of the thread, so this or something like it may already have been said.

First, if you're down with Crusade, I recommend Armies of Faith (from Vigilus I)- that soups Marines, Sisters and Guard or Torchbearer Fleets (WD, August of 21 maybe?)- which soups Primaris GreyShields with Custodes, Admech, and eventually Oldmarines in need of reinforcements.

Second: Crusade also uses broad keywords for Orders of Battle. This doesn't get around purity rules at the "Mustering an Army" stage, but it does allow you to feel like the forces are working together, even if different forces are tackling different battlefields over the course of the campaign.

Third: I'm not sure if the Vigilus season rules restricting sub-faction soup where carried over into the new season because I don't really play matched.... but either way, that is specifically a Matched Play rule, so it doesn't apply to Crusade either. For that matter, neither does the restriction on Aircraft.

Finally: If you can find like-minded players, just houserule those restrictions away. As mentioned above, Crusade gets you some relief from this "balance-at-the-expense-of-narrative" stuff, but even it doesn't go all the way- ESPECIALLY where Inquisition are concerned.

[Schlitzaf]

I’d love to play crusade I just normallt do rsndom pick up games. So I don’t get much of a chance to do so

[Cpt.Danjou]

I just wonder what units you want to use, in your soup? Do you want any limitations on what units will be able to be taken?

As a Dg player I would love long range heavy hitting anti-armour units like a Leman russ battle tank, or a Manticore I would break one of the weaknesses Dg has. Now I am stuck with Crawlers or blight haulers as my anti-armour or slowly fot slog my heavy hitters in to close combat and I am fine with that. Daemons will probably not change that. Nurgle units are slow, deal average damage, but are hard to crack. If I had 500 points of battle tanks or a similar low cost hard hitting unit, DG would steam roll most armies. Chaos have in the fluff been surrounded by traitor guard, so if I wanted a fluffy chaos list I maybe should be able to take Imperial guard too. If you want soup as CSM have it today, Plague Marines, Rubrics, and Berzerkers, going from from troops to elites, costing more, and loosing some rules, and gaining other, sure I would not be against it, but if the Imperium faction can start to cherry pick what ever we are going to get on very uncertain ground.

What should we do about the armies that in the fluff never allies with other factions? Orks? Necrons? Should we let Tau have the right to take anything that could be called auxiliary? Mix and match Eldar as they could earlier when it was completely broken?

Most of the rules are written around competitive play, and even if GW are not the best at writing balanced codex, even they would not let the insane soup start over again in competitive play. Daemons and DG, 1k sons and World eaters all originally came from the Chaos codex, so I see why GW wants them be able to mix a little. Luckily we can't have all the toys, otherwise we would be back to the non fun soup years.

[Schlitzaf]

A company commander, 2-3 infantry squads, 0-2 Special Weapon, 0-1 Heavy weapon team. But yes I was fine as I stated before when everyone lost this. It specifically annoys me when Aeldari and Chaos got ability to take fully functionally forces (ie forces that are coherent in aethestic not 1 rando dudebro or ladygal model in the army). Also also as I said “no soup fun” meme was actually not true.