What is Soup?

[Schlitzaf]

So he is my theory question; when does a Soup list become a ‘Soup’. As in when is a list say Adeptus Astartes + Friends vs when is a list Soup list that is composed of Astartes, IG and others.

 

The main reason is I ask this because of the The 32. Many folks will call this a Soup list others call those lists (Army) + 180 Points of IG. The second reason is take a list let’s say 1250 IG, a Freeblade Knight And then a detachment of Assassins. Or my list which is 1000 points of Marine, 550 Gaudrsman and 440 Ad Mech. My main ‘list’ is my Astartes with Gaurdsman and Admech doing supporting functions where my Astartes would be found lacking for flavor or otherwise.

 

What about a list of 500 Khorne R&H, 750 Khorne Daemosn And 750 World Eaters. Then a R&H Warlord (for their army tactics). Is that mono Khorne or Khorne Soup? Or both.

 

How about an Aeldari List, Iylanden Wraith 800 List, a Ynnari 600 point composes of CWEldar. Then a Corsair and Dark Eldar Patrol of 600 points all led by Yriel*. Is that a themed force based around Undeath, and implicitly how the Ilyandan flavor is done?

 

For short the lists

(Imperium) + the Brothers 32

IK Freeblade, IG Detachment, Assassins

Astartes (1000), Admech (500), IG (500)

Khorne R&H, Khorne Daemons, World Eaters

-Renegade Warlord

Illydanden (Wraith list), Ynnari Craft, DE+Corsairs (in a patrol)

-Yriel Warlord

 

*I know corsairs and Yriel Warlord aren’t legal here they are simply here to make a point.

 

Which of these would be a Soup vs (friends) + Allies. Would some be a mono list despite being Soup? Or is it Soup or no Soup? No kind of degree or gradience. And why?

[BlackTriton]

The short awnser is that soup is anything you do not like.

 

The generally agreed awnser in competitive circle is that as long as every detachment is mono codex, its not soup.

So AM + custode + knight is not soup.

 

Soup refers to detachment that include models from multiple codexes,

3 codex daemon nurglings with 3 death guard bloat-drone in a nurgle detachment is a soup detachment.

[Kinstryfe]

IMPO soup is any list that isn't from a single army list, but I don't necessarily idea the term as a negative. To me it only gets negative when you're mixing factions in an obviously power gaming way. The 32 tend to border on that for me, while taking a more fleshed out guard detachment along with Marines tends to feel more right to me. It's totally a personal opinion tho.

[USNCenturion]

A guard brigade to farm cp, a command detachment with Guilliman and hellblasters, and a knight or two.

 

Imperial soup.

[Panzer]

There is no difference between an army with 2+ factions and a soup army. Anything that uses 2+ detachments with different faction keywords is a soup army. Soup is just the negative term people give those armies when it's just about min maxing to be more competetive than it would be as a mono army.

[The_son_of_Dorn]

My local GW is a real 'Soup kitchen' these days.

[Ishagu]

Soup no longer exists, really.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Soup no longer exists, really.

 

Sorta of, soup isn't some clearly defined term in this context. GW did beta rules to get rid of what they considered soup but a lot of people's definition is an army with the max amount of allies.

 

Its like WAAC a lot of people draw different lines at what constitutes that behavior. Personally you shouldn't worry to much about other peoples perceptions because 1) your the one investing in the army. 2) if your not a jerk it will work out.

[chapter master 454]

So, as people keep asking the definition of it. Really, it is still around and exists but is now punished depending on how you do it. Originally, when 8th edition came out and was only indexes, we saw rampant soup lists which was mainly being done by Imperium with multiple factions in one detachment. Since back then there were no relics or stratagems or warlord traits to punish this, it was largely regarded as the best way to build your army for competitive environments as now you were able to access units you needed with no penalty really.

 

However, Soup as a term in the game really isn't a "negative" term. It is a description of the army in a basic sense and it occurs in all manner of ways in games. Within Yu-Gi-Oh a lot of decks that were massive different just got called "Synchro-Centric" (don't worry about the names too much) by tournaments in official outlets despite them being radically different (we are talking about one term describing for example one person ran Sisters with Custodes being called the same as if someone ran smash-master with knights).

 

In this case, Soup refers to any list that isn't one faction alone. Inclusion of the battery battalion with another imperium faction makes you technically soup.

 

Really, the term is outdated and as people said here it is thrown around like a bad word when it really isn't. You can make all sorts of fluffy "Soup" lists that are awesome to play and look at but ofcourse many soup lists aren't done for that reason, it is done for maximum gain which also is an art in itself and some can have some interesting interactions when it isn't the battery battalion.

 

Basically, if someone shouts soup at you tell them to bring themselves over to your side and give you some more salt as your soup needed some!

Play how you like. Even if you play WAAC, if you LIKE playing like that then fine. Just be considerate of other players (but lets not get into what is WAAC and just being competitive).

[Captain Idaho]

Soup - any mix of factions that aren't all drawn from the same subfaction.

 

Whether it's right or wrong, or the measurement of degrees of its severity is debated, is immaterial to the meaning of the term.

 

As always, things are grey.

 

In my experience there is a clear difference between themed lists and players and we can tell when a player has taken something because it's effective over a theme when we line up across the table.

 

Every time I ever visit Warhammer World or a gaming store most (large majority) of players use single faction lists for games approximately 2000pts and one on one. As such I see soup lists as a minority in the community and generally taken for effectiveness. However, I take each player as they come.

[Ishagu]

At the start of 8th I could run Celestine and Cawl as my HQs, a combination of Guardsmen and Custodes as my troops with Sicaran tanks and Dunecrawlers as my ranges units.

 

That was a soup.

 

What we have now are allied detachments.

[Azekai]

Seems like an arbitrary distinction. I don’t see why separate Detachments =/= soup. If you ally in Cawl and Celestine it still all feels the same.

[Marshal Rohr]

Soup is a gamey concept for something that is both interesting modelwise and a lore accurate representation to how the Imperium functions. Like all gamey concepts, its memed to death by WAAC players and permeates even the most basic discussions about the lore. 

[Sword Brother Adelard]

Sorry to be ignorant here, but what is "The 32" exactly?

[Ishagu]

Seems like an arbitrary distinction. I don’t see why separate Detachments =/= soup. If you ally in Cawl and Celestine it still all feels the same.

Yes but Cawl isn't the one leading the Guardsmen or Custodes.

[Guest MistaGav]

Sorry to be ignorant here, but what is "The 32" exactly?

Probably the CP guard farm that everyone talks about. 2 Company commanders + 3 squads of 10 guardsmen is 180pts to make an easy Batallion detachment for 5cp.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

Ah, I can see the attraction.

 

Thank you.

[Mileposter]

"Soup" /so͞op/ noun

 

1. a liquid dish, typically made by boiling meat, fish, or vegetables, etc., in stock or water.

 

2. a derogatory term used to reference an army list comprised of multiple sources perceived as unpleasant.

 

(someone had to be that guy)

[Panzer]

 

Seems like an arbitrary distinction. I don’t see why separate Detachments =/= soup. If you ally in Cawl and Celestine it still all feels the same.

Yes but Cawl isn't the one leading the Guardsmen or Custodes.

 

 

Unless you make him the warlord of the army that is.

You make the same mistake GW made. Viewing the soup problem on a detachment level. That was never that big of a problem tho. You have to view it on an army wide level.

[Azekai]

 

Seems like an arbitrary distinction. I don’t see why separate Detachments =/= soup. If you ally in Cawl and Celestine it still all feels the same.

Yes but Cawl isn't the one leading the Guardsmen or Custodes.

 

 

He isn't?

 

 

Cawl: "01100110  01101111  01110010  01110111  01100001  01110010  01100100  00101100  00100000  01101101  01100101  01100001 01110100  01100010  01100001  01100111  01110011  00001101  00001010!"

 

Private Pius: "You're not my supervisor!"

[Ishagu]

 

 

 

Seems like an arbitrary distinction. I don’t see why separate Detachments =/= soup. If you ally in Cawl and Celestine it still all feels the same.

Yes but Cawl isn't the one leading the Guardsmen or Custodes.

Unless you make him the warlord of the army that is.

You make the same mistake GW made. Viewing the soup problem on a detachment level. That was never that big of a problem tho. You have to view it on an army wide level.

I disagree. It's actually very thematic for Guardsmen to accompany a detachment of more elite forces, for example.

 

There's nothing wrong with armies comprising allies. What is wrong is the fact that they perform so much better. A better balanced game would allow for mono forces to perform just as well.

 

The culprits for this are the CP generation advantage from cheap units, and the fact that cheap units perform better than elite ones because they aren't costed correctly (Guardsmen, Cultists, etc are too cheap and Astartes are too expensive)

[Panzer]

 

 

 

Seems like an arbitrary distinction. I don’t see why separate Detachments =/= soup. If you ally in Cawl and Celestine it still all feels the same.

Yes but Cawl isn't the one leading the Guardsmen or Custodes.

Unless you make him the warlord of the army that is.

You make the same mistake GW made. Viewing the soup problem on a detachment level. That was never that big of a problem tho. You have to view it on an army wide level.

I disagree. It's actually very thematic for Guardsmen to accompany a detachment of more elite forces, for example.

 

There's nothing wrong with armies comprising allies. What is wrong is the fact that they perform so much better. A better balanced game would allow for mono forces to perform just as well.

 

The culprits for this are the CP generation advantage from cheap units, and the fact that cheap units perform better than elite ones because they aren't costed correctly (Guardsmen, Cultists, etc are too cheap and Astartes are too expensive)

 

 

Nobody said it's not thematic. That's not the point here lol

[Ishagu]

We're seeing it a lot because it's more powerful than mono lists. The game needs a re-balance so you're not punished for taking a mono army.

[Captain Idaho]

In 3rd edition Andy Chambers (praise be the Overfiend) removed allies because it unbalanced the game. If there's no penalty in taking allies then they'll always outclass anything without allies. It's about impossible to balance on a inter model basis otherwise because the army weaknesses are removed most often.

 

Example - Custodes are super elite and struggle with numbers and long ranged firepower, with reduced access to CPs due to points costs. Add Guardsmen and you eliminate their weaknesses as an army.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

We're seeing it a lot because it's more powerful than mono lists. The game needs a re-balance so you're not punished for taking a mono army.

 

I really think they should have embraced AoS style list building. Have battleline units that are required, caps on how many heroes, LoW, etc. instead of having a ton of flexible detachments. The different detachments that they provided are just too easy to abuse in both extremes (CP farming, and 3 super crazy HQs).

 

Then have your command points decrease with the number of allies that you have, representing that they don't work together all the time and aren't as cohesive as a force made up of one fraction.