Do you feel 8th Edition is Soup Edition ?

[GreyCrow]

Just curious if other brothers here feel that 8th Edition is Soup Edition like I do !

 

I’ve been mono Marines for quite a while, but after seeing the efficiency of Soup lists from friends, I can’t help but wonder if that is what the game designers intended.

 

Maybe we’re meant to be playing as Imperium or Chaos rather than as single dexes from the same faction?

 

Playing full Marines and playing full Primaris recently really feels to me like I’m setting myself up at a disadvantage versus Soup lists, both in terms of command points as well as in overall tactical options.

 

I don’t mind the idea, but it feels a bit of a cheap realization that single armies are gimped after being balanced around codexes for quite a while.

 

Maybe I’m seeing ghosts here, but looking at the following :

1) CPs : current detachment system highly favours cheap units and good stratagems. Some lists can turn Knights into a massive powerhouse just by feeding CPs from cheaper detachments.

2) AP and multiple dmg favours counters with cheap single wound chaff. Elite units/armies feel at a disadvantage versus chaff unless in very specific situations.

3) Characters like Guilliman, factions like Aeldari and codexes like Death Guard and TS who offer access to a lot of chaff seem to indicate the cross faction intent for the Edition.

 

What are your thoughts guys ?

[N1SB]

Since "soup" has become such an emotionally-charged topic, I'm trying to choose my words carefully.  I've been considering this a long time and my summary is:

 

40k 8th more than even previous editions encourage "mixing & matching", but unfortunately, there's more matching with Netlists than personalised mixing of armies.

 

Because I have been considering this ever since the previews, I've noticed pieces of evidence along the way that made me reach the same conclusion as you, Brother:

 

1. The game development studio seems to intend for soup, and the evidence I'd point to is the recent Chapter Approved 2018 especially.

 

2. Games Workshop as a company seems to want its customers to have more options, more variety...for good customer-centric reasons.

 

3. That does not necessarily mean they're right.  I can see their good intentions, but despite/because of that, I can also see some flaws in execution.

 

To quickly break my points above down:

 

 

+++

 

 

1. The game development studio seems to intend for soup, and the evidence I'd point to is the recent Chapter Approved 2018 especially.

 

I really like Brother Greyfax's idea of categorising things like Codex: Imperium and Codex: Chaos, etc.  I do certainly agree with that, like instead of considering Factions as specific books, think of them as actually Faction Keywords; that's what they're for!  But the latest and most striking piece of evidence was Chapter Approved 2018.

 

In the lead-up to Chapter Approved 2018, I know my meta, and perhaps yours too, was already looking for specific changes to points cost to: Basic Guardsmen (because of the Loyal 32 Detachment) and Imperial Knights (the Castellan in particular).  They were on many Imperium tournament-winning Netlists.  They didn't increase points cost to dissuade that.  They were certainly aware of it, as they were featured in that battle report in the White Dwarf right after that Chapter Approved came out.  Recognition doesn't mean endorsement, but it's like GW saying, "yes, we know about it."

 

Another game mechanic that you guys probably know, but I remember because my tourney-winning friend mentioned out-of-the-blue, was that although/because the Imperium quite easily generates Command Points (Loyal 32), it also uses them up quickly.  Every army benefits from extra CP, but I did notice other armies do Stratagem-like buffs via psychic powers or other things instead of using CP.  He happens also to have been our 40k Dark Heresy RPG gamemaster, and he pointed out it reflects how the Imperium is very bureaucratic, it has these big clunky standardised organisations to make it work...but that's how and why it works.  It's like their flavour.

 

We long suspected soup was meant as a feature, not a bug, especially with the Imperium.  This goes beyond game mechanics; in the novels...especially recent ones actually...we usually see the Imperium as truly Combined Arms, where even Space Marine-centric stories involves elements of the Imperial Guard and AdMech/Knights/Inquisition around.  That's how the Imperium does things.

 

(An aside - another detail that illustrates how the dev team is trying to "massage the meta" is how they dropped points for veteran Marines and Primaris, but not Tacticals.  It feels like the game mechanics reflect how new Marine recruits are now undergoing the new Primaris process while existing Marines are aging, becoming veterans.  Just something I noted.)

 

 

+++

 

 

2. Games Workshop as a company seems to want its customers to have more options, more variety...for good customer-centric reasons.

 

Previously, I've been doing breakdowns of Games Workshop financial annual reports, which really reflect what the company is doing.  I think of it as like a Codex or Chapter Approved for Games Workshop itself.  And just imho, they deliberately introduced, and hope we Hobbyists go for, a wider of variety of options.

 

It's a little bit Old GW vs. New GW, especially in how it breaks down (in marketing we call it segmentation) customers.  Old CEO described old vs. new customers, as basically the same type of customers, but old ones just been around longer.  New CEO seems to know they're different: old customers want to expand their existing armies points or perhaps try something new, while new customers don't know what's good and want to try something they like the look of, and best yet, New CEO recognises "lapsed customers" as a different type, who are old customers trying to get back into The Hobby but might need help catching up.

 

So recently New GW introduced a lot of smaller-scale ranges, like Kill Team, in addition to 40k's Detachment system.  I remember in 7th ed, people painted 60 Marines for the double Demi-companies and whatnot.  New GW basically made it so you can paint just 6 for Kill Team.  That's a huge difference.

 

I know the term people like to use is "barrier to entry", like how much you have to go through before getting into the game.  I think it's more like "commitment".  Certain players are willing to commit to just 1 project, I wish I was one of them, but many people want to try something new.  If there's nothing new, I move onto a new game.  And I did in 7th when I tried things like Infinity and Batman: the Miniatures game, but also Horus Heresy which kept me close to GW.

 

And the idea is to avoid people burning out.  Burnout is a real issue with The Hobby as I noticed that's why people leave, they just get tired of the same thing.

 

Soup is a remedy to burnout quite a bit.  Giving an opportunity to paint up a different Faction is like a rotation of tasks, just giving more variety, staves that off.  It has the added benefit of, hey, you started this side Detachment...why now buy more models to make it your main Detachment, amirite?  But there's many benefits.

 

GW's offering a lot of variety in its offerings, a lot of try & see recently, because it recognises its customers really do vary in what they're looking for, and GW's got this shotgun approach to try to hit as many of those markers.  Whether you think that's right or wrong, I think you can see that's what they're trying to give us since last summer in particular (like we got an Ork Codex, but also Speed Freekz and Rogue Trader and Blackstone Fortress, all sorts of stuff).

 

So GW's in the mindset of lots of variety, and I think they plan for us to use that variety ourselves to some degree at least.

 

 

+++

 

 

3. That does not necessarily mean they're right.  I can see their good intentions, but despite/because of that, I can also see some flaws in execution.

 

I see the game development angle, which is good, and even the business angle, which is even better (it's one of those rare cases where profit-maximisation leads a company to genuinely try to delight their customers more than ever).  But I do see a major problem and it comes down to 1 thing:

 

Instead of seeing more creative lists, I just see more tourney lists of the Loyal 32 and Castellans or mixed Eldar.  If the goal was more variety, why're we getting less?

 

Many reasons for that, but that seems to be the result, the proof in the pudding.  It just seems counter-productive.  I'm actually glad Chapter Approved 2018 didn't just react and nerfing those specific lists, instead it tried to lower the points of other things to encourage people taking more of them (a few points decreases made me consider new types of armies, that's a good thing in-line with my previous points), but there it is.

 

 

+++

 

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Normally, one'd conclude with "oh I both sides", but here, I'd say, I think soup is genuinely the good intent of New GW, yet I think people are just sick of the same soup lists.

[Trevak Dal]

Well, you can't take soup in Killteam (yet) and it's harder to do at lower point levels and the store I play at is 1000-1500.

 

Oh...it can be done, you can bring knights at 1500. But you will be black listed. Sort of an unspoken rule that Knights and such are beyond the scale of games played.

[ONDIG]

Thats because only THAT GUY takes a KNIGHT or duo Riptides in a game less than 1850!

[Huggtand]

Very good post N1SB!

 

Instead of seeing more creative lists, I just see more tourney lists of the Loyal 32 and Castellans or mixed Eldar.  If the goal was more variety, why're we getting less?

 

I´m optimistic and think this is just a question of time. There is always going to be a flavor of the month that other will copy so we will never completely get rid of the net list. But the more GW makes more things viable the more variations we will have.

 

The good players are always trying to beat the meta. And already there are new combos that people are trying out. In the top ten in Prague open there was only one castellan. And instead of loyal 32 there is more a trend to make the guard detachment the winning part instead of a battery.

 

One big point for the variations is actually the missions. The ITC missions have less variety and only plays in similar ways. This don't promote a variation and we see more similar lists in that format. The ETCs maelstrom missions allows for many more ways to play them and that encourages a more varied meta.  

 

 

Thats because only THAT GUY takes a KNIGHT or duo Riptides in a game less than 1850!

 

In a random pickup I totally agree. But in an open tournament you should expect the opponents to bring the worst 

[Wassa]

Just curious if other brothers here feel that 8th Edition is Soup Edition like I do !

 

I’ve been mono Marines for quite a while, but after seeing the efficiency of Soup lists from friends, I can’t help but wonder if that is what the game designers intended.

 

Maybe we’re meant to be playing as Imperium or Chaos rather than as single dexes from the same faction?

 

Playing full Marines and playing full Primaris recently really feels to me like I’m setting myself up at a disadvantage versus Soup lists, both in terms of command points as well as in overall tactical options.

 

I don’t mind the idea, but it feels a bit of a cheap realization that single armies are gimped after being balanced around codexes for quite a while.

 

Maybe I’m seeing ghosts here, but looking at the following :

1) CPs : current detachment system highly favours cheap units and good stratagems. Some lists can turn Knights into a massive powerhouse just by feeding CPs from cheaper detachments.

2) AP and multiple dmg favours counters with cheap single wound chaff. Elite units/armies feel at a disadvantage versus chaff unless in very specific situations.

3) Characters like Guilliman, factions like Aeldari and codexes like Death Guard and TS who offer access to a lot of chaff seem to indicate the cross faction intent for the Edition.

 

What are your thoughts guys ?

 

 

I play mono guard, but have started to dabble with Assassins.

 

I'm not really a fan of soup and I don't want to start bringing Knights instead of my own Super Heavies, and I believe Knights + IG CP batteries are unfair/unfun to play with or against.

I prefer mono codex games as each army as it's own strength and weaknesses, and I don't like playing against people who chase the meta and copy all the professionals.

 

 

However, I am considering starting Blood Angels as a second army, and I would like to skip past the boring usual starting units of scouts, tactical marines, intercessors that 99% of all marine players have, and go straight for the fun and iconic Death Company / Sanguinary Guard, while using my IG army to bolster the numbers. Using soup would enable me to purchase a few units and play as part of another faction quicker and cheaper than mono faction rules ever would. From GWs point of view, this is a win-win as making it easy for players to delve into other factions, rather than have them think "I don't want to buy build and paint a whole new army". Once they buy a few and like it, they're likely to expand which all helps generate more profits for them.

[Montford]

Soup is a viable alternative, and I have done it successfully, although I almost always run straight lists and I have done very well. I do see a lot of allied lists, and I like that players have not only the choice to take allies, but can do so successfully in so many different combinations.

[chapter master 454]

There is two sides and it is really hard to do. On one hand, as pointed out allies actually help players get into new armies. Instead of having to pay for troops and various HQs, they can use their current army to bolster the new one they want to try. This way instead they only need to get 3 of whatever unit they seem interested in + 1 HQ and then back it with whatever else they have and actually get to see it in action.

 

However from a competitive stand point the question does get asked whether or not it is right for allies to be a thing. On one hand, it does help spread out power a little bit. One thing people often say is that a lot of codexes would suffer without CP while some have an overabundance of it with nowhere to use it, so when people see that the loyal 32 is a nice neat package of 5 CP for their often CP starved army it can be a great boon. The other aspect is, for my own note, is that it does enable some different list building. My current project of a list had 2 battalions however the second battalion was literally wasting points on a second captain along with a 2nd lieutenant and 3 scout squads. The scouts alone were 195 points each (each had heavy boltguns). Along with that I am taking 8 centurions. The list however was able to even go 100 points below the 2k mark (so I can be prepared for assassins coming) by changing the siegebreaker cohort detachment to a spearhead, taking a loyal 32 and I can even have a 9th centurion with lascannons thus allowing the spearhead detachment. even swapped out my sternguard for a third squad of intercessors with stalker rifles (using indomitus crusade). My list's current form would not be possible without the loyal 32 with the needed CP to field it not to mention being far more effective at what I wanted the scouts for anyway (bubble wrapping and area denial for the first turn or so).

 

The list now comes with 14 CP and effectively has 9 CP once all detachments are set-up. The original version (still on here btw, in the army list section) however only ends up with 8 and is imo inferior in every way. Only point of testing is the stalker intercessors. See if they can do anything.

 

However it can be annoying when you REALLY love one army and want to use it and then you find out you are hamstringing yourself by not using allies and that grinds the gears. I really would like to use mono-dex here but trying to make something of the list into something serious requires the loyal 32. Again, CP is kind of important and when you can get a free +5 count on that you kind of need to take it. Maybe if it wasn't such a free boon but sadly, it just works too well. Then again people can point out there are variants for a couple of factions. Notably there is the cheaper Rusty 17 and even in aeldari there is what I call the exiled 15 (because taking farseers and warlocks in eldar is never a tax!)

 

Then again, the question to be asked: do allies enable diversity or do they hinder it? Or are top tier lists just naturally stagnant because of the nature of how people play the game?

[N1SB]

 

I´m optimistic and think this is just a question of time. There is always going to be a flavor of the month that other will copy so we will never completely get rid of the net list. But the more GW makes more things viable the more variations we will have.

 

The good players are always trying to beat the meta. And already there are new combos that people are trying out. In the top ten in Prague open there was only one castellan. And instead of loyal 32 there is more a trend to make the guard detachment the winning part instead of a battery.

 

To be honest I think your optimistic view will probably prove to be true.  In-line with your point about the Prague Open, LVO's winning list was not the Loyal 32, but a Catachan Loyal 83 with more Wyverns than Knights.  I also do agree the top players try to beat the meta, if only because that's how you top the tourney, by beating out everyone else who's using the netlist of the month!

 

With the Detachment system already there, allowing for all sorts of combinations, the game devs might've already laid better combinations out there, but the player base haven't "figured it out" quite yet.  Or more likely, even the Warhammer design team doesn't know what's the winningest list out there, but left enough toys out there to see some player(s) find it by just randomly trying stuff.

 

That's even before considering new Index Astartes and other new things they may introduce to 40k.

[The Mad Hermit]

It's funny that Brother N1SB mentioned burnout in their excellent post, as I, myself, get burned out by seeing all the people that see one Netlist that wins all the tourneys and competitions and just HAVE TO COPY IT.

 

I understand that everybody likes to win but it bores me to tears seeing hundreds of people (exaggerating, I know) following a winner along like lemmings.

 

There's the main reason that I took a long break from the hobby and got into Bolt Action.

 

On topic, though?

 

I've always thought that the Imperium (especially) should have ALWAYS had access to The Soup.

 

Hell, even going back to 2nd Edition I used to bring in allied Guard with my Space Wolves.

 

Okay, yes, it was partly because I owned a bunch of the models (but not enough to field an entire army of Guard by themselves) but it was also partly because I thought it worked thematically.

 

As an aside, I've always hated how people would cry for things to get nerfed when it was deemed too powerful or too successful rather than finding ways to get better results out of their own stuff... but that's an entirely different kettle of fish.

[Lord Raven 19]

Thats because only THAT GUY takes a KNIGHT or duo Riptides in a game less than 1850!

Or Papa Smurf

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I still remember when SM Tau and eldar were all battle brothers.

[ONDIG]

I still remember when SM Tau and eldar were all battle brothers.
HERESY!!! Never mention the darkdays of 6.5 again!

[Slasher956]

 

As an aside, I've always hated how people would cry for things to get nerfed when it was deemed too powerful or too successful rather than finding ways to get better results out of their own stuff... but that's an entirely different kettle of fish.

 

On Topic... yes it is Soup Edition .... now to add that knight to my Sisters of Battle :p

 

Quoted section - sometimes its not a cry for 'nerf this now' but HOW am I supposed to beat that style of list with what I have*?

 

(currently trying to work out how to beat a guard player who bribgs a brigade + 2 other detachments ... 90 infantry, 3 basaliks, 3 leeman russ, creed, a couple of officers and some other stuff that the guy swaps out......I currently own nearly 8K of Eldar!)

[Panzer]

Also wanting something strong to be nerfed isn't necessarily wrong. You can't buff each unit endlessly without ruining a gamesystem. A power spiral can't support itself forever.

[Wassa]

 

(currently trying to work out how to beat a guard player who bribgs a brigade + 2 other detachments ... 90 infantry, 3 basaliks, 3 leeman russ, creed, a couple of officers and some other stuff that the guy swaps out......I currently own nearly 8K of Eldar!)

 

 

Sounds like I'm that player :). 

 

Big guns at the rear, with enough screening to prevent you getting close to them. Give each infantry squad a heavy weapon and use Creed to spam out Take Aim (reroll all misses) to them. Pretty hard for most armies to get through.

 

 

I got stomped by Eldar once though. There was quite a lot of cover and they had everything in deep strike, and everything else in the transports that were -1 to hit and reduced all damage by 1 or something. I shot them first turn but it didn't do a lot. Then they all jumped out and deep struck, and shot me to bits, charged the transports into my vehicles to stop me firing back.

 

The other time that was hard was Chaos Nurgle Daemons. They're just so hard to kill and they chew through screens and trap infantry so you can't fall back and shoot.

[Exilyth]

With allies we get to build all the flavourfull armies we ever wanted to make, like an admech expedition supported by sisters of battle, a chaos warband worshipping daemons, harlequins playing for a craftworld, a genestealer cult supplementing forward organisms of a swarm, Space Marines rescuing the poor saps from the local PDF and many more.

 

On one hand, the ability to pick the strongest choices from multiple codices has enabled some very strong combinations which can be hard to beat for monofaction lists. For some factions, esp. space marines, this can make it feel like you're limiting yourself by not taking allies, since theese codices lack certain options (e.g. cheap chaff or good indirect fire). Then again, why limit yourself when you could e.g. grab the loyal 32 and convert them into chapter serfs/menials?

 

On the other hand, the metas of nowadays are very varied - in objective focussed metas (e.g. GW GT, ETC, CA2017/18 missions) more so than in killing focussed metas (e.g. ITC, kitchen table games without missions).

 

 

Interestingly, most of the "problem armies" tend to get played in killing focussed metas and are some combination of big model (e.g. knight, magnus, mortarion, riptide) + cheap chaff (e.g. guardsmen, scitarii, cultists, drones) + some fast beatstick (e.g. smashcaptain, demon prince, chaos lord riding tricycle, fusion commander), which have in common that they provide both a large threat requiring anti tank weapons and a large number of bodies requiring anti infantry weapons. Or, in the case of Ynnari, stack loads of buffs and debuffs with strong, mobile units.

 

 

On a slightly related note, we currently have the following soups:

• imperium (space marine chapters, astra militarum, admech, sisters, deathwatch, knights, various minor (e.g. inquisition))
• ynnari (eldar, dork eldar, harlequins)
• hive mind (tyranids, genestealer cult, astra militarum)
• chaos (csm, daemons, renegade knights, various minor (e.g. renegades and heretics))

The following factions can only ally with themselves (or different <subfaction>s of themselves):

• necrons
• tau
• orks

If I was playing one of the non-soup factions, I would probably have less of a neutral opinion on soup.

Still, only 3 out of >10 factions without allies is a rather good quota. Maybe we will see allies or alternative ways of allying for the remaining non-soup factions in the future, e.g. Tau Auxilliaries or Ork Mercenaries.

 

 

Overall I can say that yes, 8th ed is soup edition.

I believe that is a good thing, with minor exceptions.

(I also believe that the focus of the local meta has a strong influence on a players opinion of soup, e.g. my meta is objective focussed.)

[shanewatts]

While I agree that soup is good in 8th edition, I would hardly say it was the "Soup edition."

 

We have had Soup and allies consistently from 6th edition on.

[MyD4rkPassenger]

I honestly wish it was handled more the way AoS has.  You can play "Chaos" but you don't get every faction bonus and trait from the armies you are taking, but a pre-constructed list of warlord traits, bonuses, and artifacts to represent your all encompassing army.  Additionally the restriction of allied lists to certain point values of the total value of your army would be a welcome addition.  The precedent is obviously there as AoS is getting army books for the four main alliances to run them as giant mishmashes.

[Lord Raven 19]

I still remember when SM Tau and eldar were all battle brothers.

That is just asking for hatred

 

(SM tau and eldar; not you)

[Wulf Vengis]

We long suspected soup was meant as a feature, not a bug, especially with the Imperium. This goes beyond game mechanics; in the novels...especially recent ones actually...we usually see the Imperium as truly Combined Arms, where even Space Marine-centric stories involves elements of the Imperial Guard and AdMech/Knights/Inquisition around. That's how the Imperium does things.

^This^, so much of ^this^ it's not even funny.

I've said it here before when 7th was chugging along and i said it again when the "leaks" for 8th started dripping.

That this is just how the fluff has been written since rogue trader. Sure there's books/stories/paragraphs/snippets/etc out there that are mono faction specifically, but that's the minority. The majority of fiction and even narrative and support pieces written within rulebooks for 40k describe the marines or whomever arriving to support some other faction or combination of factions.

Overall the "soup" idea, even though i feel it could be and has been in the past handled better, is ultimately what GW has always wanted. Getting players to build multi force armies has always been their goal financially and functionally. It brings bigger profits, better stories and looks cooler on a table.

Though not always done well or done right the multi-faction rules had always been intended from the start.

Rogue trader with its small number of factions allowed you to build your army from just about whatever you wanted.

2nd edition had a very good percentages system in place.

3rd/4th/5th/6th allowed for HQ and 2 Troops and a few other units from allied codecies. They also spawned the Apocalypse rules sets allowing for even more allied play.

7th brought about detachments and formations. Nuff said there.

What I'm saying is that the 40k tabletop universe is meant to be played as a combination of the available forces.

Whatever main imperial faction you play can and in some cases should be supported by other Guard/Astartes/Sisters/Grey Knights/Custodes/Deathwatch/Mechanicus or whatever.

The forces of chaos should also be played as a combination of things. Again Traitor Guard supported by their Astartes/Deamons what have you.

The Eldar have enough subfactions to do this as well.

The Orks have a good start on this.

The T'au, Dark Eldar and Necron should be doing this with the Castes/Wytchcult/Dynasty as well and are on their way to joining the other major factions when it comes to in-house*/self* support.

The only faction that should NOT be allowed any form of in-house OR self support should be the Tyranids. The hivefleets are independent of each other ava this should be reflected in their Codex* to allow for a much more "a la carte" upgrade system.

 

*in-house support: same faction (Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari/etc)

*self support: same Codex (different company/Chapter/Craftworld/etc)

*Codex: Tyranids: the Tyranids unit upgrade lists should be more open. Ranged weapons on two lists (monstrous creature and infantry creatures) and melee weapons on two lists and a third list for gargantuan/super heavy creatures (melee and ranged on the same list). Hive Tyrants and Carnifex would pay the same for scything talons and Hormagaunts would pay the same as Genestealers etc.

 

Pre-Edit: I started this pay then got distracted for several hours by my children i only hope this was coherent.

[chapter master 454]

I highly suspect Tau to get some sort of suppliment that will allow them access to some form of alliance with Imperial Guard (Gue'vesa). Necrons are the only ones who lack any real ally power as even Orks can in some way ally with the imperium or anyone really (just hand them weapons and BOOM, mercs).

 

It is certainly a big elephant that doesn't just go away because the moment you get access to Imperial Guard BOOM, the best 5CP that 180 points can buy! I do believe removing the battle forged CP unless you use only one faction for your army (you can still sub-faction mix though like Imperial Fists with Raven Guard) which would turn the loyal 32 from +5CP to net gaining only +2CP instead. Still a CP gain but not as monumental as it currently is as to be honest the only thing wrong with the loyal 32 is how auto-include they can be in list building because of how much CP they give outside their own faction. So by letting them retain the ability to give CP to you but only bringing it in line. Consider it a tax on being able to bring such a massive utility belt of units though even then, that isn't the issue.

The only issue is the CP generation of the Loyal 32 though that is purely the Imperium's problem where as the ynnari is just being outright broken (sorry not sorry).

 

In relation to the Imperium, what do you really gain from allying in the Imperium? It really isn't utility as no one faction has a gross monoply on answers to a problem. Ok, Tank Commander Punishers are certainly infantry clearing but Marines have access Hurricane Boltguns. Anti-Tank isn't exactly a problem as anyone Imperium bar a few have access to lascannons, missile launchers or something good at it. The main draw of the Imperial Guard can put down is their super heavy options but then again...if you go blue you can have Gulliman in Marines (who is certainly worth his Lord of War slot) but outside that, not like bring those tanks is going to be a massive benefit over anything we can bring because while you have those super heavies, we have something guard struggle at which is some truly scary melee power.

Meanwhile Ynnari just do it because it is a power boost, not for CP gain but is literally like them just picking a faction bonus from a codex but is says "here have a sweet bonus + have 3 codex worth of units with no cost".

Knights likely will draw attention here but I don't see it...seriously. I have played my knights and objectives tend not to be an issue from my experience but then again, the main thing was Gallant Spam...I was running a castellan and 3 other more standard knights (a warden, A Paladin and a crusader) so it may be that due to my tendency to actually...you know...play the shooting phase in knights might help with getting objectives (because avenger gatling cannons tend to clear infantry!).

 

Might just be the colour of the week really. I mean, Soup is sticking a lot harder but only because I wager GW are trying to find an elegant solution to the issue without making it terrible. After all, they quite neatly and cleanly nipped both the Smite Spam and Character Abuse issues quite swiftly. It isn't like when Culexus Assassins were running around as body guards to a whole host of psykers...ironically...

[Daimyo-Phaeron Lenoch]

[snip]

The following factions can only ally with themselves (or different <subfaction>s of themselves):

• necrons
• tau
• orks

If I was playing one of the non-soup factions, I would probably have less of a neutral opinion on soup.

Still, only 3 out of >10 factions without allies is a rather good quota. Maybe we will see allies or alternative ways of allying for the remaining non-soup factions in the future, e.g. Tau Auxilliaries or Ork Mercenaries.

 

 

Overall I can say that yes, 8th ed is soup edition.

I believe that is a good thing, with minor exceptions.

(I also believe that the focus of the local meta has a strong influence on a players opinion of soup, e.g. my meta is objective focussed.)

 

If orks and tau get mercenaries and auxiliaries I demand Mindshackle Scarabs return to give us access to everything except nids. If we're gonna keep everything fluff appropriate.

 

I'd settle for Admech thralls that serve the local necron lord, though. With knights. Aaaaand maybe some collegia titanica. And guard, because forgeworlds have PDFs, and and and and...I'll stop.

 

 

[Subtleknife]

The problem I find with soup atm is that you hamstring yourself if your dont soup up. There needs to be benefits to playing a monodex army over soup as at the moment there is none. The easiest fix I can think of is you only get cps and you can only use stratagems from your warlords faction.

[Montford]

Reading back through these posts really gives me a feeling that I'm in the minority: I don't soup up. Maybe because I'm a Sisters player *shrug*.