DuskRaider Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 I don't mind when an opponent mixes allies into their army for the sake of the narrative or it makes sense. Hell, I play Chaos and we've been "souping" it up since the beginning of time (in a way). In 3.5 our Daemons were just a part of the Chaos codex. Some Legions could take Cultists (Alpha Legion mainly). Iron Warriors were rolling out IG artillery. It made for interesting and fluffy lists. I've been mixing my Death Guard, Nurgle Daemons, Traitor Guard / Renegade Militia and Traitor Legio for well over a decade. That was just called "forging the narrative" for the longest time. 7th kind of ruined that term for the worse it seems (along with the idea of allies) and now it's almost taboo in some places to field mixed forces because a certain demographic of players abuse it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slave to Darkness Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 Of course its the soup edition, why buy one army when you can buy three!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D3L Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 in answer to the OP : yep, it's everything wrong with the 'game' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayniac Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 Yes, and I feel soup is one of the biggest issues with 8th edition alongside stratagems (great idea, horribly implemented), CP farming (same) and multiple detachments (same). The issue with soup is that it lets you completely ignore your faction's drawback and get all the benefits of your faction and whatever faction you soup with. Personally, I think the solution would be to make you pick a primary detachment and then everything else is allied detachments; allied detachments give half their normal CP, don't unlock stratagems and don't get their army traits/relics if they have a different keyword. This would prevent things like taking Loyal 32 with a BA Supreme Command and a Castellan and get access to Knight stratagems, Guard stratagems and BA stratagems along with the BA smash captains getting their army traits and that relic that lets one ignore Overwatch. However, it would let the people who want to do a mixed army for non-power gaming purposes still do it (as opposed to just banning it outright) while curbing the blatant min/maxing that soup allows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorin Helm-splitter Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 I would really like to see the supreme command detachment either gone or to only be unlocked by taking a battalion or brigade of the fraction you wish take so. It just irks me to only see the only space marine on army being captains or a bunch thousand son sorcerers leading a deathguard force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Focslain Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 I don't mind when an opponent mixes allies into their army for the sake of the narrative or it makes sense. Hell, I play Chaos and we've been "souping" it up since the beginning of time (in a way). In 3.5 our Daemons were just a part of the Chaos codex. Some Legions could take Cultists (Alpha Legion mainly). Iron Warriors were rolling out IG artillery. It made for interesting and fluffy lists. I've been mixing my Death Guard, Nurgle Daemons, Traitor Guard / Renegade Militia and Traitor Legio for well over a decade. That was just called "forging the narrative" for the longest time. 7th kind of ruined that term for the worse it seems (along with the idea of allies) and now it's almost taboo in some places to field mixed forces because a certain demographic of players abuse it. ^^^ This, so much this and I play Imperials It breaks down to not so much the rules, but the people using them. Much like how a hammer is a useful tool in one person's hands and a destructive weapon in another. Honestly the meta is shifting again. Heck the last soup list to win a big Open (Prague) didn't have a Castellan. It had a SHD lead by a Crusader, one of the oldest knight patterns. If soup is an issue on the competitive side, then it needs to be fixed via the tournament rules via list restrictions. That way you can limit the WAAC lists without causing collateral damage to fluffy lists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher956 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 Scrap the Supreme Command Detachment and replace it with a generic strategm that increases the amount of HQs available in a battalion by the number of CP spent (1, 2 or 3) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slave to Darkness Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 Rewrite the rules and release a better game that isnt open to abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuskRaider Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 You'll always have people who look to exploit weaknesses and loopholes in the rules, no matter the edition. Unfortunately, it always ends with EVERYONE suffering for it, such as in the case of Conscripts and Commissars or Poxwalkers. There will always be people who look to "game the game", it's up to the community to set it's own standards. I try not to discriminate against tournament players, of which some of my friends are a part of. It's when communities allow that to become the only form of play that you see local scenes dry up. It happened in my area, a lot of the newer players adopted an uber competitive philosophy and it ended up pushing out the more casual veterans and ultimately killed local play. It also just so happens the same guys who started in the ultra competitive play style also have hobby ADD and once they sucked the fun out of it, they moved on or they start a game like 30K or Kill Team, ruin the scene and then move on to something else to ruin. This is obviously just an example of what has happened in my area but I'm sure it's not the only one. One way to fix 8th is to simply bar the sharing of CP between different factions, even of they're allies. You want to bring the Loyal 32? Cool, but those 32 Guardsmen are the only ones who can use their generated CP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulhunter1995 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 I`m with Montford on this one :) I don`t soup, not because I think it's dirty or something, I just enjoy playing one army at a time. It's totally not the fact that I don`t have the patience to have multiple books XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chapter master 454 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 I`m with Montford on this one I don`t soup, not because I think it's dirty or something, I just enjoy playing one army at a time. It's totally not the fact that I don`t have the patience to have multiple books XD hence why i have a tablet with now Grey Knights, Custodes, Space Marines, Deathwatch, Orks, Chapter approved 2017 and 2018, the rulebook, forgeworld index for astartes, forgeworld index for xenos, craftworld codex, tau,imperial guard and can't remember if I got knights yet or not...need to sort that out...I like reading them all and just having them all. I mean...makes it easier to spy on filthy Xenos as well. Also, Quick shout out: you grey knight guys...do your characters know about...not wearing terminator armour? I mean your techmarines and crowe got the memo and I understand draigo...but...The captain, librarian, chaplain, ancient, paladin ancient and anything that is keyword character is in terminator armour...seriously guys...it makes organising car pools for yous a hassle with having to get wide load seats for ALL of you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crimsondave Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 Rewrite the rules and release a better game that isnt open to abuse. Like taking a dump in a magic bucket that turns it to gold, it's easier said than done. Neck beards gonna neck beard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulwyf Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 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*. I only play monodex and will only ever play monodex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interrogator Stobz Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 I play Dark Angels; we hate everyone enough that soup is not an option. Good honest human hatred. Would like to see the CP shenanigans fixed like some other frater have mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morticon Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 If soup is an issue on the competitive side, then it needs to be fixed via the tournament rules via list restrictions. That way you can limit the WAAC lists without causing collateral damage to fluffy lists. !!!!!! Louder again for the people at the back!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 You just know that popular tournament restrictions will eventually bleed into non-tournament games as well. That's how it has always been with warhammer. ^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlo Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 I don't think soup is inherently bad, in truth I think the only real offender is the loyal 32... And even then that's fluffy! (Though I draw the line at Kurovs Aquila) The Castellan too isn't even too bad, it's just the big imperial LoW. Yes it's very good, but other armies have in-built LoW that get faction bonuses on top. Soup is here to stay, so I'd advise people to get used it for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuskRaider Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 We both know no one is taking the Loyal 32 for fluff reasons. The problem isn't soup, it's the lazy rules, loopholes and CP sharing pools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayniac Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 Rewrite the rules and release a better game that isnt open to abuse. Like taking a dump in a magic bucket that turns it to gold, it's easier said than done. Neck beards gonna neck beard. To be fair, that seems to only be an issue with GW games. All of their competitors for wargaming seem to have no problem writing much better rules that are way less prone to abuse. You only find this level of lackadaisical rules writing in Warhammer games, for reasons unknown. But this is another topic that I can get pretty heated and vehement about. As far as fixing soup for tournaments only, I would agree. However I also think that "Matched Play" has become synonymous with "Competitive Play" given that there is no distinction and already we see a lot of things done to balance tournaments only being thrown into all Matched Play (e.g. reserves, Rule of Three), and even some things that are only suggested for events becoming the de facto norm for any game played with points (I am specifically talking about the detachment limit, which the rulebook says is only for events and yet everyone has just adopted as a Matched Play rule). I'm honestly a bit surprised that the ITC hasn't gone and adjusted this stuff themselves given that A) They've shown that they have no problems adjusting the game to make it more "balanced" for tournaments and B ) Given how popular ITC is, in the USA at least, any changes they make would probably be adopted as canon rules anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher956 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 One thing about GW... is the amount of factions they have & how the interact. Name one competitor to 40K that has more than 8 factions... (Chaos Marines [ inc TS & DG], Chaos Demons, IK, Space Marines [inc GKs, DW, DA, BA, SWs], Ad Mech, Guard, Sisters, Tau, Craftworld, Dark Elder, Quins, Necrons, Nids, GSC,) Thats over 14 Factions & 22 Army books and a couple of factions that are index / WD... all having to be unique! So if you want soup to go away compeleley then expect the demise of a lot of factions and other homogenization in order to make it balanced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayniac Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 One thing about GW... is the amount of factions they have & how the interact. Name one competitor to 40K that has more than 8 factions... (Chaos Marines [ inc TS & DG], Chaos Demons, IK, Space Marines [inc GKs, DW, DA, BA, SWs], Ad Mech, Guard, Sisters, Tau, Craftworld, Dark Elder, Quins, Necrons, Nids, GSC,) Thats over 14 Factions & 22 Army books and a couple of factions that are index / WD... all having to be unique! So if you want soup to go away compeleley then expect the demise of a lot of factions and other homogenization in order to make it balanced. The issue with 40k is they have the illusion of complexity. They split factions when they shouldn't. They focus on minutiae in weapon options and claim that's complexity. It's not. Their choices aren't real choices or interactions it's just a ton of options that really don't mean all that much. Compare that to a game like Warmahordes. You have: Cygnar, Khador, Protectorate, Cryx, Retribution, Convergence, Mercenaries (Steelhead), Mercenary (Rhulic), Mercenary (Pirate), Crucible Guard, Circle, Skorne, Trollbloods, Legion of Everblight, Minions (Gators), Minions (Pigs), Grymkin That's 17 factions, 14 if you treat Mercs/Minions as all one faction, each with I forgot the number but a good number of units between Warcasters/Warlocks, Warjacks/Warbeasts, Battle Engines, Uni, s and Solos. And there are way more interactions with units and abilities in Warmahordes than anything you see in GW (no, the choice of a meltagun or a plasmagun isn't a real choice). Each unit has abilities that can interact with a myriad of other units, and there are hundreds if not thousands of permutations that are all relatively balanced (it's nowhere near perfect but they hit the mark a lot more than GW does) by a much smaller team than GW. That's actual complexity in how rules work not giving you 10 different weapons options and saying complexity. Howev,er this is delving into a rant that I get very passionate about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknife Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 Soup is here to stay, so I'd advise people to get used it for sure. Why though, if enough people say they dont like something then it might change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Focslain Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 You just know that popular tournament restrictions will eventually bleed into non-tournament games as well. That's how it has always been with warhammer. ^^ I won't mind this, I've only really started to soup up in this edition. While I'd like to be able to field my wolves/grey knights, IG/Imperial Knights or Admech/Knights together. Separating them just means I have to get them better on their own. Which really only applies to the admech and grey knights. It will shift the power balance as well, so hope your ready for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlo Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 Soup is here to stay, so I'd advise people to get used it for sure. Why though, if enough people say they dont like something then it might change. Because it makes GW money and I'd imagine it's the vocal minority that get really up in arms about it. Everyone is of course entitled to their opinion and to express it to GW and the community, however when GW can keep the rules the same and sell a Space Marine player 5 boxes of guardsmen (3 infantry squads, command squad and a heavy weapons box) then that's how it will be. We both know no one is taking the Loyal 32 for fluff reasons. The problem isn't soup, it's the lazy rules, loopholes and CP sharing pools. I agree, but it is fluffy. The combined arms approach is how the Imperium conquered the galaxy to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayniac Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 The fact that some people do like soup is why I like my idea that you can do it but you get reduced/no benefits from doing it. The person who is souping because they have a cool army idea with multiple factions is probably not going to care so much if one detachment doesn't get traits/gives less CP. But the folks who are doing it just to min/max will have their reason for min/maxing taken away which will make mono faction more viable. So if you are taking the Loyal 32 for fluff reasons (which I doubt as if you were it wouldn't be exactly the minimum needed for a Battalion to get +5 CP), you still can, just it or your other detachments won't get all of their benefits. A fluff player shouldn't mind this because they are not picking it just for the in-game benefit it provides. Plus it would be easier IMHO to implement than restricting CP to the detachment that generated it, or a percentage based system or something like that. It's very simple to implement a Matched Play rule that makes you pick a primary detachment and everything else is allied detachment that gives you more restrictions. Also, it doesn't stop you from buying different factions (which is the largest reason why GW wouldn't just drop soup), just reduces the benefit of doing it for pure min/max purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.