Poll: Soup

[MitGas]

I‘m a soup fan IF the ingredients fit well together. What I love about Chaos forces is that the units can look very different, I find overtly cohesive forces often a bit boring but that‘s obviously just me. I understand that a lot of players like the direct opposite and want an army that looks very cohesive. So I voted for soup but I‘m not fully convinced of my own preference there as it‘s extremely subjective.
 

It‘s difficult to do right by everyone here. Fyreslayers and KO for example I wouldn‘t throw together, they simply don‘t fit together. They‘re both short and bearded and got a couple of similar visual motifs in the losest sense (like runes), but that‘s about it. Orks and Gobbos are fine, I got to knew them like that and think they‘d still work well together, visually too.
 

With the way the current rules are usually written, it makes little sense to use allies usually, which I consider a damn shame. I think this is one aspect  they should focus their energy on but it would most likely take a new edition and lots pf change to make that balanced; so I think it‘s an unrealistic idea. I‘d like to see more if the power of units baked into their warscrolls than allegiance abilities so that players could mix up things like they deem fitting without using very weak lists as a result. 
 

 

[Dawi not Duardin]

19 hours ago, Baron Klatz said:

Then I think you’re actually anti-soup because that’s the real debate here. 😛 

I think you’re just grouping factors like posterboy favoritism and Grand Alliances into it when flavorful cooperation is perfectly fine. Just like Dawncrusades have humans, city-aelves, dispossessed, fyreslayers, Daughters of Khaine and Stormcast working together. We want that stuff but not someone saying they have to cram them into fewer tomes to work(Duardin +Fyreslayers, DoK+city aelves, humans +Stormcast)

That stuff can be symbolized by allies and coalitions but keep the over-arching seperate GA’s, factions and sub-factions and letting the various detailed races have room to expand themselves.

 

It's not clear to me why book-souping would be the real debate while faction-souping would not be.

As I see it, there are two background assumptions that don't seem warranted. These are: (1) One faction = one tome. (2) The more subfactions you have in each tome, the less space they get. It's not beyond the realm of possibility to deny (1). Historically, some factions (like WHFB Chaos) have been split in several army books. And it'd also be quite possible to deny (2). For there is no necessary min- or max-length to a tome. You could easily have mega-tomes that copy and paste several mini-tomes together. These are just information packaging units. Length and amount of content are not set in stone.

Fundamentally what is at issue here is not the number of tomes, it is how different factions are systematically connected in the structure of the game. There could probably be more than 4 fundamental ones, or Order, Destruction, Death, and Chaos. For example, a lot of people think Beastmen are kind of inbetween Chaos and Destruction, and Ogres and Gargants are kind of in between Destruction and most others.

Perhaps that means the overarching alliances could be something like: Sigmarites, Seraphon, Aelvenkind, Duardin, Brutes (Ogres & Gargants & Kragnos... and why not add a Troggoth faction?), Orcs & Goblins, Beasts (Beastmen & Beasts of Chaos), Skaven, Undead, and Big 4 Chaos. Then they could have many more subfactions and tomes. That'd be a system where they all would be 'souped' as bigger factions but could contain lots of subfactions each (e.g. the Sigmarite faction could have Stormcast and Cities, Seraphon would have what they have now but you could expand Saurus, Skinks, and dinos into full sub-factions too, Aelvenkind would be all factions with the suffix -eth, etc). I think that'd look like a much more intuitive classification system than the current four grand alliances, allowing for both thematic disambiguations and factions that all are big enough to compete with each other. And they could all be expanded both in depth and by adding more subfactions with new tomes.

[novakai]

I think the problem is that there is really one or two tome that ever-combined armies together: Orruk Warclanz and Cities of Sigmar. other armies like Ogor Mawtribes and Skaven are not really soup tome, but rather old armies ported into AoS (there can be some argument made for Mawtribes being BCR and Gutbuster). there is not really a good picture of GW doing these tomes and their release as they have largely kept everything the same in this edition and may not change anything drastically in editions to come.

It comes down to people feeling that Orruk warclanz feels like three armies in one book really hampers it rather than helps it, both rules, lore, and models release. and that Kruleboyz doesn't really fit in outside of just being the same species. it also feels like is an internal competition between the three armies.

Cities of Sigmar future is also uncertain as combining that many different armies seem more like a quick fix than a long-term plan. it depends on what Dawnbringer crusade brings and is it a step into the book becoming more human-centric.

[cofaxest]

I'm not really into souping any faction but I honestly believe that this is direction where we all are heading. GW can't support so many factions properly so in future we probably will see something like 6-7 big factions per alliance. And each big alliance will contain 4-5 smaller factions with the same theme.

 

[novakai]

11 minutes ago, cofaxest said:

I'm not really into souping any faction but I honestly believe that this is direction where we all are heading. GW can't support so many factions properly so in future we probably will see something like 6-7 big factions per alliance. And each big alliance will contain 4-5 smaller factions with the same theme.

 

I mean I don’t think that really true considering that 40K while GW did consolidate Harlequin, they add three more armies and Codex this edition and they have slightly more army then AoS. also Emperor Children is probably coming in the future. Yes there probably going to be less new armies in the future but I don’t see them combining any armies in AoS either.

Edited December 5, 2022 by novakai

[Gitzdee]

12 minutes ago, cofaxest said:

I'm not really into souping any faction but I honestly believe that this is direction where we all are heading. GW can't support so many factions properly so in future we probably will see something like 6-7 big factions per alliance. And each big alliance will contain 4-5 smaller factions with the same theme.

 

The other option is longer edition cycles and i am all for that to be honest. 

[cofaxest]

5 minutes ago, novakai said:

I mean I don’t think that really true considering that 40K while GW did consolidate Harlequin, they add three more armies and Codex this edition and they have slightly more army then AoS. also Emperor Children is probably coming in the future. Yes there probably going to be less new armies in the future but I don’t see them combining any armies in AoS either.

Time will tell)

[cofaxest]

2 minutes ago, Gitzdee said:

The other option is longer edition cycles and i am all for that to be honest. 

Longer then 4 years? No thanks) 

[Gitzdee]

1 hour ago, cofaxest said:

Longer then 4 years? No thanks) 

Its 3 years. I would be happy with 4 years. Give every book at least a 1 year chance to stay unchanged for casual players like me. GHB and Season of War can change things up enough for tournament play imho.

Edit: Didnt expect this poll to be so evenly divided.

Edited December 5, 2022 by Gitzdee

[Baron Klatz]

59 minutes ago, novakai said:

I mean I don’t think that really true considering that 40K while GW did consolidate Harlequin, they add three more armies and Codex this edition and they have slightly more army then AoS. also Emperor Children is probably coming in the future. Yes there probably going to be less new armies in the future but I don’t see them combining any armies in AoS either.

Plus despite how people are laser focused on Orruk Warclans they have been de-souping AoS when they can like with Legions of Nagash transitioning to Soulblight Gravelords which removed their ghost and bone golem options to purely NightHaunt & Ossiarchs respectively(reason why I think Gitmob can be their own thing & seperate tome in the future if the Cairn Wraith can evolve into a independent army) and Legions of the First Prince being disbanded was a major blow to daemon soup despite 40k souping theirs at the same time.

With the rumored CoS & FEC refreshes on the way it’s likely a trend to continue to make the factions further their own thing instead of trying to band-aid them together.(I think the fact Beast of Chaos weren’t touched during STD’s big update but given shiny new tome instead speaks volumes they’re not planning any soup for a long time, several editions down the line at least until a lot of brand new AoS armies start crowding in)

Edited December 5, 2022 by Baron Klatz

[cofaxest]

59 minutes ago, Gitzdee said:

Its 3 years. I would be happy with 4 years. Give every book at least a 1 year chance to stay unchanged for casual players like me. GHB and Season of War can change things up enough for tournament play imho.

Edit: Didnt expect this poll to be so evenly divided.

The problem is that if you have 4 years per edition there is a chance that some faction will wait 7-8 years instead of 3-4. And this is considering the number of factions we have right now. If number will go to x2 mark then we will have fb situation where some faction will not be updated for 10+ years...

[zilberfrid]

18 minutes ago, cofaxest said:

The problem is that if you have 4 years per edition there is a chance that some faction will wait 7-8 years instead of 3-4. And this is considering the number of factions we have right now. If number will go to x2 mark then we will have fb situation where some faction will not be updated for 10+ years...

Currently, we have the situation where armies get a battletome mere months before the edition which it was written for is over.

The idea of a longer cycle is that all armies have multiple years with a battletome written for that system, not that armies will not get battletomes for entire editions.

[JerekKruger]

2 hours ago, Gitzdee said:

The other option is longer edition cycles and i am all for that to be honest. 

It's happily take five year cycles. Three years is just to little.

That said, personally I think the actually rules for armies should be released for free as a PDF (by all means sell a really nice physical lore and art book sold for each army too), and those should all be written and released at the same time as the new edition. The fact that armies are waiting years after a new edition is released for an update is just absurd (moreso when some of those updates will come shortly before the end of the edition).

But I doubt this will happen, as GW have clearly decided selling books is a big part of their revenue stream. Personally I think that well produced lore and art books with original content would sell well, but the problem with original content is it requires work to produce, and given GW weren't even willing to stretch to new covers for half the 3rd edition Battletomes I think it's clear they're not keen on that.

[cofaxest]

33 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

Currently, we have the situation where armies get a battletome mere months before the edition which it was written for is over.

The idea of a longer cycle is that all armies have multiple years with a battletome written for that system, not that armies will not get battletomes for entire editions.

Some of them, yes. But factions that will get their tome at the start of the edition will wait too long for new one. Ofc if you play 1 game per month it's fine, but I playing 3-4 games per week so I'll benefit if updates will be more often and 3-4 month is enought for me to more further.

[cofaxest]

2 minutes ago, JerekKruger said:

It's happily take five year cycles. Three years is just to little.

That said, personally I think the actually rules for armies should be released for free as a PDF (by all means sell a really nice physical lore and art book sold for each army too), and those should all be written and released at the same time as the new edition. The fact that armies are waiting years after a new edition is released for an update is just absurd (moreso when some of those updates will come shortly before the end of the edition).

But I doubt this will happen, as GW have clearly decided selling books is a big part of their revenue stream. Personally I think that well produced lore and art books with original content would sell well, but the problem with original content is it requires work to produce, and given GW weren't even willing to stretch to new covers for half the 3rd edition Battletomes I think it's clear they're not keen on that.

This is my point. GW can't do it right so I want to choose less evil.

[Flippy]

2 hours ago, novakai said:

I mean I don’t think that really true considering that 40K while GW did consolidate Harlequin, they add three more armies and Codex this edition and they have slightly more army then AoS. also Emperor Children is probably coming in the future. Yes there probably going to be less new armies in the future but I don’t see them combining any armies in AoS either.

8 Xenos + 5 Chaos + 5 Imperium + SM = 19. Taking into account the SM range & method (same minis for "different" armies) I would say it's close to AoS. In a much bigger game.

[JerekKruger]

13 minutes ago, cofaxest said:

This is my point. GW can't do it right so I want to choose less evil.

I'm not sure the current system is the lesser evil. At the moment some factions get to have up to date Battletomes for a few months per edition: that's terrible. At least longer cycle would lengthen those periods.

[JerekKruger]

21 minutes ago, cofaxest said:

But factions that will get their tome at the start of the edition will wait too long for new one.

If the Battletome written at the start of the edition is good, why does this matter? Nurgle have one if the oldest Battletomes if the edition, but it's still great. New Battletomes for the sake of be Battletomes seems a weird thing to want.

[cofaxest]

Just now, JerekKruger said:

I'm not sure the current system is the lesser evil. At the moment some factions get to have up to date Battletomes for a few months per edition: that's terrible. At least longer cycle would lengthen those periods.

As KO player I can tell you that I'm already bored. And my tome will not come-up for the next 6-8 months. And I believe that Fyreslayers have the same problem already(and they have 3ed tome btw). So my point is that we have zero indication that GW want to change how they handle battletome managment and then we will have more subfactions, souping is guaranteed. 

[cofaxest]

9 minutes ago, JerekKruger said:

If the Battletome written at the start of the edition is good, why does this matter? Nurgle have one if the oldest Battletomes if the edition, but it's still great. New Battletomes for the sake of be Battletomes seems a weird thing to want.

If you play 1 time per month. If you play 3-4 time per week then you will know most of the tricks of your faction very fast. Plus what if your tome is bad? Baggy? Doesn't have clear ruling? Wait 5-6 more years and be happy.

Edited December 5, 2022 by cofaxest

[Gitzdee]

39 minutes ago, cofaxest said:

If you play 1 time per month. If you play 3-4 time per week then you will know most of the tricks of your faction very fast. Plus what if your tome is bad? Baggy? Doesn't have clear ruling? Wait 5-6 more years and be happy.

I get to play a game maybe once every 2-3 months and i own 3 AoS armies and 3 40k armies. Sometimes it feels like i get to play 1 or 2 times before having to buy a new book. This made me stop buying 40k books at all this edition and stopped buying all the GHB stuff. Dont think that is what GW likes. If they lengthen the cycles i would have bought more books for sure.

Then there is also Warcry and havent even tried Underworlds yet (i own 4 warbands). I would love a 4 to 5 years AoS edition. Different people have different needs i guess :). 

Edit: This issue makes me a bit more pro soup. 

Edited December 5, 2022 by Gitzdee

[novakai]

3 hours ago, Flippy said:

8 Xenos + 5 Chaos + 5 Imperium + SM = 19. Taking into account the SM range & method (same minis for "different" armies) I would say it's close to AoS. In a much bigger game.

well no i argue that the Marine chapter are at least separate enough to be their own army, there is definitely enough separation between the big 4 chapters  and their unique ranges (BA, DA, SW and Ultras) plus Deathwatch and they added a Black templar book on top of it. it is not likely they going to consolidate any of those armies for less Codex in the fulture to begin with

their supplements take resources to update every edition too.

[novakai]

Besides what the point of souping any of the current armies anyway, they didn't do it with Fyreslaers and KO, is it really any benefit from merging DoK and IDK and BoC and Slaves at this point in time when AOS is such a new system.

it is not like they entirely need to reduce the number of battletomes in the system, to begin with nor have they shown to want to do it in this edition, which means AoS has a healthy amount for now.

Granted i assume though that if their big system finishes up their battletome/ Codex train soon and keeping Editions longer though is that they then run out of big-ticket items to sell and make bank every fiscal year. which is probably why they didn't delay dominion or 10th edition.