Hello, fellow Warhammer 40k fans! SaltyJohn from TFG Radio, and one of the Las Vegas Open Head Judges, here to bring you a wrap up of this week in the ITC!
Before we get into the how the FAQ is set to change up the competitive meta in the ITC starting this week I wanted to run through a few of the standings, even though they haven’t changed much in the last few weeks. With So Cal Open approaching quickly we will get to see in short order the effect the FAQ will have on the ITC, and we can revisit to see if my predictions here are accurate or not.
The top 30 is currently populated with some amazing 40k players and some really high scores. Outside the top ten, there are a number of players knocking on the door of 40k greatness. Brandon Grant, Mark Crombleholme, John Lennon, TJ Lanigan, Richard Cozart, Mitch Pelham, Steven Pampreen, Andrew Gonyo, and Don Hooson to name a few. In reality, everyone on the list of the top 30 at this point in the season are solid players with a chance of getting into the top 10 by the end of the season. It is great to see diversity in factions in the top 30 as well, it gives a real sense that the game might be more balanced than the FAQ nerfs, raw data, and internet nerd rage machine, suggests. Below are the regional rankings for the US, Canada, and European top 5. Many of the names on those lists, besides being familiar to most players who follow the ITC season, also appear in the top 30 list.
One of my favorite things about the ITC and the way it breaks down everything into regions, particularly for the US, is it allows us to really visualize just how many great players there are in the ITC and get a sense for how equally spread out we are across the Regions. Not a single region’s top 5 at this point in the season has someone who is there via happy accident. They’ve all gotten there through traveling for events and performing well competitively. The strength of having a ubiquitous spread of talent across the Regions in the ITC is every Region has players at the top who can consistently play and challenge the players in the mid to low tiers to improve their game and thereby strengthen the overall competitive community in that area. I can personally attest to the importance of having high caliber players in your meta to play against. There’s no chance I would have been prepared enough for the Bay Area Open this year with my IK/AM list to go 6-0 if I hadn’t had players in our area that could really challenge and dissect my list and play prior to the event.
Ok, so let’s discuss the new September FAQ and the impact it may have on the overall ITC meta. First, though, I would like to point out that the FAQ did indeed come in September and the GW nerf bat did indeed hit the Imperium hard and left Ynnari/Aeldari unscathed. Those were my predictions, so I am glad I made the memes below prior to the FAQ hitting!
Pompous self-stroking of my ego over, let’s talk FAQ. The first thing to note it the biggest loser of the FAQ is easily the current meta-list Imperial Knights, Astra Militarum, and Blood Angels. To fully understand just how hard this combo got whacked by the nerf bat it is best to analyze it in a simple bullet point break down of each FAQ/Eratta that hits this particular list build. Bearing in mind most of it also applies to any of the CP farm builds, of which there were a few variations.
- Changes to Stratagems:
- BA: Upon Wings of fire increased 1 CP to 2 CP total
- IK: Oathbreaker Guidance System increased 1 CP to 3 CP total
- IK: Order of Companions increased 1 CP to 3CP total
- IK: Our Darkest Hour increased 1CP to 3 CP total
- Moving Errata: Change to the FLY keyword makes it so now models/units with FLY cannot move across terrain or models during the Charge phase. Making it more difficult for the Smash captains to assault multiple units in a gun line, or even assault in general depending upon the type of terrain used.
- Tactical Restraint:
The combination of the above nerfs to the IK/BA/AM list represent the single most pointed FAQ/Eratta nerf I can remember GW ever handing down to us, and I have played since 3rd edition. 6 nerfs one of which, Tactical Reserves, is huge particularly when taken in concert with the increase to the cost of the most popular stratagems the list used. The combination of those nerfs effectively makes the list unplayable in a competitive environment. Perhaps that’s exactly what they were going for with this nerf. Regardless of intent, the result is clear. You will see a lot less Imperial Knight/Astramiliwhatsit/Smash Captains plus some wannabe Marines (I mean Blood Angels!) lists in the meta now. I don’t think Imperial Knights themselves have become an unplayable faction, nor Astramilitarum, but I certainly expect to see a pretty massive drop in Blood Angel detachments. Castellans will also become less prevalent as the House Raven strat, Order of Companions, really made them tick and the 3cp cost with no real way to regen CPs is going to make that strat a one turn only strat really fast, and it just isn’t worth the one turn. The other big change in the FAQ/Eratta from my perspective was the change to Agents of Vect and the caveat put on how it works now. A model with the Black Heart keyword must be on the board and the change to 4CP seems really steep, it’s the first 4CP stratagem, for a strat that can potentially fail anyway. Perhaps I just didn’t run into the strat enough, but the few times I did run into it, it seemed strong but not overly so. The change to FLY certainly effects a lot of armies and it will be interesting to see it play out in the long run, short term I see it as a boost to Ynnari, who can get around it with Soulburst, and gun lines like Tau that now have less to fear from FLY keyworded assault units.
To recap post FAQ thoughts on the Meta:
- Less IK/AM/BA lists overall.
- Less IK lists overall.
- A lot fewer BA lists.
- Ynnari got a small bump inadvertently.
- More turn 1 shooting alpha strikes with the new restrictions to reinforcements.
- A lot less turn 1 charges.
- Assault armies become even less prevalent.
- Gunlines increase in popularity.
- Aeldari returns to the position of the chosen faction for the top players.
If you’re interested in hearing more of my, and two other LVO head judges, thoughts on the FAQ you can listen to the latest bonus episode of TFG Radio. Fair warning, there is a rather conspiracy theory-laden rant from me in the episode about the playtesters conspiring against Imperial Knights. It was meant as a highly cynical almost satirical rant, so take it as such. I can only get so much hate mail in a week! As always let me know what you thought in the comments.
And remember, Frontline Gaming sells gaming products at a discount, every day in their webcart!
A IK/AM/BA player whining about Ynnari…wow
Just listing the facts of the FAQ. Dangerous thing to do in a post-facts world I know. 😉
The conclusions from those facts are a bit suspect..
I don’t think the FAQ will stop IK/BA/AM. The AM part will just become a battalion for +12 CP instead of +5CP. If they really need more CP, the BA part can become a battalion, for an easy 20 CP. Still more than enough to pay for all the stratagems they really need. That’s roughly 700 pts for the AM brigade, ~600 pts for the BA battalion. They “extra” part of the IK/BA/AM list will have to be removed but that’s it (stuff like Bullgryns, Crusaders with Astropaths for 2+ invuln, etc.)
The FLY nerfs only mean you have to let your 9+ mortars clear out the screen, turn 2 your BA smash captain should be able to get through. That is the biggest change. Probably see even more mortars than that, like 15+, one for every squad and then 3 heavy weapon teams.
On the other hand Drukhari got destroyed. Protecting Ravagers from turn 1 alpha strikes (like from a Castellan) now forces you to lose a turn for the Ravagers. AoV costs 4 CP, and with CP regen nerfed Drukhari no longer have a good way to get it back. Unlike AM, a Drukhari brigade is both expensive and lacks good options for things like Fast Attack and Elites, and Kabalites can’t take mortars…
I’d say the FAQ hit Aeldari/Drukhari lists a lot harder than IK/BA/IG. Absolute worse case is the list drops BA and adds Custodes bike captains or something.
Meant to say: The AM part will just become a Brigade*
The “good” versions of the IK/BA/AM already were running a Brigade for those starting command points, so that wouldn’t be a change. They can still get all their toys if they please to. However, I think they’ll drop the BA portion entirely and go looking for something else- maybe DA, maybe more Guard, maybe more Knights.
9 Mortars = 31 shots = 15 hits = 8 wounds = 4 failed saves (assuming the enemy pops Prepared Positions against you.) That’s not gonna clear any screens. Lasguns will kill a few more, but getting rid of the 60-150 Guardsmen standing between you and that Castellan is more work than people think.
Drukhari are still extremely powerful. While a Drukhari Brigade is an unlikely thing (FA does have Scourges, but EL is a bit lackluster and there isn’t a strong incentive to do it in the first place) triple-battalion is pretty easy as a pick and gives lots of good options on several fronts. Ravagers can still hide behind terrain like a normal vehicle or go into reserves and give up a turn of shooting; it just means they are not clearly superior to all other shooting vehicle options that don’t start with “Castella.”
I definitely disagree that Aeldari got it worse than the Castellan list; I would say the opposite, in fact. Ynnari armies are all but untouched, and likewise Craftworlds. Even Drukhari can consider the changes fairly limited overall (especially because they now have access to Prepared Positions to shrug a bad roll for first turn) in terms of their actual game plan.
Maybe you are right about screen clearing, but I still think BA is worth having. There aren’t that many things that force enemies to screen stuff turn 1 anymore with all the deep strike restrictions, but BA still do. They can also walk forward and charge with 3d6 like us normal peo- oh wait that’s right they are still OP.
Drukhari stuff, even vehicles, have terrible armor saves. Cover isn’t going to do much for Grotesques or Wracks who have a 6+ and a 5+ invuln. Kabalites get the most benefit with their pathetic 5+ turned into a 4+. Ravagers weren’t superior to much, maybe combined with Doom, Jinx and 3 CP to let them survive to shoot they were playable but that might have something to do with filling out a Black Heart Kabal spearhead detachment for AoV. Now that AoV is worse and you don’t need the detachment, and you can’t put them into reserve, I’m not sure they are worth it.
Drukhari usually had Craftworlds allies and vice-versa. Ynnari also sometimes have Drukhari allies. Or had, probably not worth it anymore with AoV at 4CP. Losing an ally is a pretty big nerf I’d say, but Aeldari lists that didn’t use Drukhari at all are less affected obviously.
Prepared Positions in Drukhari would be for the Kabalite sections of the list, which have typically been the most successful. Turning 4+ armor into 3+ against the random Boltguns/Mortars/etc that the enemy is shooting at you is probably worth the 2CP.
Agents of Vect is still an amazing stratagem and worth bringing Black Heart for on its own. Ravagers are still extremely efficient shooting and can kill most things quite effectively when Doom or Writ of the Living Muse are in the mix. You will still see Aeldari armies bringing along Black Heart detachments because shutting down a key stratagem is still a game-changer- especially against something like the Castellan, where you can drop him to a 5++ save.
Kabalites are 5+, not 4+. Prepared positions is fine for them, but AllHail is right that the worse your save is the less cover benefits you. (conversely, this almost makes MEQs good, being near universal 2+ first turn if they go second)
And a Castellan is basically always going to have a 4++, stratagem or no.
I guess when you say 4+ armor you are talking about the ravagers? Well they were perfectly safe turn 1 before due to spending 3 cp to keep them in reserves. Now you can spend 2 CP to help them against the stuff they aren’t that worried about to begin with. They already have a 5+ invuln, so the cover bonus does nothing against Lascannons and similar weapons.
Kabal of the Black Heart is only really good for its Warlord trait, which was nerfed to near uselessness, and Agents of Vect, which was nerfed and combined with the nerf to the CP regen WL trait is almost unplayable. Writ of the Living Muse is good but you have access to Doom so it isn’t critical.
I think we will see a lot less Kabal of the Black Heart and Agents of Vect. Spending 4 CP to refund your enemy his CP and delay a stratagem is good but no where near as good as people think. It only seems good because of the overpowered stratagems used by Knights and Blood Angels.
Now that Grand Strategist has been nerfed we will probably see more Knight Warlords with 4+ invulns by default. I don’t know why Warp Surge needs to be limited to use at the start of the phase, disables rerolls, and is limited to improving the save to a 4+, but they think Rotate Ion Shields is fine.
I mean, if you think Kabal is useless and AoV is a bad strat now, then feel free not to take them- the Knight players and Chaos players will thank you profusely. But most people are gonna keep on bringing them to the table because they’re still really useful and still do pretty much everything they did before.
>but they think Rotate Ion Shields is fine
yeah I’m pretty baffled by this as well. The Rotate/Bulwark combo was powerful even outside of the context of the Castellan and it seemed like a really obvious target for a nerf, but apparently GW didn’t think that is the case? I don’t get it at all.
>And a Castellan is basically always going to have a 4++, stratagem or no.
Yeah but what if- and you’re gonna need to bear with me on this one because it’s a pretty convoluted chain of logic- what if, there was a spell? A hypothetical spell that could reduce all of the target’s saves by one point, presuming that you succeeding in casting it on them and were within 18″? You could call it something like “Hinx” or “Plinx” or something like that and it would be so good that it would be in nearly every Eldar list. Such a hypothetical spell might be such a bog-standard inclusion that one might expect other players to know about when discussing Eldar, as casting this hypothetical “Hinx” spell (as well as other potential debuffs such as “Goom” on the same target) might be a very, very, very common strategy.
You need to change your name to to BurnPuppy! Savage man.
Love it :).
For 4CP and a Jinx, you reduce a Warlord Castellan back to a 5+ invuln, then Doom it. I’m not sure if you realize none of those things actually deal damage, Castellan still has 28 wounds, and ignores the wound table most of the time. If those debuffs could stop Castellans you wouldn’t see many Castellans. And remember the IK/BA/IG list wasn’t even giving the Castellan a 4+ invuln most of the time, and it was still fine.
All you are proving is that this “nerf” has changed nothing for Imperium, but is a massive nerf to Drukhari. It’s too bad these Imperium players aren’t better at the game so GW wouldn’t need to sell crutches to them.
> I’m not sure if you realize none of those things actually deal damage, Castellan still has 28 wounds, and ignores the wound table most of the time
9 Dark Reapers = 18 shots = 16 hits (assuming Guide) = 12 wounds = 8 failed saves = 24 damage dealt
And the Eldar army probably has at least one other unit in it aside from a single squad of Dark Reapers. So no, the Castellan does not ignore the “0” part of the damage track, it still gets removed from the table like everything else.
Are you using Ynnari Dark Reapers in that calculation? Cause Dark Reapers only have 1 shot at Str 8?
Ynnari Dark Reapers with Guide and Doom and Jinx and Word of the Phoenix and AoV can one shot a Castellan, with only a 75% chance of it getting back up (Our Darkest Hour, Command Reroll) since AoV can’t be used again. The chance of all of those powers actually going off makes it even less reliable than the 25% chance the Castellan dies.
It takes roughly 20 normal Dark Reapers to do the same (due to no more Guide), but that costs more than the Castellan and die to Lasguns.
Once again all of this has only been nerfed by the FAQ and wasn’t slowing down IK/BA/IG before, so you have only shown that even the most OP Eldar stuff wasn’t working before, and works even less now…….
Castellan is almost never Taranis, which is the only kind that can stand up; Raven is far and away the more common version. Also, you can Vect a In Our Darkest Hour, which is pretty obviously worth the 4CP.
And yes, that was assuming Ynnari Reapers- because there basically aren’t any other kind. As for successfully getting the powers off- I don’t know the odds for Doom off the top of my head, but you are needing a 6 on the dice (after the +1 from Seer Council) and can reroll either or both of them; Jinx will be basically the same. Word of the Phoenix is a bit harder, but still pretty doable. All of them are well over the 75% chance that a Castellan won’t get to stand back up again.
You seem thoroughly convinced that Eldar are terrible now, whereas the best players in the game are quite sure of the opposite. I’m obviously not gonna convince you, but let’s wait a month or two and see whether you’re smarter than Nick Nanavati.
You can Agents of Vect Rotate Ion Shields or Our Darkest Hour, not both. Knights have some many broken stratagems even Vect can’t keep up.
Assuming an average roll of 10 for Seer Council + FS reroll (it is actually 9.5) with two FSs one for Doom and one for Guide, and an average roll of 8 for the warlock, and Yvraine casting Word of the Phoenix, the combo has a less than a 29.5% to go off (30/36 * 30/36 * 26/36 * 21/36). Not including the chance of failing AoV, or of course the Knight getting back up.
I hope at least these +1 CP nerfs force Knights to stop sniping characters every turn for fun, since that was never reliable enough to depend on anyway.
Ahh I just realized the Castellan could explode, so it only has a 62.5% chance to ignore the “0” in its wound track.
What Sean said. I was about to type all that out myself, glad I read your response.
FYI: those imperial knight stratagems were already 2cp each, so the bump to 3 isn’t as large of a change. I bet you’ll still see house raven castellans with guard brigades.
I did note that they only went up 1 CP each. It isn’t the increase on its own that is the issue with taking Raven or not. In order to fully understand the outcome of the changes, you need to look at the picture as a whole. When you take the increase in cost into account with the fact CP farm will only regenerate 1 CP a turn at most, and that due to the amount of CP you won’t regen now you won’t be taking the Company Commander as your Warlord, so you’re relying on only the Aquila relic to regen CP when your opponent uses a strat. You do this by the way so you can make one of the Knights your Warlord and get 1 trait on the Knights for free, rather than have to pay CP for it pre-battle as you’re working with less CP now. That means overall you not only have less CP to spend, you’re generating a lot less per turn under the new CP farm rules, and you’re now spending more also. The dreaded GW “Triple nerf” in action.
My apologies! I missread and thought you said “increased from 1cp to 3cp” but you actually said “increased by 1cp to 3cp”
Again, my bad, sorry!
No worries.
Not getting the triple Nerf, it’s two nerfs that don’t even change point values, the hardest balancing point. I for one will be hard to convince this was an over reach, a triple Nerf, heavy handed etc. It elegantly handles a huge soup advantage, handles multiple Regen issues ( and rng issues, I have had puretide chip snag me 9 cp one game)
The idea that this was a huge Nerf is ridiculous. The increase in point costs and the changes to Regen means the stratagems must be used with thought and strategically… Not that thing you do every turn because lulz why not.
For real. The list was preposterously broken and I don’t know how anyone can argue otherwise. The last CT had some talk about Imperial players being punished for using the rules that were printed (referring to CP farms specifically, forget the specific wording), but it’s astounding how anyone can argue that spending 10-15 CP without a care in the world was in any way what the authors intended.
See my reply to Shas’O.
It’s a big nerf, but it isn’t a kneecapping or overnerf in the “OP to garbage” way. It’s merely “preposterously, mind-numbingly, what-do-you-hire-playtesters-for-ingly OP to good” kind if nerf.
This is like the only place where people complained about knights getting nerfed. Everyone else I’ve listened to said either mostly “this is not nearly enough, the power of the Castellan has not changed. It can still do the same thing it always did, but now only for 2-3 turns… and he needs 2-3 turns to kill you” or sometimes “The list is still a top list, but it’s just tier 1 and not god tier anymore”
Nothing like a sniper that for 1 cp hits anyone anywhere with d6 mortal wounds on a 2+
I think mostly the 1st turn of the game will just be different (so far, my 1 game test run says different for the best!). I don’t think the top armies will suddenly stop being the top armies. They’re too points efficient for that. The Chapter Approved’s points adjustments will make big changes to the top tiers.
Bring back drop pod assault rules, let them stay 80pts and be the thing that can break the rule!
#MDPGA
Agreed.
I really wish I could post a pot stirring gif here in the comments. 😀
Pre-FAQ:
Everyone has access to the same detachments and amount of starting command points.
Everyone has access to stratagems to spend those command points on.
Not everyone can regenerate command points, let alone regenerate 10-15 command points in a game.
Post-FAQ
Everyone has access to the same detachments and amount of starting command points.
Everyone has access to stratagems to spend those command points on.
Everyone is limited to regenerating the same amount of command points in a single game.
You should go back and read Tactical Restraint again. Not everyone is limited to regenerating the same amount of command points in a single game. The second part creates an exception to the rule for certain abilities, allowing them to refund more than 1 CP. Your idea that some type of equality among the armies was created in terms of CP regen is nice but false.
I mean, I’m not really worried about Harlequins dominating the world right now. If that becomes the case then maybe we’ll want to look into it, but I’m not really expecting it- even just a solo Harlequins detachment has generally been rejected by Eldar players due to the opportunity cost it inflicts.
Sure. There are 3 minor exceptions, one of which is available to the imperial players. It’s also not equal because some armies can’t even regenerate command points at all (Tyranids & non-Sauhtekh Necrons come to mind).
Regardless, the imbalance that existed before in regenerating command points (i.e. where imperial players could regenerate 10-15 command points while other factions could not ) has been largely equalized.
I’ll modify the statement based on your objection:
Everyone has access to the same detachments and amount of starting command points.
Everyone has access to stratagems to spend those command points on.
Some factions cannot regenerate command points at all, some factions can regenerate a few command points over the course of the game (reliably 2-4), some factions can regenerate a significant magnitude of command points more than other factions (in the range of 10-12 reliably in most games).
Post-FAQ
Everyone has access to the same detachments and amount of starting command points.
Everyone has access to stratagems to spend those command points on.
Everyone is limited to regenerating the same amount of command points in a single game. There are three minor exceptions that could potentially allow a player to regenerate more command points than their opponent in a single game.
I think the perception is skewed here.
Getting tabled by a Nick Nanavati or Sean Nayden or so with some hyper-efficient Ynnari-build is a problem of maybe 50 people a year in all of 40K.
Getting tabled in a super-unfun game by a Castellan is a problem for 50 people on each of the 5 continents every single day in some store, club or garage.
GW might look at Adepticon, NOVA, etc.. for insights into problems and how people abuse loop holes, but that doesn’t mean they won’t also read all those other emails, not look at what’s happening in GW stores, Warhammer World Throne of Skull events, etc.., etc..
Moreover, since ITC, NOVA, etc.. are such heavily houseruled formats with such radically different win/lose conditions to 40K anyhow, if Ynnari were really this disproportionally big problem there compared to most normal 40K out there, just change Souldburst and/or Ynnari rules/point costs in the ITC booklet and done. That’d be the place to fix a niche problem exclusive to a niche format like competitive 40K.
Heavily house ruled? Not really. We have different missions, that’s it. In the ITC we modify some terrain a bit, that’s the only “houserule.”
And the win/lose conditions are hardly radically different. It all boils down to the same “hold an objective” or “destroy something” win conditions as in any missions in 40k. The way the points are distributed are different, that’s all.
And that’s radically different from missions with pure kill points where you don’t need to hold things, pure maelstrom where killing stuff can be completely irrelevant. Not to mention curve balls like straight-up the Relic. etc..
That’s kinda the point. If I can guarantee that hold something kill something is a given in virtually every game, tactical depth and the ability to play an army to different win conditions goes out of the window. It’s predictable and pre-determinable. A “cheap scoring unit” for example will be useful 100% of my games, not just maybe 40%. Etc..
There’s no more incisive change possible to any game than changing how you win or lose.
Of course changing win conditions has an impact on the game but you’re embellishing the differences is my point.
You still have the same conditions just in different variations. That’s not a radical difference. From book missions to ITC/NOVA/ETC/whatever missions is a nuanced difference.
But whatever, we’re splitting hairs. You’re free to see it how you choose but as someone that has played in the various formats they all have far more in common than not, IMO.
Ahhh .. the old lazy “you disagree with me, you’re just hatin’ ”
Never has there been a sadder, more lazy thought in a human being.
Maybe they are not a radical difference. Depends on how you define radikal.
Changing the Ynnari rules or the point values of the Castellan or some other units for certain tournament formats wouldn’t be a radical difference either.
Changing mission formats is a more impactful change, or “relatively more radical”, than changing some point values or army special rules, as it directly impacts win/lose conditions of all armies, while the latter only changes them indirectly for some match-ups.
@Zweischneid “never has there been a sadder, more lazy thought in a human being”
Really? More like Never have has there been a more ridiculous hyperbole read in this thread. Give your head a shake.
As a “pure” BA player who runs mono-faction, I am so so grateful that the actions of cherrypicking tournament players has made my faction so much better to play all on its own.
That was my biggest worry about this FAQ: that the nerf bat would be applied to specific units/abilities/strategems rather than the interactions of each when they are brought together in a soup list.
If you play in tournaments, your BA army is just as nonviable now as it was two weeks ago.
If you don’t play in tournaments, you can feel free to ignore any parts of the FAQs you and your local group think are inappropriate.
Either way you’re good, guv.
I don’t disagree with your point, AP, but a large majority of the people I know (and what I read online) want to play with the most current air quotes official rules of the game.
Im sure you remember the resistance in the dark days to any community driven FAQs and the splintering of regions in that regard – if it wasn’t official it wasnt in the game. I am still amazed that frontline and ITC got so many people on board and I suspect it was because of the community getting to vote.
Gamers seem to be allergic to taking the game into our own hands even when at home or the local FLG even though we spend so much time screaming what we think is wrong
I do as well, but I’m also willing to accept that not all changes in the game rules are beneficial to every army I play- that’s part of why I play multiple armies, so that if the current meta is unfavorable or unfun for one of my armies, I can switch to something else. If you’re unwilling to change your army and unwilling to change the rules, then there really isn’t a lot of room for complaint when things don’t happen to randomly line up in your favor.
Fair point. I’ve never had an army list that survived a codex or edition change and we probably have to consider chapter approved and the big FAQs as almost the same thing.
https://frontlinegaming.org/2018/10/02/40k-op-ed-gw-wants-us-to-eat-soup/#comment-582839
^Captain Morgan’s article pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly. Soup > mono-faction, and that seems like misguided design.