Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 waefre_1 wrote:

Also, re: access to units - LR/Chimerae, sure. Bassies and Flyers, OK (at a premium), but I have a hard time accepting Superheavies in that list. If you want Superheavies, ask your opponent if you can run an allied Guard formation.

So I'm not super lore-savvy when it comes to superheavy tanks, but they've never seemed particularly rare. I know some versions of them are rare, like the Plasma Blaster one (Stormsword?). But Baneblades seem like a popular item, and could/would be part of PDF armories.

+1 for Overread's reply.

Additionally, I think there is a distinction in this case between "rare" and "rare enough". Brood Brothers are common enough that there's good reason to explicitly include them for GSC. While there are certainly cults who have gained access to Baneblades, I don't think they're common enough that they should also be explicitly included. To bring things more in line with the thread topic, I think I would rather see less common things like that pushed off onto general alliance rules (which are written to support them), so that GSC can take an allied detachment of Guard for captured superheavies in the same way that Chaos can for Renegade Guard, or that Chaos can take an allied detachment of Loyalist Space Marines (Primaris and non) to represent ensorcelled or recently-renegaded Chapters, or Necrons with T'au to represent a mad Lord who brings his pet Mindshackled cadre out for "walkies" in combat zones, or Kroot with Orks to represent a warband that got marooned behind enemy lines and ate enough Ork to pass as Nobs for some feral boyz (Is that still a thing? Was it ever a thing or am I misremembering?) etc etc.

tl;dr I'd prefer it if rarer alliances got represented by general rules so that everyone can have a go at off-the-wall creative forces, rather than just GSC pulling uncommon units from Guard. Remember, this is the setting that gave us Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau. There's plenty of room for wacky creativity, and I'd really rather not see that siloed off into specific force pairings.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 waefre_1 wrote:

Also, re: access to units - LR/Chimerae, sure. Bassies and Flyers, OK (at a premium), but I have a hard time accepting Superheavies in that list. If you want Superheavies, ask your opponent if you can run an allied Guard formation.

So I'm not super lore-savvy when it comes to superheavy tanks, but they've never seemed particularly rare. I know some versions of them are rare, like the Plasma Blaster one (Stormsword?). But Baneblades seem like a popular item, and could/would be part of PDF armories.

Lore-wise, it depends upon what we're actually discussing. The specific notation in Imperial Armour for the Guard is that an army is "lucky to have a company of three".

There is so, so, so much to really get into but something to note is that there is such a thing as a "counterfeit" Baneblade. These are produced by Forge Worlds that utilize incomplete STC data to meet the "huge demand for these tanks". The Mechanicus refers to them as "second-generation" Baneblades. They use standard Battle Cannon ammunition instead of the specialized rocket-propelled shells of the real deal. The Demolisher Cannon in the genuine Baneblades is reinforced, the counterfeits aren't. Then there's the internal armour, better engine performance & transmission, better comms & tactical gear, and "all other manner of secondary systems".

But even with the massive amounts of Fakeblades being produced? They're still rare enough that an army group might just have 3.

moving the topic away from GSC because I'm tired of that argument,

when I was first getting into 40K and was learning about lore, one idea for an army I had was a group of AdSor that had become disillusioned about the emperor and the cause of the imperium, and in their apostasy stumbled across the T'au, and then had the gap of religious devotion filled by the ethereals. would've been a very thematic list, with a lot of normal sisters and t'au stuff, but also straying away from things like arco-flagellents or penitent engines as being things the t'au in charge would disprove of for being too cruel. it was 9th edition when I had this idea, so it would've worked then, and not in 10th edition. but if I still wanted to paint that much of sisters and t'au (neither of which are my favorite armies from a painting perspective), I would still go ahead with it, rules be damned— the point being, I have a specific idea I might want to build, and despite the fact that 10th edition doesn't allow it, I would go for it anyway, and people who want to play against that weird army would be fine with it, and people who aren't wouldn't

I think a T'au/Sisters mashup is as random a faction crossover as you could get on the tabletop, and as someone who might want to do such a thing, I already have the perfect solution— "hey, I'm playing a weird army, you fine with that, or should I switch to custodes?". specific rules aren't needed except for armies where it's been a core part of the army's identity for decades; that is to say, things like imperial agents, demons, or GSC

(or we copy how AOS does it with armies being allowed to ally with specific other armies, but that's kinda already what happens with agents or demons)

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Honestly, I can straight face explain any combination of factions, there doesn't have to be Imperium/Chaos restrictions. Want Orks running with Tau? Fine. Want Chaos Daemons running with Eldar, good. Want Sisters of Battle running with Drukhari? Awesome. It's not hard to make believe this.

Also: news flash, literally none of that matters. The only thing that might be affected is balance. And that would shake out in rules/points. But be honest. Don't hide behind lore justifications for whether or not plastic miniatures can be on the same table or not. It's literally the silliest argument available. Hit me with rules, or wombo/combos, or anything, but "Sisters can't be with demons!!!"? That's your angle?

Lore can evolve and there is always some flexibility, but lore still matters to most on some level.

Two friends can do what they want, but I think you would have a hard time getting a pickup game at the FLGS with a mish-mash army.

Having said that, my community has a Teams tourney with odd matchups. But that’s the point and everyone knows that going in for that one weekend event.

 Overread wrote:
"Rare" is a really hard term to wrap your head around in the 40K universe.

A lot of the RARE stuff appears a LOT in lore, stories, artwork, real armies we use on the tabletop and more. Because we often focus a lot on the rare, unique things in the setting rather than just the bog standard commonplace stuff.

So whilst something like a Baneblade might be 'rare' that many worlds might not have access too; we focus on the stories and settings where they do have them. Thus something rare appeares commonplace because we always see it.




It's also really hard because the setting is so mindbogglingly vast. There will be areas near certain Forgeworlds where Baneblades are common and others where they are just never heard of.

The vastness of the setting means terms like "rare" are really hard to wrap your head around what it means because its heavily contextual within the setting.

I agree with all of that . . . Buuuuut . . . . (continued next blurb)

 waefre_1 wrote:

Additionally, I think there is a distinction in this case between "rare" and "rare enough". Brood Brothers are common enough that there's good reason to explicitly include them for GSC. While there are certainly cults who have gained access to Baneblades, I don't think they're common enough that they should also be explicitly included.

Of course if Baneblades are rare, and Swarmlords are rare, and we see Swarmlords all the time on the tabletop, then it's also not out of place to see Baneblades on the tabletop. Right? So in-universe "rarity" isn't always a great predictor of whether or not a particular unit should be available or not.

Following the argument, Baneblades could be rare, but still be available as a unit for GSC.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 waefre_1 wrote:

Also, re: access to units - LR/Chimerae, sure. Bassies and Flyers, OK (at a premium), but I have a hard time accepting Superheavies in that list. If you want Superheavies, ask your opponent if you can run an allied Guard formation.

So I'm not super lore-savvy when it comes to superheavy tanks, but they've never seemed particularly rare. I know some versions of them are rare, like the Plasma Blaster one (Stormsword?). But Baneblades seem like a popular item, and could/would be part of PDF armories.

Lore-wise, it depends upon what we're actually discussing. The specific notation in Imperial Armour for the Guard is that an army is "lucky to have a company of three".

Fair, that would be rarer than I thought, although I wonder what size of organization "army" is. (It also goes against my experience playing early Epic, where it was typical to field multiple squadrons). I'd be curious to see if there was another source for that.

Re: Counterfeit Baneblades: Being in Imperial Armor, I wonder if the "phony" Baneblades is a dig at the Armorcast Baneblade kits.

I'd also like to know if there's any source for their inclusion/exclusion from PDF.

Swarmlord is a fun one to mess with perceptions of rarity.


Lore wise there is only one Swarmlord in the whole Tyranid race. It is one of the very few totally singular entities within the Tyranid army*. So its up there with other single named characters in the world. And yet the Swarmlord can very readily mess with the apparent unique element of its nature because it can "hop" from Swarm to Swarm at will.

So whilst its singular it can appear almost anywhere a Swarm is within the Galaxy.


* in fact whilst the rules for the army have a few more that are unique and can only be taken once; the lore for things like Old One Eye more describe them as singular creations that the Imperium (typically) encounters; which then appear thereafter in exceptional/rare instances within the swarm.

^True, the Nid ones are little odd. Although the principle of the argument remains the same, be it Swarmlord, Primarch or maybe even generic Hive Tyrant (who I think were/are fairly singular models within an invasion force, iirc). Rare in universe, but still showing up all the time on the table.

^The Tyrant example in particular makes me miss the days when you could just take Warriors as an HQ choice, "de-personalizing" your Nid army.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Of course if Baneblades are rare, and Swarmlords are rare, and we see Swarmlords all the time on the tabletop, then it's also not out of place to see Baneblades on the tabletop.

Why should tabletop presence matter at all for cross-faction unit availability? That sounds like a great way to accidentally get Eldrad or Bobby G as a splash-in for every other faction.

In terms of in-universe rareness, what are we saying is the ratio between Baneblades and Space Marines?

Rarity is another odd argument. Here's rarity. There is literally 1 single Bobby G. And he was one every table in 8th near the end, which had Space Marines on it. Even a few that didn't.

Rarity doesn't mean anything. Inversely the opposite is also true. Commonplace, or Frequency is not indicative of anything. There were over a billion bioforms in the hive fleets that attacked Baal, and Ultramar. Both of those were defeated by much smaller forces. Rarity and the Lack of it are not really good at pointing to anything in 40k. Because Assasins, Blanks, and Primarchs are commonplace.

Point is, there is one, and only one reason why we can't do the mixed factions. Its not a great reason, but it's the best you've got.

"The book says you can't."

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Rarity is another odd argument. Here's rarity. There is literally 1 single Bobby G. And he was one every table in 8th near the end, which had Space Marines on it. Even a few that didn't.

Rarity doesn't mean anything. Inversely the opposite is also true. Commonplace, or Frequency is not indicative of anything. There were over a billion bioforms in the hive fleets that attacked Baal, and Ultramar. Both of those were defeated by much smaller forces. Rarity and the Lack of it are not really good at pointing to anything in 40k. Because Assasins, Blanks, and Primarchs are commonplace.

Point is, there is one, and only one reason why we can't do the mixed factions. Its not a great reason, but it's the best you've got.

"The book says you can't."

Yes, the core rules do not facilitate haphazardly mixing models or units from across the game. It's a good reason people don't do it, it's a good reason not to do it as following the rules now, it basically gimps your army intentionally.

Would you be OK if they said you pick 1 detachment to draw your army rules from and you can go wild from there in the knowledge your army would largely be trash?

Dudeface wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Rarity is another odd argument. Here's rarity. There is literally 1 single Bobby G. And he was one every table in 8th near the end, which had Space Marines on it. Even a few that didn't.

Rarity doesn't mean anything. Inversely the opposite is also true. Commonplace, or Frequency is not indicative of anything. There were over a billion bioforms in the hive fleets that attacked Baal, and Ultramar. Both of those were defeated by much smaller forces. Rarity and the Lack of it are not really good at pointing to anything in 40k. Because Assasins, Blanks, and Primarchs are commonplace.

Point is, there is one, and only one reason why we can't do the mixed factions. Its not a great reason, but it's the best you've got.

"The book says you can't."

Yes, the core rules do not facilitate haphazardly mixing models or units from across the game. It's a good reason people don't do it, it's a good reason not to do it as following the rules now, it basically gimps your army intentionally.

Would you be OK if they said you pick 1 detachment to draw your army rules from and you can go wild from there in the knowledge your army would largely be trash?

What is flavor?

 RaptorusRex wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Rarity is another odd argument. Here's rarity. There is literally 1 single Bobby G. And he was one every table in 8th near the end, which had Space Marines on it. Even a few that didn't.

Rarity doesn't mean anything. Inversely the opposite is also true. Commonplace, or Frequency is not indicative of anything. There were over a billion bioforms in the hive fleets that attacked Baal, and Ultramar. Both of those were defeated by much smaller forces. Rarity and the Lack of it are not really good at pointing to anything in 40k. Because Assasins, Blanks, and Primarchs are commonplace.

Point is, there is one, and only one reason why we can't do the mixed factions. Its not a great reason, but it's the best you've got.

"The book says you can't."

Yes, the core rules do not facilitate haphazardly mixing models or units from across the game. It's a good reason people don't do it, it's a good reason not to do it as following the rules now, it basically gimps your army intentionally.

Would you be OK if they said you pick 1 detachment to draw your army rules from and you can go wild from there in the knowledge your army would largely be trash?

What is flavor?

Subjective

Dudeface wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Rarity is another odd argument. Here's rarity. There is literally 1 single Bobby G. And he was one every table in 8th near the end, which had Space Marines on it. Even a few that didn't.

Rarity doesn't mean anything. Inversely the opposite is also true. Commonplace, or Frequency is not indicative of anything. There were over a billion bioforms in the hive fleets that attacked Baal, and Ultramar. Both of those were defeated by much smaller forces. Rarity and the Lack of it are not really good at pointing to anything in 40k. Because Assasins, Blanks, and Primarchs are commonplace.

Point is, there is one, and only one reason why we can't do the mixed factions. Its not a great reason, but it's the best you've got.

"The book says you can't."

Yes, the core rules do not facilitate haphazardly mixing models or units from across the game. It's a good reason people don't do it, it's a good reason not to do it as following the rules now, it basically gimps your army intentionally.

Would you be OK if they said you pick 1 detachment to draw your army rules from and you can go wild from there in the knowledge your army would largely be trash?

What is flavor?

Subjective

No, Taste is subjective. Flavor is Objective. Something is salty. It is not Salty because person A tastes it. Person A can say, I don't like that flavor, it's not to my taste. But saying flavor is subjective now just YMDC arguing in bad faith, semantically. You are saying that because you don't like a certain thing, no one should be allowed to have that thing. Again, just admit you have no good arguments and we're done here. I hope for a edition where all factions can kill and maim each other not based on their God's or their stats, but because of friends throwing math rocks.

Mr. Dudeface.....TEAR DOWN THIS WALL.....

Different type of flavor.

Are Marines unstoppable badasses, capable of taking on a dozen Guardsmen without breaking a sweat? In some novels, yes.
Are Marines able to be taken out by one powerful Lasgun shot? In some novels, yes.

But that is not "the flavour" of specific types of marines. Specific marine flavours is Salamanders seeing in multiple light spectrums. RG having access to the shadow realm. BA being the angelic dude with a secret. DA being the Knight Templars in space. BT being Teutonic Knights in space etc etc. Those are marine flavours. Needing hordes of "men" to take down a marine is a given. BL writers inconsistancy in writing being a thing or not.

Allies reduce faction identity.

As said, I don't mind GW introducing "Imperial Alliance: The faction" - which has some carefully curated list of units and rules which make it an interesting - but different - faction in its own right.

I don't want a world where you go "I'm a DE player. And the optimal way to play DE is to take an 80% Eldar list with some token additions because you can ally them in with no consequence and they are currently better, gg the end."

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

No, Taste is subjective. Flavor is Objective. Something is salty. It is not Salty because person A tastes it. Person A can say, I don't like that flavor, it's not to my taste. But saying flavor is subjective now just YMDC arguing in bad faith, semantically. You are saying that because you don't like a certain thing, no one should be allowed to have that thing. Again, just admit you have no good arguments and we're done here. I hope for a edition where all factions can kill and maim each other not based on their God's or their stats, but because of friends throwing math rocks.

Mr. Dudeface.....TEAR DOWN THIS WALL.....

How is flavour objective? You can't use my taste buds to confirm if your definition of a flavour matches mine, your experiences cannot be immediately generalised.

First result on a Google for gaks n giggles:

While flavour is largely subjective, it is ultimately governed by the more universal tastes that we experience.

https://www.highspeedtraining.co.uk/hub/what-is-flavour/#:~:text=While%20flavour%20is%20largely%20subjective,universal%20tastes%20that%20we%20experience.

To move onto whether something is full of flavour or not, is again, a subjective statement even if you can agree on what a flavour is. Some people will find a small amount of seasoning plentiful, others won't taste it.

In the context here, the issue is there is no context. You've simply said you want to mash together models from all ranges. You simply want this because you can, not because there is a reason to.

Reasons not to are primarily game balance, setting integrity as much as we already know you dislike that and to a lesser degree aesthetics.

In short if your flavour is to use random 40k models all at once and expect it to be balanced or regulated by the game, you're in coocoo land for a multitude of reasons. To me your flavour tastes like ass, your prior suggestion would look awful to face and would be at best, unpleasant to play into for me personally.

It's also a hairs breadth off playing chess with pieces of both colours, deciding that knights should be 10 points because they can, that your models have different rules that means they can't die and that the game is only played whilst wearing dungarees.

You can say I'm arguing in bad faith, fine, but you're literally wanting to disregard the integrity of the setting to whack random models on a table for no reason. Why. Give me a reason why it is a good idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
Allies reduce faction identity.

As said, I don't mind GW introducing "Imperial Alliance: The faction" - which has some carefully curated list of units and rules which make it an interesting - but different - faction in its own right.

I don't want a world where you go "I'm a DE player. And the optimal way to play DE is to take an 80% Eldar list with some token additions because you can ally them in with no consequence and they are currently better, gg the end."

Be me, go further, be evil. But only if you consider 10 pathfinders, 20 hormagaunts, a knight tyrant, 6 allarus terminators and a storm raven seems like something that shouldn't exist as a game legal army.

Apple fox wrote:
Rogue trader is definitely in the got idea, put it in era!

I wish they would focus a bit more on narrative play, it would be super easy to put Narative missions and army construction that can be a little more lose over more competitive. Why staying within a structure that I think a lot of players still enjoy.

Then can have those fun Ally’s, that trying to balance in competitive would be a nightmare.

Open play I think comes of a little condescending to players sometimes, rather than getting quality from GW.

I'm late to the discussion, but this sums up my thoughts pretty well. There are plenty of fluffy, narrative reasons for different factions to hang out together, and it would be cool to have rules that facilitate that for narrative games. However, the huge amount of extra interactions that would be created (even if it's just a matter of taking extremely efficient/complementary units from different factions) would be a huge challenge to balance.

So while it would be cool to have narrative rules that support mixing and matching without forcing you into open play, it's probably best to keep that sort of thing away from competitive games. Theoretically, the appeal of tournament games is to challenge yourself with a relatively well-balanced rule set. Reintroducing all those possible combinations would risk detracting from that balance with no real upside. It just risks creating more broken combos that would be harder to find and balance than what we have now.

Getting dedicated detachments for specific alliances in narrative play could be cool. I love the idea of a detachment that lets a handful of marines serve as buffers for your mainly-IG force, for instance. This could also be an easy way to support monogod marine/daemon alliances with some especially fluffy rules.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


No, Taste is subjective. Flavor is Objective. Something is salty. It is not Salty because person A tastes it. Person A can say, I don't like that flavor, it's not to my taste. But saying flavor is subjective now just YMDC arguing in bad faith, semantically. You are saying that because you don't like a certain thing, no one should be allowed to have that thing. Again, just admit you have no good arguments and we're done here. I hope for a edition where all factions can kill and maim each other not based on their God's or their stats, but because of friends throwing math rocks.

Mr. Dudeface.....TEAR DOWN THIS WALL.....

Someone who never tasted salt, vs. someone who regularly eats a salt saturated diet; both try a moderately salted dish.

The salt free person will say the dish is salty. The salt saturated fella will say it's not salty enough. The rest of us will debate about how vague the term "moderately salty" is, probably using anecdotal evidence, numerous examples, and flawed analogies (which everyone else will label strawmen).

What you can do to be objective is measure the salt content and share that measurement. "This dish contains 3 teaspoons of salt"- objective. "This is salty" or "This is not salty enough" - subjective.

See how that works?

Now lets apply it to 40k: Objectively, your subfaction makes no difference, unless your army is one that has bespoke subfaction models, or a supplement that provides subfaction detachments in addition to those include in the faction's dex... which is why Space Marines are still objectively special, even though GW's stated purpose was to minimize the impact of subfaction choice upon battlefield effectiveness.

Objectively, adding 4-5 units to an army that don't have the keywords to benefit from detachment rules, enhancements and strats will limit the versatility of those units, impacting the overall effectiveness of the army.

Objectively, the fluff says Slaanesh feast on the souls of dead Eldar, and all Eldar have contrived ways to avoid this fate, and all Eldar hate and/or fear Slaanesh- so objectively, playing Slaanesh in the same army of Eldar is a violation of fluff, whether Fezzik enjoys doing so or not.

Many of us will say that Fezzik has the right to put Slaaneshi models into his army if he wants to, but we might also warn Fezzik that he might have difficulty finding an opponent who wants to face said army, because many players prefer to adhere to the established lore. This is not building a wall, though even if it was, walls can be cool- I wouldn't have an apartment without them.

 waefre_1 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Of course if Baneblades are rare, and Swarmlords are rare, and we see Swarmlords all the time on the tabletop, then it's also not out of place to see Baneblades on the tabletop.

Why should tabletop presence matter at all for cross-faction unit availability? That sounds like a great way to accidentally get Eldrad or Bobby G as a splash-in for every other faction.

GSC has traditionally been able to take Guard units because their infiltration into Guard-esque PDF forces is well known. Guard units in a GSC army are not out of place, lore-wise or army list-wise, historically.

But locking out Baneblades from tabletop armies because they are "rare", while the singular Bobby G keeps showing up on the table, seems pretty silly.

 Insectum7 wrote:
...But locking out Baneblades from tabletop armies because they are "rare", while the singular Bobby G keeps showing up on the table, seems pretty silly.

Why?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Different type of flavor.

Are Marines unstoppable badasses, capable of taking on a dozen Guardsmen without breaking a sweat? In some novels, yes.
Are Marines able to be taken out by one powerful Lasgun shot? In some novels, yes.

Those are not mutually exclusive. You're describing Plot Armor. And Plot Armor has a weak spot for Plot Development. 10 Marines can take out 12 Guardsmen all day long until one of the Guardsmen needs to kill a Marine to advance the plot.

Is Superman an unstoppable badass who can take out the rest of the Justice League so fast only the Flash can see it happen?
Does Batman keep a brick of Kryptonite in his utility belt for just such an occasion?

 waefre_1 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
...But locking out Baneblades from tabletop armies because they are "rare", while the singular Bobby G keeps showing up on the table, seems pretty silly.

Why?

Army A gets to field extremely rare thing.
But army B doesn't get to field significantly less rare thing . . . Because . . . ?

Why not?

Doyleist version of the answer:
a) If you can mix factions you can buy a small amount of one army and play games with it/give it a try before jumping into a full army.
b) GW would rather you decide you want to try a new army, and think that you have to buy a full 2,000pt list straight off.
c) Therefore: Mixed factions? Gone.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Doyleist version of the answer:
a) If you can mix factions you can buy a small amount of one army and play games with it/give it a try before jumping into a full army.
b) GW would rather you decide you want to try a new army, and think that you have to buy a full 2,000pt list straight off.
c) Therefore: Mixed factions? Gone.

Until you run into Combat Patrols. Mixed factions - or soup - has some hard feelings around it right now. Maybe/Hopefully it comes back, but its out right now because of those bad feelings. If people liked seeing 500 points of Space Marines, and 1500 points of Guard - or vice versa - it wouldn't be off the table. 40K has been dumbed down simply because of that and GW trying to control it. Soup, 6 Captain Datasheets for when armor modifies the statline, which leaders can join what, its all part of GW trying to micromanage what we can do with their army lists so we don't "break" the game.

Edit To Add: That did just give me an idea though. Sadly we'll likely never see official support for it, but imagine a game with two combat patrols for each side. Chaos can take (Traitor)Guard and CSM, Loyalists can take SM and Guard or Mechanicus etc. But you get two allied Combat Patrols to merge into one "army" Each Patrol gets their rules that only applies to models in that patrol. Upside - Soup might not suck. Downside: GW decides they still don't have enough control over our armies and armies are now made by GW (either through combining 2-3-4 Combat Patrols for each 500 Point increment, or by making Army Boxes like Combat Patrols).

 Insectum7 wrote:

...Army A...
...army B...

Does A = B?
Would you allow Orks to field Wraithknights via rules in the Ork codex because Wraithknights are less rare than Asdrubael Vect?

Breton wrote:

Edit To Add: That did just give me an idea though. Sadly we'll likely never see official support for it, but imagine a game with two combat patrols for each side. Chaos can take (Traitor)Guard and CSM, Loyalists can take SM and Guard or Mechanicus etc. But you get two allied Combat Patrols to merge into one "army" Each Patrol gets their rules that only applies to models in that patrol. Upside - Soup might not suck. Downside: GW decides they still don't have enough control over our armies and armies are now made by GW (either through combining 2-3-4 Combat Patrols for each 500 Point increment, or by making Army Boxes like Combat Patrols).

I think this would be a really fun experiment. I think you're right that we won't see support for it, but not because GW is suppressing it, but because if you want to do it, you just do it. It doesn't need to be a game mode, no rules need to change... You just play two CPs vs a dude playing 2 other CPs... And that's it. Nuff said. So what does "support" for that even look like?

Having said that, the next WD has not only the Rogue Trader Combat Patrol, but multiplayer rules for Combat Patrol. Those rules might help facilitate the sort of thing you're thinking of.

Personally, I feel like if you can create an RT Combat Patrol, their should also be a RT detachment instead of forcing them to exist only as allied Agents rather than giving them the potential to be a detachment in their own right, but that's a little off topic.

 waefre_1 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

...Army A...
...army B...

Does A = B?
Would you allow Orks to field Wraithknights via rules in the Ork codex because Wraithknights are less rare than Asdrubael Vect?

How many (non-Orkified) Wraithknights do Orks have?

 waefre_1 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

...Army A...
...army B...

Does A = B?
Would you allow Orks to field Wraithknights via rules in the Ork codex because Wraithknights are less rare than Asdrubael Vect?

I don't really see a cogent argument in your question.

Does the lore support Orks running Wraithknights? No.
Does the lore support GSC gaining access to Imperial equipment, Guard or PDF? Yes.