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.

Loyal 32, Rusty 12, etc. The ability to mix factions lead to an interesting a thematically diverse army creativity that has been unmatched since it was removed. Since CP generation due to Army constructs has gone bye bye, can we bring it back?
Can I throw a squad of White Scare bikers into my force of Custodes Bikers? A Squad of IF Heavy Intercessors or two in with my IG Gun line force. I mean, the options are there. Why prohibit it? I should be allowed again. It's removal was warranted, when taken in context of the rules of that time. Now it seems silly.

Please provide me proof of my wrongness.

Essentially, they'd need a rule allowing for multiple detachments, and each of the allied factions would benefit from only their own detachment rules.

This is actually what I'm hoping for with Imperial Agents- I want the option to field an Agents detachment along with an Imperial detachment.

I think it's an approach the works thematically for some combined forces, but I also believe there should be some limits.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Loyal 32, Rusty 12, etc. The ability to mix factions lead to an interesting a thematically diverse army creativity that has been unmatched since it was removed. Since CP generation due to Army constructs has gone bye bye, can we bring it back?
Can I throw a squad of White Scare bikers into my force of Custodes Bikers? A Squad of IF Heavy Intercessors or two in with my IG Gun line force. I mean, the options are there. Why prohibit it? I should be allowed again. It's removal was warranted, when taken in context of the rules of that time. Now it seems silly.

Please provide me proof of my wrongness.

I'd like to see it - or some sort of SuperFaction that lets you mix factions while still being controlled (Like the "Grey Shield" Chapter tactics) I don't really want to see a SM Army with White Scar Bikers, BA Death Company, UM Aggressor Bombs, etc but the ability to do something of a Crusader Force would be nice.

Additionally the problem with Loyal 32 wasn't mixed factions, it was the Dets for CP approach.

Best/Most Likely thing would probably the Boarding Patrol Det + Small Bonus Det they had. You have to make your Main Det out of X Faction, but Y, Z, or whatever faction can be in your second Det and it works like (this). Gives you a small IG Det your SM are relieving - or a large IG Det with a small complement of SM supplementing/leading them.

Mixing factions should stay dead. It only works with Imperium and Chaos and does nothing for any of the other factions.
The only way I could see it working out would be to completely alter the entire setting and write in major changes to alliances between the xenos races.
For example, if you're going let Sisters, Guard, Marines of every flavor, Grey Knights, Knights and Inquisition (and GSC) you may as well just have the Eldar (and their spin offs) and Votann absorbed into the Tau Empire.
The Tyranids dont mix with anyone nor do the Necrons (that Blood Angel team up is just stupid and bad fan fiction).

Is there really a reason to have a wall of Guard HWTs and FOBs to support your Iron Hands?
Is it critical to the game to have 3 Hekatons, 3 Wraithknights and 3 Baneblades all squeezed into a deployment zone?

If you're playing Narrative then do as you please but this game is full of competitive sweaty try hards already. We don't need to give them an extra avenue of exploitation.

They'll bring it back eventually. And it will be as broken as it always is.

There are several major issues with mixing factions

1) As noted its got a heavy bias for Chaos and Imperial armies in the game. Both have multiple different factions (esp the Imperials) which means that they have a massive range of models to choose from.


Meanwhile Xenos forces are at the opposite end of the tier with armies like Tyranids basically down to one allied force (and historically they didn't even have the Genestealer Cults until fairly recently).



Lore also gets a bit messy. The Imperial and Chaos alliance blocks have a lot of reasons to work together. Meanwhile a lot of the Xenos fall into either "Eldar manipulating everyone" or "the situation got so bad we have to ally together to survive in the short run then we get back to killing each other".



Mechanically the game is also not built around major alliance blocks between factions. Whilst we can argue that GW's balance is wobbly at the best of times; big alliance blocks just breaks it entirely. Factions generally have strengths and weaknesses, but when you can ally up major factions you can ally the strengths of two factions together with no weak points. Or ally two factions that do the same thing really well together so that it amplifies that. Basically it breaks the balance open so much that it leads itself to insane min-max and overpowered armies.



Basically the lore doesn't really work and the game mechanics don't work at all with it.


Could it be done - sure it could, but it would likely require a major rework of how armies are balanced. Games that feature inherent alliance options are often more model agnostic and feature very small differences between factions - or none at all. Such games can more freely allow alliances because you're basically playing purely with the lore and story; the mechanics of the game are not drastically influenced by it. Or where they are the gains are marginal to small rather than major.
And again they are situations where all armies can do it; rather than having a huge bias for one faction to do it whilst others have vastly more limited options.





That said nothing has ever stopped you doing this in 40K games. You just play two full armies at the same time. You can play Tyranids and Space Marines VS Chaos and Necrons. It's just an Open Play game running on Matched rules. GW doesn't have to allow you to do that, you just need to ask your opponent and have fun.

Sometimes when GW tries to make these informal things into the formal rules (ergo matched play) it just breaks the game open and spoils it as they try to appease everyone at once.






edit - I'd also like to point out that mixing subfactions within a single faction was also how we wound up with one edition that was bonkers where even paintwrok on the models was starting to become a tournament "this affects the army you chose you cannot play another army type". Because everyone was putting the close combat in the best subfaction for close combat and the ranged in the ranged one and so forth. So you'd have 1 army with 1 paint scheme but it would be made of several subfaction groups. Which made info tracking during the game a nightmare. It was also not all that tactical; it was simply making smart army composition choices within the rules. It was honestly messy and I'm glad it went away because it was introducing things that were leading to polices that shouldn't be in the game - eg forcing subfaction choices based on paint scheme choices.

The issue comes from half the game factions being from one allegiance, Imperium.

The Allies system could still be re-implemented but it should follow established narrative lines rather than just "All Imperials ally and all Chaos ally, everyone else is weird". Possibly something similar to The Old World might be a good idea, with some armies having their own army rules such as Knights or Daemons that aren't allies but sort of force multipliers.

This is just spitballing but consider the following:

A T'au Empire army may take 25% of its points value as allies using one of the following army lists:

- Astra Militarum (Suspicious)
- Aeldari (Suspicious)
- Leagues of Votann

Or:

An Adeptus Mechanicus army may take 25% of its points value as allies using one of the following army lists:

- Astra Militarum
- Adeptus Astartes
- Adepta Sororitas (Suspicious)

You have a restriction on how much can be allied and with subtypes, you can determine how they interact. By limiting the options for allies and giving some army lists a rule that allows them to be used in a similar way to Mercenaries, you can still allow for some freedom but with a greater eye toward balance.
For example, Knights (of both kinds) would not have access to allies but a single unit could be taken in either an Imperium or Chaos army with a rule called "Freeblade/Dreadblade". Daemons could be taken as a percentage of a Chaos force but could not ally with "mortals" if they were the "Primary" army.

I'd also do some wider rejigging of the various army lists to either try and condense some that have bloated too far or to increase the value of some others.

I think the issue is that allying often creates issues wherein a given unit is average in its own codex, but much stronger when taken as an ally (or as part of another faction).

We saw this in 8th edition, where various Eldar/DE units were perfectly fine in their own book, but then became ridiculous when taken as Ynnari. Thus, GW pushed the prices up dramatically, to the point that they were ridiculously overcosted when used in their own codices, just so that they wouldn't be unbalanced when taken as Ynnari.

Put simply, I think you'd need a way of costing units differently when taken as allies, so that you don't end up with this sort of issue.


Beyond this, you have the problem that Imperium would essentially get their pick of units from half the armies in the game, whilst factions like Necrons and Orks are left to fend for themselves.

 Overread wrote:

That said nothing has ever stopped you doing this in 40K games. You just play two full armies at the same time. You can play Tyranids and Space Marines VS Chaos and Necrons. It's just an Open Play game running on Matched rules. GW doesn't have to allow you to do that, you just need to ask your opponent and have fun.

Sometimes when GW tries to make these informal things into the formal rules (ergo matched play) it just breaks the game open and spoils it as they try to appease everyone at once.

as much as i would love for GW to bring back ally rules properly (i'm a big fan of thematic army mixing), i understand that it's nigh impossible to balance... so i just asked the people i playgroup "hey it's fine if i bring 500 points of tyranids when i play GSC, right" and no one had an issue with it. GW don't need to be the be-all-end-all of rules if it's not happening in a tournament

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

 Overread wrote:

That said nothing has ever stopped you doing this in 40K games. You just play two full armies at the same time. You can play Tyranids and Space Marines VS Chaos and Necrons. It's just an Open Play game running on Matched rules. GW doesn't have to allow you to do that, you just need to ask your opponent and have fun.

Sometimes when GW tries to make these informal things into the formal rules (ergo matched play) it just breaks the game open and spoils it as they try to appease everyone at once.

as much as i would love for GW to bring back ally rules properly (i'm a big fan of thematic army mixing), i understand that it's nigh impossible to balance... so i just asked the people i playgroup "hey it's fine if i bring 500 points of tyranids when i play GSC, right" and no one had an issue with it. GW don't need to be the be-all-end-all of rules if it's not happening in a tournament

Exactly. Whilst there is always a core of people who will never deviate from the rules; nothing stops you doing your own thing. Indeed its why GW's "3 modes of play" has always seemed rather daft to me because "open play" is basically just "do whatever you want" which I don't need a company to tell me that I can do that. I can just, do that.

Granted I'm open to GW proposing ideas for people and feel that they could do more on that front to give Open Play some more concepts and ideas for people to latch onto.

I think with a rather strict approach similar to demon rules or Ynnari, it might not be too unbalanced - basically 1 battleline choice for every other choice, max 500 p and no enhancements/ stratagems/army rules could work, since most battleline units are rather weak. It would most likely cause less problems than Aeldari index alone before the 3rd nerf...

 Overread wrote:

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

 Overread wrote:

That said nothing has ever stopped you doing this in 40K games. You just play two full armies at the same time. You can play Tyranids and Space Marines VS Chaos and Necrons. It's just an Open Play game running on Matched rules. GW doesn't have to allow you to do that, you just need to ask your opponent and have fun.

Sometimes when GW tries to make these informal things into the formal rules (ergo matched play) it just breaks the game open and spoils it as they try to appease everyone at once.

as much as i would love for GW to bring back ally rules properly (i'm a big fan of thematic army mixing), i understand that it's nigh impossible to balance... so i just asked the people i playgroup "hey it's fine if i bring 500 points of tyranids when i play GSC, right" and no one had an issue with it. GW don't need to be the be-all-end-all of rules if it's not happening in a tournament

Exactly. Whilst there is always a core of people who will never deviate from the rules; nothing stops you doing your own thing. Indeed its why GW's "3 modes of play" has always seemed rather daft to me because "open play" is basically just "do whatever you want" which I don't need a company to tell me that I can do that. I can just, do that.

Granted I'm open to GW proposing ideas for people and feel that they could do more on that front to give Open Play some more concepts and ideas for people to latch onto.

i think it's a good idea to label open play as being a distinct thing, even if it's just "do whatever you want." coming from magic, the devs of that game have talked extensively about how they struggle to get established players (ie, people like you or i) to accept "casual play conditions." even ways of playing that are specifically intended for casual play end up with a competitive mindset, so drawing a clear line and saying "here is where you do what you want" is still kinda necessary

i really like how AOS 3rd edition handled open play. it's a similar "do whatever you want" format but it has a small mission generator as the main thing, so you can use that to get a hang of the rules or use it as a jumping off point as you play more games. i think that's as much support as open play will ever need

Well, there are some mixed faction rules already available:

Agents of the Imperium in Imperium Armies

Chaos Daemons in Chaos Armies (except Chaos Knights)

Chaos Knights in Chaos Armies

Imperial Knights in Imperium Armies

I therefore could certainly see the possibility that GW might bring back wider ally rules at some point. I would expect it would follow similar guidelines to those above: Points Limits; Unit selection limits; No detachment; No Army Rule for the Allied units.

 alextroy wrote:
Well, there are some mixed faction rules already available:

Agents of the Imperium in Imperium Armies

Chaos Daemons in Chaos Armies (except Chaos Knights)

Chaos Knights in Chaos Armies

Imperial Knights in Imperium Armies

I therefore could certainly see the possibility that GW might bring back wider ally rules at some point. I would expect it would follow similar guidelines to those above: Points Limits; Unit selection limits; No detachment; No Army Rule for the Allied units.

Chaos Daemons are allowed with chaos knights?

Dudeface wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Well, there are some mixed faction rules already available:

Agents of the Imperium in Imperium Armies

Chaos Daemons in Chaos Armies (except Chaos Knights)

Chaos Knights in Chaos Armies

Imperial Knights in Imperium Armies

I therefore could certainly see the possibility that GW might bring back wider ally rules at some point. I would expect it would follow similar guidelines to those above: Points Limits; Unit selection limits; No detachment; No Army Rule for the Allied units.

Chaos Daemons are allowed with chaos knights?

yup! if you need foot troops in chknights, that's your option. it's similar to how vanilla knights get to take the various agents infantry options

 Overread wrote:

Meanwhile Xenos forces are at the opposite end of the tier with armies like Tyranids basically down to one allied force (and historically they didn't even have the Genestealer Cults until fairly recently).

Minor point, but Genestealer Cults were a part of early 40k. They introduced in RT, and were actually included in the 2nd ed Tyranid codex, and had a Citadel Journal list in 3rd ed.

In Rogue Trader, they could be possessed by daemons as well. I believe Genestealer Cults could be taken alongside chaos cultists, daemons etc.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Overread wrote:

Meanwhile Xenos forces are at the opposite end of the tier with armies like Tyranids basically down to one allied force (and historically they didn't even have the Genestealer Cults until fairly recently).

Minor point, but Genestealer Cults were a part of early 40k. They introduced in RT, and were actually included in the 2nd ed Tyranid codex, and had a Citadel Journal list in 3rd ed.

In Rogue Trader, they could be possessed by daemons as well. I believe Genestealer Cults could be taken alongside chaos cultists, daemons etc.

True, but there was a very very long gap between 2nd ed and when the Cults returned with actual models in the setting.

Granted I came in at 3rd ed for the most part so Cults weren't really a thing until fairly recent times as an official supported army.




And still that just means Tyranids have 1 ally now whilst Imperials have multiple blocks of allied forces; SoB, Titans, Mechanicus, IG, Space Marines of various different Chapters each one with unique Chapter specific models and talents.

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.

 Overread wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Overread wrote:

Meanwhile Xenos forces are at the opposite end of the tier with armies like Tyranids basically down to one allied force (and historically they didn't even have the Genestealer Cults until fairly recently).

Minor point, but Genestealer Cults were a part of early 40k. They introduced in RT, and were actually included in the 2nd ed Tyranid codex, and had a Citadel Journal list in 3rd ed.

In Rogue Trader, they could be possessed by daemons as well. I believe Genestealer Cults could be taken alongside chaos cultists, daemons etc.

True, but there was a very very long gap between 2nd ed and when the Cults returned with actual models in the setting.

Granted I came in at 3rd ed for the most part so Cults weren't really a thing until fairly recent times as an official supported army.




And still that just means Tyranids have 1 ally now whilst Imperials have multiple blocks of allied forces; SoB, Titans, Mechanicus, IG, Space Marines of various different Chapters each one with unique Chapter specific models and talents.

Imo the difference in the number of ally-able factions should still be balance-able enough if GW re-adopted things like FOC, dropped the Rule of 3, and curtailed the number of bespoke rules.

We're obnoxiously still in a paradigm where Tyranids limited to taking three Tyrannofexes even when armed with different weapons, but of course a Predator with different weapons is two different datasheets with different bespoke rules, etc.

Like, it's doable. GW just won't do it.

Edit: Tyranids allying with Cults with Allied Guard could be a thing.

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.

This isn't a bad idea; in 9th, Torchbearer Fleets and Armies of Faith were Crusade only. And orders of Battle were organized around Imperium, Chaos, Tyranids, Aeldari, Necrons, Tau (and presumably, Leagues of Votann, who were added at the end of the edition). Similarly, Crusade was never subjected to the "only one subfaction an army" rule.

One issue that's been cited in the past is that not everyone who wants a "Narrative gaming experience" wants full-on Crusade. I think it would still be an option to play Crusade missions, even if you weren't going to use the progression system.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Imo the difference in the number of ally-able factions should still be balance-able enough if GW re-adopted things like FOC, dropped the Rule of 3, and curtailed the number of bespoke rules.

Counterpoint:
This is one of those areas where the different "detachment" rules could play into things. More on that at the end.

We're obnoxiously still in a paradigm where Tyranids limited to taking three Tyrannofexes even when armed with different weapons, but of course a Predator with different weapons is two different datasheets with different bespoke rules, etc.

Like, it's doable. GW just won't do it.

They didn't do it for AdMech either. Onagers have a whole raft of options and were something that went from being a squadron to singles and basically neutered by Ro3.

Edit: Tyranids allying with Cults with Allied Guard could be a thing.

Hard disagree.

They did a really good job with their Warhammer+ short for Hammer and Bolter, "A New Life" showcasing how the far, far more human members of the GSC actively flee Tyranid warzones. How when the Tyranids arrive? They're basically at a point where the GSC has ceased to exist as a fighting force but has almost gone dormant and returned to being a subversive cult/philosophy. The organisms that were coming into contact with and almost herding/shepherding the cultists in their attempt to flee were all vanguard organisms. Gargoyles, Lictors, and Genestealers all kept attacking the Guard forces, causing panic and the civilian they were hiding amongst to flee en masse.

Could you imagine if, say, GSC were able to take a Vanguard Detachment in addition to their regular detachment? With the requirements that the Vanguard Detachment only feature Lictors(any), Gargoyles, and Genestealers?

I'm way against "allied Guard" being a thing for GSC, but I've said my piece on that before. Just put some of the units into the book and effectively treat them like how Scions are for Guard proper.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Edit: Tyranids allying with Cults with Allied Guard could be a thing.

Hard disagree.

They did a really good job with their Warhammer+ short for Hammer and Bolter, "A New Life" showcasing how the far, far more human members of the GSC actively flee Tyranid warzones. How when the Tyranids arrive? They're basically at a point where the GSC has ceased to exist as a fighting force but has almost gone dormant and returned to being a subversive cult/philosophy. The organisms that were coming into contact with and almost herding/shepherding the cultists in their attempt to flee were all vanguard organisms. Gargoyles, Lictors, and Genestealers all kept attacking the Guard forces, causing panic and the civilian they were hiding amongst to flee en masse.

Could you imagine if, say, GSC were able to take a Vanguard Detachment in addition to their regular detachment? With the requirements that the Vanguard Detachment only feature Lictors(any), Gargoyles, and Genestealers?

I'm way against "allied Guard" being a thing for GSC, but I've said my piece on that before. Just put some of the units into the book and effectively treat them like how Scions are for Guard proper.

I think "lore wise" the Genestealer Cults using Imperial Guard weapons or even infiltrating the Guard on a world/system is 100% part of the setting and should be. It's exactly what a really well established Cult would do. Infiltrate the local armed forces; take them over and then cripple them from within. It's perfect Genestealer Cult activity.


That said as a tabletop army I feel that the Cult is stronger having its own unique visual identity and set of models. When they started up again and were a few cult models and then mostly IG with a few icons on tanks it was ok, but they didn't really stand out from just being another Imperial Army. When they got a second wave of models and the core of the army was revolutionary miners and such - then they became far more interesting because they were different. They would do different things on the table; looking, playing and being different.


As for the actions of the Cult when Tyranids arrive, my impression is that the response of the cult is not uniform. Don't forget the Cult itself is not uniform - there are those who are going to be in the Cult because their parents were Cultists and its just what you do; for fear; safety; political change; because they are infested with lots of Genestealer genetics and so forth. There are layers to the Cult and some of those layers will be horrified by the Tyranids and will fight against them; some will want to run up to hug them; others will embrace them as the true rulers etc...
The Tyranids are also shown to vary behaviour too. If the world is putting up hard resistance then the Swarm would likely keep the Cult alive; functional and another weapon of war in the battle. So you could well see an advanced block of higher ranking/die hard cultists working alongside Tyranids. Right up until the battle is won and the Cultists are herded into the digestion pools as well (whether they want to or not!)

 Overread wrote:


I think "lore wise" the Genestealer Cults using Imperial Guard weapons or even infiltrating the Guard on a world/system is 100% part of the setting and should be. It's exactly what a really well established Cult would do. Infiltrate the local armed forces; take them over and then cripple them from within. It's perfect Genestealer Cult activity.

Previously it was Planetary Defence Forces that were subject to that infiltration. Because THAT is the "local armed forces" that would be subject to infiltration.

Them having stolen weapons or whatever is fine. Them infiltrating the Guard to the point where they get every single thing isn't. It becomes disillusioning, from my viewpoint as a Guard player, to have the faction portrayed as being so inept that they get mind-controlled every which way.

That said as a tabletop army I feel that the Cult is stronger having its own unique visual identity and set of models. When they started up again and were a few cult models and then mostly IG with a few icons on tanks it was ok, but they didn't really stand out from just being another Imperial Army. When they got a second wave of models and the core of the army was revolutionary miners and such - then they became far more interesting because they were different. They would do different things on the table; looking, playing and being different.

The revolutionary miners were there from the rerelease. The second wave was the fragdrill, the Atalan bikers, the Biophagus, the Sanctus assassin, the gunslinger Kellermorph, the Nexos & Clamavus, the bodyguard Locus, and the alternate Magus. I think that the Achilles Ridgerunner also came in this wave.

It's important to note as well that when first reintroduced to the game in late 7th edition? They had a very limited selection of Guard things...but it made sense as those were things you might see in a Planetary Defence Force's arsenal. Standard chassis Leman Russes, Chimeras, Sentinels, infantry squads, heavy weapon squads, and officers.

As for the actions of the Cult when Tyranids arrive, my impression is that the response of the cult is not uniform. Don't forget the Cult itself is not uniform - there are those who are going to be in the Cult because their parents were Cultists and its just what you do; for fear; safety; political change; because they are infested with lots of Genestealer genetics and so forth. There are layers to the Cult and some of those layers will be horrified by the Tyranids and will fight against them; some will want to run up to hug them; others will embrace them as the true rulers etc...
The Tyranids are also shown to vary behaviour too. If the world is putting up hard resistance then the Swarm would likely keep the Cult alive; functional and another weapon of war in the battle. So you could well see an advanced block of higher ranking/die hard cultists working alongside Tyranids. Right up until the battle is won and the Cultists are herded into the digestion pools as well (whether they want to or not!)

Don't forget that I specifically mentioned the "more human looking elements". Things like the Acolyte Hybrids, Kellermorphs, etc don't easily pass for human...and would likely be the things actually still around.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Overread wrote:


I think "lore wise" the Genestealer Cults using Imperial Guard weapons or even infiltrating the Guard on a world/system is 100% part of the setting and should be. It's exactly what a really well established Cult would do. Infiltrate the local armed forces; take them over and then cripple them from within. It's perfect Genestealer Cult activity.

Previously it was Planetary Defence Forces that were subject to that infiltration. Because THAT is the "local armed forces" that would be subject to infiltration.

Them having stolen weapons or whatever is fine. Them infiltrating the Guard to the point where they get every single thing isn't. It becomes disillusioning, from my viewpoint as a Guard player, to have the faction portrayed as being so inept that they get mind-controlled every which way.

I think its important to remember that the Cults aren't quick. Their infiltration can take generations.
They can even mature to taking over a whole world or system and if the Imperial boot or the Tyranid swarm doesn't come to stop them - then they keep going.


So its less that the army is inept and more that the Cult just grows and grows and grows until any one recruited into the PDF and then into the Guard in that region are going to be cult members from a cult family. Sure many of them might be low ranking, but you get a few low ranking individuals who promote up and suddenly you've got power and influence to approve more "cult" members into the IG because they are your brothers and you want your brothers to do well etc....


Plus don't forget they won't call themselves a Genestealer Cult; chances are they'll be modelled after some form of Imperial Cult. "The 4 Armed Emperor" or something like that. So any outside higher ranking officials might just view it as this world/system's local take on the Imperial Religion and think little of it.

It should stay dead.

In mtg they unbanned some cards on the modern banlist. Thinking it was safe. One of them turned out it was not safe at all. Some months later it got banned. The other cars that where not to good did not have any impact as it was not played.

Let me translate that into Warhammer : Either allies turns out to be very bad and nobody uses it. We can see this in GSC. They can take imperial allies. But since all of them needs IG stratagems or orders to function - witch they do not get, it is very bad and nobody takes it. Allied Knights, and now allied daemons fall into this category.

If how ever it is too good, every one takes it. And it takes a a few month to a year before GW has ro nerf it to the point where it is not to good. The best example of this was probably 6th edition. But 8th edition was also great. All imperial lists started with a castellan, 32 imperial gaurd and 3 blood angel captains with thunder hammer before you started building the rest of your list.

I think several armies would be very interested in having a calidus Assassin in their army if they could. (Or the old blue scribe before the last patch.) So it is not really working as intended now.

We use mixing quite a lot in our group, it works very well with house rules we use.
Admittedly we all play strictly narrative. Creating missions that suit the stories we build. Most of us come from RPG background so that helps.
I can't help thinking that if you give it to GW rules writers they'll immediately think about tournaments and make a total mess of it.
Different editions don't make much difference to us as we add any bits we like and ignore the rest.
I find it very enjoyable to be in a collaborative group, it makes narrative much more fun.
It's not only 40k we do this with. It happens with AOS, LI, HH, and Flames of war among others.
A lot of gamers like to rigidly stick to the rules and if that works for them then brilliant. It doesn't work for us, we realised instead of it making us moan and ruining our enjoyment we could do something about it.
After all GW through the years has said it's YOUR hobby and if you don't like something then change it. I understand this could create problems with tournaments but the organisers could put changes in their tournament packs, it's an option although I'm not saying it's a good or bad option.

 Overread wrote:

I think its important to remember that the Cults aren't quick. Their infiltration can take generations.
They can even mature to taking over a whole world or system and if the Imperial boot or the Tyranid swarm doesn't come to stop them - then they keep going.

And this is where the narrative elements of the Cult fall apart when discussing the Guard.
Infiltration is fine. A few individuals slipping through the cracks or being subtly replaced is one thing. Them getting to the point where they have effectively created their own regiment of Brood Brothers?

That's going to have raised red flags somewhere, somewhen.


Genestealer Cults aren't Hydra. They're not simply an ideology. It's a corruption of the flesh and mind. Them being so heavily infiltrated and sown throughout the Imperium's apparatus for recruitment for the Guard would require luck hitting just right.
To sum it up best?
It's not unpossible, it's just basically unpossible.

So its less that the army is inept and more that the Cult just grows and grows and grows until any one recruited into the PDF

Important to note that PDF has effectively a different "command structure". PDFs are the planetary governors' responsibility.

and then into the Guard in that region are going to be cult members from a cult family. Sure many of them might be low ranking, but you get a few low ranking individuals who promote up and suddenly you've got power and influence to approve more "cult" members into the IG because they are your brothers and you want your brothers to do well etc....

Yes, you'll have members into the Guard. Not running it.

Plus don't forget they won't call themselves a Genestealer Cult; chances are they'll be modelled after some form of Imperial Cult. "The 4 Armed Emperor" or something like that. So any outside higher ranking officials might just view it as this world/system's local take on the Imperial Religion and think little of it.

Except the Inquisition literally has catalogued the names of several of the most notable cult "strains". It's knowledge that's apparently widespread enough that Arbites know to look for it, and some of the strains are known by name by the Guard's intelligence apparatus.

Don't forget the Cult isn't all genetic abnormalities. They will still recruit many to their cause who are not genetically altered; or altered so far as to be abnormal for a given human population of the Imperium. They'd be the ones that the Cult would seek to have join major institutions and groups. Wait and bide their time whilst doing their best to help and aid them to advance up the ranks until they can pull key positions that let them slip in.

It's one thing to test for "known strains" but what do you do when the doctors performing the tests were infiltrated a generation ago and now one of the more the low level techs are submitting fake results? Helping other members of their cult pass the tests to sneak in?


Yes many times they will be caught, but sometimes they won't and now they can steadily spread.



It's very much the same kind of thing that Chaos Cults will do as well.

For every tool the Imperium and Inquisition have to keep the Cults out, the Cults have a tool to break in. It's a constant arms race no one wins and its a live war not a cold war. So there are worlds that fall and worlds that don't.

PenitentJake wrote:

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.

This isn't a bad idea; in 9th, Torchbearer Fleets and Armies of Faith were Crusade only. And orders of Battle were organized around Imperium, Chaos, Tyranids, Aeldari, Necrons, Tau (and presumably, Leagues of Votann, who were added at the end of the edition). Similarly, Crusade was never subjected to the "only one subfaction an army" rule.

One issue that's been cited in the past is that not everyone who wants a "Narrative gaming experience" wants full-on Crusade. I think it would still be an option to play Crusade missions, even if you weren't going to use the progression system.

I like to think of it as Narrative layers, crusade can be there end or one of there ends for narrative play. With missions, army lists and environments being closer to a pick and choose.
There is just so many lists that should be doable from the base game for narrative gaming, that should be effectively no go for competitive.

Two points:

1. From a wargame perspective, the planetary defense force may as well be the Imperial Guard. The path of least effort is going to be for a planet to use the same local forces as it tithes off, after all.

The difference in command structure isn't going to make a revolutionary change in what they've got. So you're arguing over "The GSC can take Guard Allies" vs. "For the sake of expediency, assume the PDF units have the same profiles as Guard Units."

2. From everyone else's perspective, the Imperial Guard are the red shirts. Yeah, you're getting infiltrated.