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:

 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.

Your argument, as near as I can see, was that it was fine for one army to take what units it wants from another (without regard to rarity in-lore) because the unit was common on the tabletop. Your question was, why does Army A get a rare thing but Army B does not get a less rare thing. The answer, of course, is the answer to my first question in that post - Army A is not Army B. Different armies treat unit availability differently because that's a big part of what it means to be a different army. GSC canonically infiltrating Guard units does not mean that they automatically get all the same units as Guard. That's why GSC don't get access to Guard aircraft, despite aircraft being orders of magnitude more common than superheavies.

As for lore, it supports a great many things that do not currently exist in the game. Last I checked, Orks lost the old Looted Unit rules that allowed them to take other faction's vehicles [note: I misremembered this one a bit - seems like it only applied to Imperial factions, where I thought it had applied to more]. T'au don't get Gue'vasa. Chaos don't get Dark AdMech. As I said, I'm fine with GSC having access to the more common Guard options. However, I don't see any justification for allowing GSC to uniquely have access to the rare units of other codices - if this is something GSC get, then let it be something that everyone can get, because for any GSC story that justifies a GSC Baneblade there's one that justifies Looted or Corrupted Baneblades as well.

Dudeface wrote:
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.

Yes - this example sort of demonstrates why the idea is kind of stupid.

Admittedly, you could argue this sort of policing could then apply to a range of possible mono-faction armies that don't feel remotely like forces that would exist in the fluff*. But I think you can draw the line here at least.

*I've sort of got over it now, but that was definitely an issue for me when 10th began, and it puts me off AoS.

PenitentJake wrote:

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.

give it time until the Agents codex comes out. I doubt it's going to have a lot of detachments, but it's still probably going to have something like, one RT detachment, one assassin detachment, and then one or possibly more inquisitor detachments (especially since the rumor about army boxes makes it sound like inquisitors will be the focus)

Wow, the sheer mental back flips to deny the existence is narrative play as a legit form of play is astounding. The only time this happened in the past was when part of the player base tried to change another part of the "lore" and insist that Space King was NOT in fact, the lore accurate depiction of how Space Marines are made, and that a whole other half the population could also do it.

Again, deep breaths, I am not saying this will be perfectly balanced, and this game has NEVER been and never will be perfectly balanced. Only Chess and Checkers are, becuase those are co-equal. The only way to make 40k Co-equal is to take the walls off, and let anyone take anything they want.

Again, not striving for balance though. Just trying to ask if such an idea would ever be "fun" to play as? An Inquisitor in charge of an Ork Waahhh taking on a Tau Ethereral backed up by their purchased mercenary allies of Dark Eldar and Harlequins.

 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.

That's the opposite of what I thought the intent was when the allies chart appeared in 6th edition. I thought the goal was to get people to start new armies by letting them build a small force and use it right away with their existing army. That way they didn't have to build out a whole 2000 points before getting to play with them. Apocalypse gave players reasons to expand existing armies and allies gave them reasons to start new ones.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


Again, not striving for balance though. Just trying to ask if such an idea would ever be "fun" to play as?

That answer, depending upon who you play with, is "YES".

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Wow, the sheer mental back flips to deny the existence is narrative play as a legit form of play is astounding. The only time this happened in the past was when part of the player base tried to change another part of the "lore" and insist that Space King was NOT in fact, the lore accurate depiction of how Space Marines are made, and that a whole other half the population could also do it.

Again, deep breaths, I am not saying this will be perfectly balanced, and this game has NEVER been and never will be perfectly balanced. Only Chess and Checkers are, becuase those are co-equal. The only way to make 40k Co-equal is to take the walls off, and let anyone take anything they want.

Again, not striving for balance though. Just trying to ask if such an idea would ever be "fun" to play as? An Inquisitor in charge of an Ork Waahhh taking on a Tau Ethereral backed up by their purchased mercenary allies of Dark Eldar and Harlequins.

Nobody is denying it's existence, nobody is saying not to do it. What I'm questioning is why you're here asking for "do whatever the feth I want" to be codified in the rules if you acknowledge narrative play and players already exist for you to hang with and spin your yarns.

It doesn't add to what you can do now and won't change anything, either someone finds it fun and reasonable or they don't. The premise given in your opening post was that you couldn't see a reason to restrict random allies and units ganging together now and to give you a reason why you might be wrong - game balance and setting integrity. You don't consider the actual reasons a valid seemingly, so why bother making a thread with that premise?

If you'd created a thread with "Anyone playing house rules with allied forces outside of those prescribed by GW?" or something to that extend you'd probably had a different reaction.

FezzikDaBullgryn 813185 11647711 wrote:
Again, not striving for balance though. Just trying to ask if such an idea would ever be "fun" to play as? An Inquisitor in charge of an Ork Waahhh taking on a Tau Ethereral backed up by their purchased mercenary allies of Dark Eldar and Harlequins.

Puting matched played, the majority of how people play, on the altar of some narrative player having fun, which is a big maybe.

 waefre_1 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 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.

Your argument, as near as I can see, was that it was fine for one army to take what units it wants from another (without regard to rarity in-lore) because the unit was common on the tabletop. Your question was, why does Army A get a rare thing but Army B does not get a less rare thing. The answer, of course, is the answer to my first question in that post - Army A is not Army B. Different armies treat unit availability differently because that's a big part of what it means to be a different army. GSC canonically infiltrating Guard units does not mean that they automatically get all the same units as Guard. That's why GSC don't get access to Guard aircraft, despite aircraft being orders of magnitude more common than superheavies.

As for lore, it supports a great many things that do not currently exist in the game. Last I checked, Orks lost the old Looted Unit rules that allowed them to take other faction's vehicles [note: I misremembered this one a bit - seems like it only applied to Imperial factions, where I thought it had applied to more]. T'au don't get Gue'vasa. Chaos don't get Dark AdMech. As I said, I'm fine with GSC having access to the more common Guard options. However, I don't see any justification for allowing GSC to uniquely have access to the rare units of other codices - if this is something GSC get, then let it be something that everyone can get, because for any GSC story that justifies a GSC Baneblade there's one that justifies Looted or Corrupted Baneblades as well.

That's a far more sensible argument than "Can Orks take Wraithknights?", because no, they obviously can't, and one of the reasons for that is based on lore. A point which you conveniently snipped from my post.

Re:
"Your argument, as near as I can see, was that it was fine for one army to take what units it wants from another (without regard to rarity in-lore) because the unit was common on the tabletop."
I would say no, not without regard to rarity in lore, because I've previously implied that GSC shouldn't get access to every unit available to the other army. Some Superheavies are rarer than others, and I never argued that GSC should have access to all of them.

My argument is that "rarity' is clearly not binary, and is more of a sliding scale for determining appropriateness. Rare units obviously show up all the time on the tabletop regardless of their rarity in lore.

Likewise "Different armies get different things" is siimilar. It's just a sliding scale.

Where the lines are drawn is ultimately pretty arbitrary. And yeah, if Baneblades are available for GSC, it'd be great if they were available for Chaos Renegade forces too. That'd be awesome.

It's so wierd that "bane blades" are the line we don't cross. Like, it makes waaaay more sense for GSC to be able to infiltrate and steal a BB than say, sneak a bio-titan onto a planet, but hey, it happens in the fluff. GSC should have free reign to anything barring unique character units in the Guard codex. Fluff be damned. Same with traitor guard. There is far more precedent for Traitors actually getting their hands on Baneblades and knights, etc. If Chaos has Titans, they must be able to steal a Baneblade or two.

I'd be also willing to give the Orks a Knight class titan that isn't a complete waste of plastic and points. If memory serves (haven't looked at an Ork book since 8th, the Gargant, Stompa, and like models were all 500-1000 point list breakers that were literally useless? Why not give them a 300-500 point Super heavy that isn't? A Scrap knight. Or a really REALLY big NOB.

The way I handle rarity is via narrative gaming.

GSC want a Baneblade?

Fight one, Kill it, steal it and rebuild it. It may be a rare thing, but you faced it, killed it and stole it, so rarity is irrelevant.

And Chaos Renegades/ Traitor Guard? If you can find it, kill it, steal it, and fix it- it's yours.

Arbitrary limits are for suckas- narrative is king.

Orks do seem to get consistently shafted for Superheavies, don't they? :(

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
GSC should have free reign to anything barring unique character units in the Guard codex. Fluff be damned. Same with traitor guard. There is far more precedent for Traitors actually getting their hands on Baneblades and knights, etc. If Chaos has Titans, they must be able to steal a Baneblade or two.

So if GSC is GSC+Guard, why would anyone ever play just Guard?

 Arschbombe wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
GSC should have free reign to anything barring unique character units in the Guard codex. Fluff be damned. Same with traitor guard. There is far more precedent for Traitors actually getting their hands on Baneblades and knights, etc. If Chaos has Titans, they must be able to steal a Baneblade or two.

So if GSC is GSC+Guard, why would anyone ever play just Guard?

because the two armies play radically different. GSC don't get orders, and have their army rules to be playing with. Genestealers' army rule concerns GSC units coming back after being destroyed, which doesn't affect BB. whereas if you're playing guard, you get orders and different stratagems. armies are more than just their datasheets, and their rules are going to go a long way to shaping how armies play. GSC is historically a gamey army that requires a lot of strategy and foreplanning to make the best use of your units, while guard can play more straightforwardly. genestealers are a finesse army that appeals to a specific kind of person, while guard has its own different appeal, and these may overlap, but most guard players would not be happy with FSC rules


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also in terms of gameplay in 10th edition a GSC army taking a baneblade is going to take most if not all of its available brood brothers points. it's not strategically viable to take it because it's just too costly lol. a couple of leman russes are going to do the job better and those are dime a dozen

I'm not going to lie, that's like say if BA and DA are both Space Marines, why not just play Ultra Marines? They are COMPLETELY Different. Guard don't have Ambush tactics or whatever, explosive traps (except Sly Marbo) and all the GSC Shenanigans. Seriously man...

Also, some people like all human armies and other people like mostly alien armies. People DO make choices about their collections based on aesthetic preferences, background and fluff preferences etc.

And depending on the implementation, it is not "Both armies at once, mix as you like", but "Pick a primary and add a limited amount of the other".

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It's so wierd that "bane blades" are the line we don't cross. Like, it makes waaaay more sense for GSC to be able to infiltrate and steal a BB than say, sneak a bio-titan onto a planet, but hey, it happens in the fluff. GSC should have free reign to anything barring unique character units in the Guard codex. Fluff be damned. Same with traitor guard. There is far more precedent for Traitors actually getting their hands on Baneblades and knights, etc. If Chaos has Titans, they must be able to steal a Baneblade or two.

I'd be also willing to give the Orks a Knight class titan that isn't a complete waste of plastic and points. If memory serves (haven't looked at an Ork book since 8th, the Gargant, Stompa, and like models were all 500-1000 point list breakers that were literally useless? Why not give them a 300-500 point Super heavy that isn't? A Scrap knight. Or a really REALLY big NOB.

Even beyond stealing it, they have their own from 10,000 years ago.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'm not going to lie, that's like say if BA and DA are both Space Marines, why not just play Ultra Marines?

People make that argument around here all the time. There's even a thread in Background talking about that now. There's usually two facets to the argument. One is about perceived fairness between Marines and all the other factions. The other is about fairness amongst the Marine chapters themselves i.e. if you make White Scars the special bikes chapter then you've made all the other chapters bad at bikes.

They are COMPLETELY Different. Guard don't have Ambush tactics or whatever, explosive traps (except Sly Marbo) and all the GSC Shenanigans. Seriously man...

Ok. Whatever. I'm just talking about datasheets. GSC get 22. Guard have 61. If you make it so GSC has access to all of the Guard datasheets then GSC has 83. This probably the exact reason for the Blood Brothers rules now.

 Arschbombe wrote:
i.e. if you make White Scars the special bikes chapter then you've made all the other chapters bad at bikes.

I know you're just pointing out the existance of the phenomenon and not necessarily endorsing it, so I'm not calling you out specifically... But feth I hate this attitude.

The second fastest runner in the world is not slow; the team that lost the superbowl does not suck.

Why does every warhammer player in 2024 have to believe that only the best unit that performs a given role is good?

 Arschbombe wrote:

They are COMPLETELY Different. Guard don't have Ambush tactics or whatever, explosive traps (except Sly Marbo) and all the GSC Shenanigans. Seriously man...

Ok. Whatever. I'm just talking about datasheets. GSC get 22. Guard have 61. If you make it so GSC has access to all of the Guard datasheets then GSC has 83. This probably the exact reason for the Blood Brothers rules now.

armies don't exist in a void. no one wants to play an army without rules— just look at DG or Votann from early 10th! it doesn't matter how many datasheets they share because they two will play differently, and since this is a game, the way something plays will matter. for example, i asked my girlfriend about this, since she plays guard, and she confirmed that she would never want to play GSC. the aesthetic is too different from what she likes out of guard, and the gameplay is completely different. the "guard players might as well just play GSC and get more options" take is laughable because it ignores anything about how people actually interact with warhammer. this isn't a game about winning, and if it was, nobody would play guard in the first place! nobody would play GSC either! both these armies have their moments, but you're always going to have a better winrate with other armies

basically, you're arguing a point that really only matters in the specific circumstance of this thread, which is totally irrelevant to how anyone really plays this game. warhammer is not a game of "strictly better". why is that the line we're drawing

PenitentJake wrote:

I know you're just pointing out the existance of the phenomenon and not necessarily endorsing it, so I'm not calling you out specifically... But feth I hate this attitude.

I appreciate you making the distinction.

Why does every warhammer player in 2024 have to believe that only the best unit that performs a given role is good?

Best of the best of the best, sir!

Good question, but I think you know the answer. Competitive play + internet + group think + game design flaws = solved game. The best units are easily identified and celebrated. Coffee is for closers.

 Arschbombe wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

I know you're just pointing out the existance of the phenomenon and not necessarily endorsing it, so I'm not calling you out specifically... But feth I hate this attitude.

I appreciate you making the distinction.

Why does every warhammer player in 2024 have to believe that only the best unit that performs a given role is good?

Best of the best of the best, sir!

Good question, but I think you know the answer. Competitive play + internet + group think + game design flaws = solved game. The best units are easily identified and celebrated. Coffee is for closers.

Beyond that, if you really want to have a biker themed ultramarine force, it simply feels bad to know your choice makes you worse than a white scars player or whatever. It's not case of "having to have the best" so much as "why should I be worse for the sakes of it?"

Dudeface wrote:

Beyond that, if you really want to have a biker themed ultramarine force, it simply feels bad to know your choice makes you worse than a white scars player or whatever. It's not case of "having to have the best" so much as "why should I be worse for the sakes of it?"

I have added a lot of things to my army this addition that I always thought were cool, but I didn't have the right color scheme to be fun to play in past editions. Absolutely thrilled to see that gone.

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:

Ok. Whatever. I'm just talking about datasheets. GSC get 22. Guard have 61. If you make it so GSC has access to all of the Guard datasheets then GSC has 83. This probably the exact reason for the Brood Brothers rules now.

armies don't exist in a void. no one wants to play an army without rules— just look at DG or Votann from early 10th!

GSC have rules. Those rules allow you to take another army's models, with no real penalty. You can talk as much as you want about Orders but..."Leader" is a rule that was added into the game. I've seen a few lists where it's a blob of 20 Cadians with a Castellan and Command Squad thrown in, to maximize the fact that both have Leader traits.

it doesn't matter how many datasheets they share because they two will play differently, and since this is a game, the way something plays will matter.

If you truly believed that, then you'd have no problems with Brood Brothers being a selection of units being present in your actual codex and being something that could be used to bulk out a force rather than a gap plugger.

Instead, you've constantly argued that you should 100% be allowed to take anything and everything from the Guard book because "tHeY dOn'T gEt OrDeRs!1!" and it "FiTs tHe LoRe!1!".

You know what else would fit the lore? Your "armor" being a 6+ save while Cadians are a 4+, Neophytes having a flat 5+ BS if highly-trained Cadians are supposed to be 4+s

for example, i asked my girlfriend about this, since she plays guard, and she confirmed that she would never want to play GSC.

That's great, I guess? It's also an anecdote.

Here's another anecdote:
I've played Guard since I got into 40k. I've seen my army carved apart, with elements effectively given over to other armies. Then GSC come back and get Brood Brothers in the codex--perfectly fine! I loved it; it felt fluffy and appropriate.
Cut to now, when Guard finally get their own flavor back at the end of 9E and Brood Brothers just get to take whatever the feth they want.

While that might feel fluffy or appropriate to you, it isn't something that sits well with myself as a longtime Guard player. It's a crutch for GSC and it's lazy. What's even lazier is the mental gymnastics done to justify things like Kasrkin, Death Riders, Attillan Rough Riders in there while praising the things(Commissars, Ogryn, Tempestus, Techpriests, Ratlings) left out...despite the lore supporting those things being present more because of the insular nature of those elements.

the aesthetic is too different from what she likes out of guard,and the gameplay is completely different

lol, you literally copy-pasted the statlines trying to show how they're the same 3 days ago...now "the gameplay and aesthetic is too different"?

Make up your mind!

the "guard players might as well just play GSC and get more options" take is laughable because it ignores anything about how people actually interact with warhammer. this isn't a game about winning, and if it was, nobody would play guard in the first place! nobody would play GSC either! both these armies have their moments, but you're always going to have a better winrate with other armies.

basically, you're arguing a point that really only matters in the specific circumstance of this thread, which is totally irrelevant to how anyone really plays this game. warhammer is not a game of "strictly better". why is that the line we're drawing

...I don't know how to reply other than "wooooooooooooow".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

Beyond that, if you really want to have a biker themed ultramarine force, it simply feels bad to know your choice makes you worse than a white scars player or whatever. It's not case of "having to have the best" so much as "why should I be worse for the sakes of it?"

Counterpoint:
If you really want to have a biker themed White Scars force, why should you be worse just so that someone else is getting to run an Ultramarines force at your same level?

The idea of "why should I be worse for the sakes of it?" is great and all, but it presumes everyone is starting from the same starting point. They're not. White Scars don't have but a single character for their faction keyword while Ultramarines are sitting on quite a few.

In an ideal world, in the context of the Marines books there would be something making it so that White Scars got a bonus using specific Detachments(Vanguard and Stormlance) while Ultramarines got something making it so that they got a bonus while using 1st Company and Gladius, Fists got something for Anvil & Firestorm, etc.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Counterpoint:
If you really want to have a biker themed White Scars force, why should you be worse just so that someone else is getting to run an Ultramarines force at your same level?

The idea of "why should I be worse for the sakes of it?" is great and all, but it presumes everyone is starting from the same starting point. They're not. White Scars don't have but a single character for their faction keyword while Ultramarines are sitting on quite a few.

In an ideal world, in the context of the Marines books there would be something making it so that White Scars got a bonus using specific Detachments(Vanguard and Stormlance) while Ultramarines got something making it so that they got a bonus while using 1st Company and Gladius, Fists got something for Anvil & Firestorm, etc.

Nope, there is no reason ultramarines terminators/1st company are better than dark angels, Blood Angels or raven guard etc. The number of characters a chapter has is irrelevant to the base rules. White Scars aren't "worse" if everyone else is on an even playing field, it just means they aren't being punished for not taking bikes any more.

I'd really love it if my BA could share their secrets of going all VEGETA on their opponents in Melee. Or Salamanders giving out classes on how to properly BBQ? I mean, it's silly that one subfaction punches people A LOT HARDER.

Dudeface wrote:

Nope, there is no reason ultramarines terminators/1st company are better than dark angels, Blood Angels or raven guard etc. The number of characters a chapter has is irrelevant to the base rules. White Scars aren't "worse" if everyone else is on an even playing field, it just means they aren't being punished for not taking bikes any more.

You'll notice that I didn't say "the bonus has to be to their rules"?

It's as easy as "If your subfaction is Ultramarines, a First Company detachment takes Sternguard Veterans as Battleline".

 Kanluwen wrote:


GSC have rules. Those rules allow you to take another army's models, with no real penalty. You can talk as much as you want about Orders but..."Leader" is a rule that was added into the game. I've seen a few lists where it's a blob of 20 Cadians with a Castellan and Command Squad thrown in, to maximize the fact that both have Leader traits.

Yes, the troops will benefit from the leader abilities of both the Castellan and the Command Squad... But not a single one of those three units will be able to have an enhancement or use a strat, nor will any of them have a detachment ability.

You've been told again and again and again... It ain't just Orders that brood brothers lose. They also don't benefit from the GSC detachment rule, and they can't benefit from any strats (be they guard or GSC) or enhancements (be they guard or GSC).

You need to acknowledge the signifcance of that nerf and stop pretending that "not having Orders" is BB's only disadvantage.

Yes, I can include a castellan, a command squad and 20 infantry from the guard... But in terms of actual game play, I'd be far, far better off to spend those points on accolytes and a Magus or some other GSC character, because if I did, they'd get a detachment rule, the ability to take enhancements and the ability to use strats.

Given that fact, if you see me including BB DESPITE these numerous and varied disadvantages, it's a pretty safe assumption that I'm doing it for lore reasons, or fighting style or aesthetic preferences.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Instead, you've constantly argued that you should 100% be allowed to take anything and everything from the Guard book

This is fair- some of us are arguing that their should be fewer restrictions than there are, and I'm not sure loosening those would be great for the game either, although perhaps loosening them for narrative only is a decent compromise.

 Kanluwen wrote:

because "tHeY dOn'T gEt OrDeRs!1!"

While some people in this thread may be referencing ONLY this disadventage, and while some people (yourself included) might be using that as shorthand for "all of the disadvantages that brood brothers have," you can see my response above for a more accurate picture of the actual disadvantages... And even my list above is incomplete, because we also have point restrictions (25%), AND some unit restrictions.

 Kanluwen wrote:

You know what else would fit the lore? Your "armor" being a 6+ save while Cadians are a 4+, Neophytes having a flat 5+ BS if highly-trained Cadians are supposed to be 4+s

No, that actually doesn't fit the lore. The lore is that if a purestrain does an implant attack, the one who is implanted becomes a member of the cult. If I implant a Cadian, that Cadian joins me. He doesn't say "Oh, first I'm going to forget my firearmes training, then I'm going to take off my armour, then I'm going to join you."

And as I mentioned above, while it's not what everyone does, I am growing a cult from nothing but two broods of purestrains. What I impant and what I breed is what gets to join my cult. I can have a unit of BB once I implant 10. If any of them sit out for two games, I can add a single Neophyte to my roster.

If the humans I implant are Krieg, that's what I get. If they are Imperial citizens (Threshers), I use counts as Infantry squad and Necromunda models. And yes, if I implant a Castellan, I can include him too.

THAT'S narrative.

 Kanluwen wrote:

It's a crutch for GSC and it's lazy.

It is kind of a crutch for the GSC, because as explained above, even a great guard unit sucks in a GSC army compared to other GSC options by virtue of lacking detachment rules, enhancements or strats from either faction. But I don't know that I'd call it lazy either, because "use what you can capture" is the fluff, and I think these rules reflect that better than "All BB units will adopt this profile after being implanted, regardless of what their profile was prior to implantation."

 Kanluwen wrote:

What's even lazier is the mental gymnastics done to justify things like Kasrkin, Death Riders, Attillan Rough Riders in there while praising the things(Commissars, Ogryn, Tempestus, Techpriests, Ratlings) left out...despite the lore supporting those things being present more because of the insular nature of those elements.

Huh?

Something being more insular or less common does make it LESS likely to be captured/ subverted by the GSC, not MORE likely. Did I misinterpret what you've written?

In my case, I take all the common vs rare/ insular right out of it. If I don't implant or steal it in game, I don't use it. Giving access to some units and not others is GW's way of estimating what Cults are likely to be able to implant/ steal/ subvert. I just cut that out of the equation by insisting that the games I play determine my access. To me, that's what makes the Cult interesting.

And look, I could theoretically be okay with them adding some BB units to the dex... But if they do that, it no longer represents implant/ steal/ subvert as well as the system we currently have. If I manage to implant enough Kasrkin to build a 10 man BB unit, I don't want their stats and gear to change because it'll make you feel better. I actually fought the battles to recruit those dudes, and they aren't going to discard their gear before they cross the battle line for a rules abstraction in order to satisfy your need to feel like your units are only for you.

That would probably mean that you and I wouldn't want to play against each other, and you know what? That's fine. We're grown ups, and we're free to make those choices.

PenitentJake wrote:

Yes, the troops will benefit from the leader abilities of both the Castellan and the Command Squad... But not a single one of those three units will be able to have an enhancement or use a strat, nor will any of them have a detachment ability.

You've been told again and again and again... It ain't just Orders that brood brothers lose. They also don't benefit from the GSC detachment rule, and they can't benefit from any strats (be they guard or GSC) or enhancements (be they guard or GSC).

You need to acknowledge the signifcance of that nerf and stop pretending that "not having Orders" is BB's only disadvantage.

Yes, I can include a castellan, a command squad and 20 infantry from the guard... But in terms of actual game play, I'd be far, far better off to spend those points on accolytes and a Magus or some other GSC character, because if I did, they'd get a detachment rule, the ability to take enhancements and the ability to use strats.

Given that fact, if you see me including BB DESPITE these numerous and varied disadvantages, it's a pretty safe assumption that I'm doing it for lore reasons, or fighting style or aesthetic preferences.

And I'm calling nonsense, because like I said:
It's a popular enough choice that it's something I've seen multiple times. It's also under 25% of the allotment even at 1000 points. Don't pretend like it's something that's wildly burdensome.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Instead, you've constantly argued that you should 100% be allowed to take anything and everything from the Guard book

This is fair- some of us are arguing that their should be fewer restrictions than there are, and I'm not sure loosening those would be great for the game either, although perhaps loosening them for narrative only is a decent compromise.

Or we could just do away with the ability to dip into another codex's entirety and replace it with actual themed units! Sounds great to me.

After all, you want to be lore friendly right?

 Kanluwen wrote:

because "tHeY dOn'T gEt OrDeRs!1!"

While some people in this thread may be referencing ONLY this disadventage, and while some people (yourself included) might be using that as shorthand for "all of the disadvantages that brood brothers have," you can see my response above for a more accurate picture of the actual disadvantages... And even my list above is incomplete, because we also have point restrictions (25%), AND some unit restrictions.

Oh no, you don't get to pretend like there's "some unit restrictions". Go read what those unit restrictions are. Compare them to the units in the Guard roster.

Your "unit restrictions" are:
-No named heroes.
-No Militarum Tempestus or Commissars
-No Preachers
-No Ogryn or Ratlings
-No Techpriests

That still leaves you with FORTY-ONE UNITS to pick from, not counting FW. We're not talking about something like Knights or Imperial Agents here, where the "unit restrictions" amount to a handful of units. We're talking about 41 units. Even if we were to remove the named regimental units(Attilan, Cadians have 4, Catachan, and Death Korps)? You'd STILL be sitting at the ridiculous number of 34 distinctive unit entries.

 Kanluwen wrote:

You know what else would fit the lore? Your "armor" being a 6+ save while Cadians are a 4+, Neophytes having a flat 5+ BS if highly-trained Cadians are supposed to be 4+s

No, that actually doesn't fit the lore. The lore is that if a purestrain does an implant attack, the one who is implanted becomes a member of the cult.

This isn't correct. The implantation doesn't make them part of the cult but it does mean that their firstborn(and only the firstborn) child will be a hybrid.

If I implant a Cadian, that Cadian joins me. He doesn't say "Oh, first I'm going to forget my firearmes training, then I'm going to take off my armour, then I'm going to join you."

First off: the armour is because Cadians are actually wearing full Flak Armour. You're wearing a hardened mining suit. Don't pretend they're the same thing. (And for the record, I'm fine with DKoK & Catachans staying down a point of armor compared to Cadians as well.)
Second off, you've hypnotized them. There's an element of breaking the will there and no guarantee they keep their full faculties.

And as I mentioned above, while it's not what everyone does, I am growing a cult from nothing but two broods of purestrains. What I impant and what I breed is what gets to join my cult. I can have a unit of BB once I implant 10. If any of them sit out for two games, I can add a single Neophyte to my roster.

If the humans I implant are Krieg, that's what I get. If they are Imperial citizens (Threshers), I use counts as Infantry squad and Necromunda models. And yes, if I implant a Castellan, I can include him too.

THAT'S narrative.

Hypnotizing is how that's supposed to work, not "implants". This isn't Stargate, where your Genestealer drops a bug down someone's throat and turns them wriggly. The hypnotizing process is also supposed to be directly proportional to the presence of the Magi or Purestrains...meaning it can break based on distance or the slaying of the hypnotizer.

It is kind of a crutch for the GSC, because as explained above, even a great guard unit sucks in a GSC army compared to other GSC options by virtue of lacking detachment rules, enhancements or strats from either faction. But I don't know that I'd call it lazy either, because "use what you can capture" is the fluff, and I think these rules reflect that better than "All BB units will adopt this profile after being implanted, regardless of what their profile was prior to implantation."

I mean, if you want to get really into the nittygritty of it? Again: you aren't the Goa'uld. You're not "using what you can capture" in the Brood Brothers. You're subverting the society you're embedded in, slowly making your way into positions of power to divert things to loyal elements of hybrids.

 Kanluwen wrote:

What's even lazier is the mental gymnastics done to justify things like Kasrkin, Death Riders, Attillan Rough Riders in there while praising the things(Commissars, Ogryn, Tempestus, Techpriests, Ratlings) left out...despite the lore supporting those things being present more because of the insular nature of those elements.

Huh?

Something being more insular or less common does make it LESS likely to be captured/ subverted by the GSC, not MORE likely. Did I misinterpret what you've written?

Seeing as how Genestealer Cults thrive on anonymity and unquestioning loyalty...yes, you did misunderstand what I wrote.

Things that stand apart from their comrades are more susceptible to outside manipulation and infiltration. They use corrupted Commissars and Scions for Chaos as a narrative element, and yet you think that there's no way for the same thing to happen with GSC?

You think that "Jenkins is acting strangely" won't be noticed in tightly-bonded Cadian squads? That the Death Korps won't question why there's a trooper without his mask on?

In my case, I take all the common vs rare/ insular right out of it. If I don't implant or steal it in game, I don't use it. Giving access to some units and not others is GW's way of estimating what Cults are likely to be able to implant/ steal/ subvert. I just cut that out of the equation by insisting that the games I play determine my access. To me, that's what makes the Cult interesting.

That's fine, but the same effect could be obtained by utilizing actual codex units.

BONUS! It completely removes from the equation the supposed downsides of Brood Brothers!

And look, I could theoretically be okay with them adding some BB units to the dex... But if they do that, it no longer represents implant/ steal/ subvert as well as the system we currently have.

Except it doesn't even do that now, unless you're talking about hypnotizing things?

If I manage to implant enough Kasrkin to build a 10 man BB unit, I don't want their stats and gear to change because it'll make you feel better. I actually fought the battles to recruit those dudes, and they aren't going to discard their gear before they cross the battle line for a rules abstraction in order to satisfy your need to feel like your units are only for you.

Cool, then I get Atalans. I get the Ridgerunners. I get everything in your codex, just as Imperial Militia.

That would probably mean that you and I wouldn't want to play against each other, and you know what? That's fine. We're grown ups, and we're free to make those choices.

You're probably right as I have zero interest in playing with someone who thinks they deserve access to every single thing in my arsenal because they're not up to snuff on their own lore.