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.

Kangodo wrote:

morgoth wrote:
If it were anything but the Imperium, it would be unbound.
But since this is the Imperium, and the Imperium gets to package unbound stuff in Battle-forged, yes it is Battle-forged.
Fact of the matter is, if I bring a detachment of 3 Eldar Lynx, 1 Eldar Assassin and 1 Eldar CAD, it's not only going to be unbound, it's also going to be homemade rules.
But hey, maybe you're fine with the IoM being the only ones who can field unbound lists as Battle-forged.

What are you talking about?
A CAD of Eldar, combined with a Detachment of Assassins and a Detachment of Imperial Knights, is still Battleforged.

Are you now complaining that Assassins have their own Codex, while Eldar Assassins are in the Eldar-Codex?
Siigh..

I am pointing out that only the IoM has access to a battle brothers battle forged army containing three Lords of War, an assassin and a base army.

Eldar, like everything that is not the IoM, do not have access to assassins with transports, and have all of their Super Heavies limited to one single LoW slot.

In other words, the only way to create a Xenos equivalent of Sisters+IK+Assassin is to play unbound AND create a home rule to make the Assassins' faction match their army's.


Taking that into account, a player using Sisters + IK + Assassin should be willing to face unbound Xenos, if only by honesty.

 Peregrine wrote:

 oni wrote:
It's all about your intentions in using an Unbound list.

If your intentions are to create a fun and/or themed army to create an enjoyable, narrative game for both you and your opponent - you're safe.

If your intentions are to abuse the Unbound rule purely to win - you're not going to have any friends and someone will likely throw a shoe at your head.

I don't understand this at all. Why is making an unbound army because you want your army to be more powerful such a bad thing? Why is there a ridiculous double standard where you're free to make any abusive list you like as long as it's battle-forged (not exactly a difficult burden in 7th), but unbound is off-limits? I have yet to see any good answer to this that isn't essentially "I want to keep playing 5th edition".

This. Because Unbound is scary and it must be bad, its Unbound!

morgoth wrote:

I am pointing out that only the IoM has access to a battle brothers battle forged army containing three Lords of War, an assassin and a base army.

Eldar, like everything that is not the IoM, do not have access to assassins with transports, and have all of their Super Heavies limited to one single LoW slot.

In other words, the only way to create a Xenos equivalent of Sisters+IK+Assassin is to play unbound AND create a home rule to make the Assassins' faction match their army's.


Taking that into account, a player using Sisters + IK + Assassin should be willing to face unbound Xenos, if only by honesty.

Sorry, but how exactly can Imperials get three Lords of War? Or do you mean "as long as they're all Knight Paladins", who are far from the best Lord of War available to the Imperium, and are actually more or less equivalent to the Eldars' Heavy Support slot Wraithknights.

Holy cow, I opened up a whole can of something here. It does certainly answer my question - that is, it really depends on who you ask, and what you're fielding. I've realized I can build Battle-forged now, but I was worried that bringing in an army box and saying "hey I've got an unbound list" might cause me to lose potential games. And based on the responses here, it definitely might (regardless of your personal feelings on Unbound)

Regarding Imperial Knights as being Lords of War - that's not completely fair, as while they can be chosen as a Lord of War, they have their own codex and can be fielded entirely on their own - unlike every other Lord of War, if I'm correct.

 Furyou Miko wrote:

morgoth wrote:

I am pointing out that only the IoM has access to a battle brothers battle forged army containing three Lords of War, an assassin and a base army.

Eldar, like everything that is not the IoM, do not have access to assassins with transports, and have all of their Super Heavies limited to one single LoW slot.

In other words, the only way to create a Xenos equivalent of Sisters+IK+Assassin is to play unbound AND create a home rule to make the Assassins' faction match their army's.


Taking that into account, a player using Sisters + IK + Assassin should be willing to face unbound Xenos, if only by honesty.

Sorry, but how exactly can Imperials get three Lords of War? Or do you mean "as long as they're all Knight Paladins", who are far from the best Lord of War available to the Imperium, and are actually more or less equivalent to the Eldars' Heavy Support slot Wraithknights.

Knights Paladin (and Errant) are NOT Lords of War.

With the Sisters + IK + Assassin, you have a total of one LoW slot. Neither a Knight Detachment nor an Assassin Detachment has a LoW slot.

IOM is not the only way to 3 LoWs in a force, you simply need 3 CADs (or equivalent detachment with LoW slot) from any Faction.

Any Battleforged army can include an Assassin.

 SweaterKittens wrote:
Regarding Imperial Knights as being Lords of War - that's not completely fair, as while they can be chosen as a Lord of War, they have their own codex and can be fielded entirely on their own - unlike every other Lord of War, if I'm correct.

So what? They're superheavy vehicles roughly comparable in power to other superheavy vehicles (and considerably better than my LoW Malcador). It's entirely fair to ignore GW's "codex" that was nothing more than a blatant attempt to get people to buy more than one knight and make a house rule that they're LoW.

I cant find the original thread about, "If you can make any unbound list, what would it be?"

Someone spammed Jokearos with lascannon finger rings dirt cheap.

 Filch wrote:
I cant find the original thread about, "If you can make any unbound list, what would it be?"

Someone spammed Jokearos with lascannon finger rings dirt cheap.

200 individual Inquisition Psykers, at 2k points

 Peregrine wrote:

 SweaterKittens wrote:
Regarding Imperial Knights as being Lords of War - that's not completely fair, as while they can be chosen as a Lord of War, they have their own codex and can be fielded entirely on their own - unlike every other Lord of War, if I'm correct.

So what? They're superheavy vehicles roughly comparable in power to other superheavy vehicles (and considerably better than my LoW Malcador). It's entirely fair to ignore GW's "codex" that was nothing more than a blatant attempt to get people to buy more than one knight and make a house rule that they're LoW.

Dude, your sig even says ignoring any codex that GW puts out is just a houserule. Yeah, they may have put it out to get people to buy more of their expensive knights, but it's still damn fun to build and paint em, and I whole-heartedly plan of fielding a Knight Lance. You're right about them being as strong as most of the other superheavies, but just because you don't like them or the codex doesn't mean you can act like it doesn't exist.

 SweaterKittens wrote:
Dude, your sig even says ignoring any codex that GW puts out is just a houserule.

Yes, which is why I said that it is a reasonable house rule to make, not that knights somehow magically aren't a separate codex by RAW.

Yeah, they may have put it out to get people to buy more of their expensive knights, but it's still damn fun to build and paint em, and I whole-heartedly plan of fielding a Knight Lance. You're right about them being as strong as most of the other superheavies, but just because you don't like them or the codex doesn't mean you can act like it doesn't exist.

I'm not pretending it doesn't exist, I'm saying that it's reasonable to say "this codex is banned" and treat knights as a LoW, especially if you reject unbound and therefore other armies don't have the ability to take multiple LoW-equivalent units. You might enjoy building and painting your knights, but it isn't fair when one person gets to take a whole army of superheavies while everyone else is lucky to be allowed to have a single superheavy of their own.

To be fair, Perry's sig has always been about being honest with yourself rather than excluding stuff,

I don't want to argue about it. Play with whoever and however you please.

 Furyou Miko wrote:

morgoth wrote:

I am pointing out that only the IoM has access to a battle brothers battle forged army containing three Lords of War, an assassin and a base army.

Eldar, like everything that is not the IoM, do not have access to assassins with transports, and have all of their Super Heavies limited to one single LoW slot.

In other words, the only way to create a Xenos equivalent of Sisters+IK+Assassin is to play unbound AND create a home rule to make the Assassins' faction match their army's.


Taking that into account, a player using Sisters + IK + Assassin should be willing to face unbound Xenos, if only by honesty.

Sorry, but how exactly can Imperials get three Lords of War? Or do you mean "as long as they're all Knight Paladins", who are far from the best Lord of War available to the Imperium, and are actually more or less equivalent to the Eldars' Heavy Support slot Wraithknights.

IK are Super Heavies and Lords of War, they have D strength, catastrophic explosion, and the price tag to go with it. And for 400 points they're a bargain in apocalypse as Titan hunters, arguably not as good in regular games.

Eldar WK are subject to Instant Death and are in no way equivalent to IK. They're about the same size, that's all there is to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SweaterKittens wrote:
Holy cow, I opened up a whole can of something here. It does certainly answer my question - that is, it really depends on who you ask, and what you're fielding. I've realized I can build Battle-forged now, but I was worried that bringing in an army box and saying "hey I've got an unbound list" might cause me to lose potential games. And based on the responses here, it definitely might (regardless of your personal feelings on Unbound)

Regarding Imperial Knights as being Lords of War - that's not completely fair, as while they can be chosen as a Lord of War, they have their own codex and can be fielded entirely on their own - unlike every other Lord of War, if I'm correct.

And that's exactly what is unfair.

Because the IoM has way more players, GW releases goodies for them first (and oftentimes, only), like giving them a codex for just one brand of super heavies and giving them a detachment composed entirely of Lords of War.



In essence, the army you want to field (and I'd be happy to play it) has one assassin of your faction, three Lords of War of your faction and a standard army.

If anyone not playing the IoM wants to compete with you on an even field, they will have to play unbound, and even house rule the assassin's faction.

If you want to be honest with yourself, and fair to others, that means you should be fine with your opponents playing unbound and Forge World.

morgoth wrote:
If anyone not playing the IoM wants to compete with you on an even field, they will have to play unbound, and even house rule the assassin's faction.

I'll have to strongly disagree with this.

The Assassin isn't an issue. Any faction can include them, even Daemons. Level of Alliance doesn't matter much, you rarely want to deploy the assassin within 12" of your force anyway.

Any Faction can include Knights as well. It's only the level of alliance that might cause a problem. But Knights are fast with a good range, so it's rarely an issue, just like assassins.

Yes Knights are Superheavies, but so what? They're not overpowered. They're very well balanced for their points. I don't play them myself, but I'm more than happy to play my Orks against them (even an army of them), they fall over just fine. Wraith knights cause me more headaches than Knights.

Sticking with the Ork theme, I can include 4 Superheavy (Killtanks) in a 2k army. A 7" StrD cannon on a AV14 tank for 400pts is the equal of any Knight. I can give it an invulnerable and multiple repair rolls as well. I can make a outflanking Stompa pretty much unkillable. Where's your God Emperor now? Eldar and Necrons have their own cheap Superheavies.

And all of this is Battleforged.

IOM might be the poster boys, but they don't have anything the Xenos can't take or equal. Other factions can easily compete, without ever needing to go Unbound.

 grendel083 wrote:

morgoth wrote:
If anyone not playing the IoM wants to compete with you on an even field, they will have to play unbound, and even house rule the assassin's faction.

I'll have to strongly disagree with this.

The Assassin isn't an issue. Any faction can include them, even Daemons. Level of Alliance doesn't matter much, you rarely want to deploy the assassin within 12" of your force anyway.

Any Faction can include Knights as well. It's only the level of alliance that might cause a problem. But Knights are fast with a good range, so it's rarely an issue, just like assassins.

Yes Knights are Superheavies, but so what? They're not overpowered. They're very well balanced for their points. I don't play them myself, but I'm more than happy to play my Orks against them (even an army of them), they fall over just fine. Wraith knights cause me more headaches than Knights.

Sticking with the Ork theme, I can include 4 Superheavy (Killtanks) in a 2k army. A 7" StrD cannon on a AV14 tank for 400pts is the equal of any Knight. I can give it an invulnerable and multiple repair rolls as well. I can make a outflanking Stompa pretty much unkillable. Where's your God Emperor now? Eldar and Necrons have their own cheap Superheavies.

And all of this is Battleforged.

IOM might be the poster boys, but they don't have anything the Xenos can't take or equal. Other factions can easily compete, without ever needing to go Unbound.

The Assassin IS an issue.
If I were IoM, I could drop a Culexus where I want it when I want it, disrupt that Screamer or Centurion Star and wipe that disgusting revolting gimmicky build off the table.
Bad luck, I'm not IoM, so I can just deploy it there, look at it die and wonder why I even brought it.

It's not battle forged for other armies to bring 3 Super Heavies, that's what's wrong with Imperial Knights and Battle Forged.
If you tell me that Codex Lynx is out and I can bring 1-6 Lynx in a Lynx detachment allied to my CAD while remaining Battle Forged and accepted in Tournaments, sure I'll tell you the problem is solved.
Until then.

morgoth wrote:
The Assassin IS an issue.
If I were IoM, I could drop a Culexus where I want it when I want it, disrupt that Screamer or Centurion Star and wipe that disgusting revolting gimmicky build off the table.
Bad luck, I'm not IoM, so I can just deploy it there, look at it die and wonder why I even brought it.

A Daemon army with an allied Assassin can do that.
Only difference is the Assassin can't start the game within 12" of a Daemon model. From the example you've given that's pretty easy. It's not an issue. There's no need to have an assassin that close to your troops anyway. And that's only the extreme of CTA alliance level, other Xenos factions don't even need to worry about the 12" deployment restriction. Eldar can deploy an Assassin wherever they want. Does it matter that they can't cast Fortune on it? Why would they anyway?

It's not battle forged for other armies to bring 3 Super Heavies, that's what's wrong with Imperial Knights and Battle Forged.
If you tell me that Codex Lynx is out and I can bring 1-6 Lynx in a Lynx detachment allied to my CAD while remaining Battle Forged and accepted in Tournaments, sure I'll tell you the problem is solved.
Until then.

If Eldar can get an HQ and two troops for 245pts, then yes you can take 3 Lynx in a 2k game. And that's Battleforged.
Orks can get an HQ and two Troops for 105pts, with a Superheavy tank at 350. That's 4 per 2k points. Again that's Battleforged.
An Eldar army can bring an Adamatine Lance Formafion of 3 Imperial Knights. Again, that's Battleforged.

The problem you're describing doesn't exist. Knights aren't overpowered, does it matter if your opponent brings 4 of them?

 grendel083 wrote:

morgoth wrote:
The Assassin IS an issue.
If I were IoM, I could drop a Culexus where I want it when I want it, disrupt that Screamer or Centurion Star and wipe that disgusting revolting gimmicky build off the table.
Bad luck, I'm not IoM, so I can just deploy it there, look at it die and wonder why I even brought it.

A Daemon army with an allied Assassin can do that.
Only difference is the Assassin can't start the game within 12" of a Daemon model. From the example you've given that's pretty easy. It's not an issue. There's no need to have an assassin that close to your troops anyway. And that's only the extreme of CTA alliance level, other Xenos factions don't even need to worry about the 12" deployment restriction.

It's not battle forged for other armies to bring 3 Super Heavies, that's what's wrong with Imperial Knights and Battle Forged.
If you tell me that Codex Lynx is out and I can bring 1-6 Lynx in a Lynx detachment allied to my CAD while remaining Battle Forged and accepted in Tournaments, sure I'll tell you the problem is solved.
Until then.

If Eldar can get an HQ and two troops for 245pts, then yes you can take 3 Lynx in a 2k game. And that's Battleforged.
Orks can get an HQ and two Troops for 105pts, with a Superheavy tank at 350. That's 4 per 2k points. Again that's Battleforged.
An Eldar army can bring an Adamatine Lance Formafion of 3 Imperial Knights. Again, that's Battleforged.

The problem you're describing doesn't exist. Knights aren't overpowered, does it matter if your opponent brings 4 of them?

Do you realize that the assassin will not have access to a transport as long as you don't play an IoM faction ?
Do you realize that you just can't support it with psychic or anything as long as you don't play an IoM faction ?

An army is not battle forged if all of it is not battle forged. There is no detachment for 3 Lynx.

Or maybe do you suggest that I play 3 CADs, which is even less accepted, while wasting all my points on HQ and troop taxes, just so I can also field 3 LoW in battle forged ? Brilliant suggestion.

morgoth wrote:
Do you realize that the assassin will not have access to a transport as long as you don't play an IoM faction ?
Do you realize that you just can't support it with psychic or anything as long as you don't play an IoM faction ?

I do realise that. I also realise an Assassin never needs a Transport or Psychic support.

If you want to start bringing tactics into it, why would the Xenos even need an Assassin? You said it was need to make a fight even against a IOM force, why? It can be taken without much issue, that was the point. You're the one that insisted it must be taken to make a fight against IOM even.

An army is not battle forged if all of it is not battle forged. There is no detachment for 3 Lynx.

Or maybe do you suggest that I play 3 CADs, which is even less accepted, while wasting all my points on HQ and troop taxes, just so I can also field 3 LoW in battle forged ? Brilliant suggestion.

Why is it less acceptable? By who's standard?

No you can't take a detachment of 3 Lynx, I never claimed you could. If you could no doubt you'd be here complaining it was overpowered. If you want a detachment of Knights for your Eldar, then what is stopping you from taking one exactly? The rules allow it in a Battleforged army.

The point was, no you do not have to go unbound to compete with IOM armies. You can take all the things they can, if you wanted, but the Xenos have their units and combos. There's nothing the IOM can take that can't be counted.

"You have to take unbound" is simply not true.

Why do my Orks need an Assassin to compete? Why do they need 3 Knights? They don't. And they don't need to go unbound to do it.

In my local meta I wouldn't mind unbound much, as most people would do it for a theme rather than power gaming. But 9.99999999 times out of 10 people play battle forged lists.

 grendel083 wrote:
The Assassin isn't an issue. Any faction can include them, even Daemons. Level of Alliance doesn't matter much, you rarely want to deploy the assassin within 12" of your force anyway.

Any Faction can include Knights as well. It's only the level of alliance that might cause a problem. But Knights are fast with a good range, so it's rarely an issue, just like assassins.

Sorry, but "the imperial stuff isn't a problem, any non-imperial army can break their theme and take the same imperial stuff the imperial armies abuse" is hardly a compelling argument.

 Peregrine wrote:
Sorry, but "the imperial stuff isn't a problem, any non-imperial army can break their theme and take the same imperial stuff the imperial armies abuse" is hardly a compelling argument.

So you think the only way for non-imperial armies to compete is to go unbound?
That's what this particular branch of the argument was..

No only for narrative games is it "reasonable" besides that it breaks the game.

I'd be pretty cool converting up a mechwarrior themed list with only walkers from different factions. Some war walkers, a dread or two, bunch of sentinels and a single knight or something.

kodi wrote:
I'd be pretty cool converting up a mechwarrior themed list with only walkers from different factions. Some war walkers, a dread or two, bunch of sentinels and a single knight or something.

I agree.

It can certainly be acceptable - it just depends how one goes about it.

A list full of just Wave serpents, just Hell turkeys, or just any "over powered" unit is silly. It's not even fun and took no thought. There is nothing compelling about the army.

If used as a way to make a very fluffy list, or a list full of under dog/under used type units is much different.

 SweaterKittens wrote:
Hey all,

I've followed 40k and built the models for several years, but only just recently started playing. I've heard a bit about unbound and just today decided to look it up. The way it's put forth in the BRB is that by not choosing a normal, Battle-Forged list, I'm missing out on some benefits. However, I've never heard the word 'Unbound' without the words 'is cheesy' immediately following it. So what's the deal? If I build unbound, will I get items thrown at me?

For some context: I'm putting together a Knights allied with Sisters army. Please don't throw things at me. In any case, I picked up the Officio Assassinorum dataslate today, and was a bit taken by the Vindicare assassins. I would absolutely love to throw one in, and I've got the perfect fluff to make it work. However, since I'm going Knights primary with Sisters secondary, then I wouldn't be able to also ally in an assassin, since they are technically their own faction (if I have all that straight). I don't think that's especially cheesy, but running unbound is running unbound.

TLDR - Regardless of how much (or little) cheese is contained in the list, is running Unbound generally uncool?

Cheers

Seems like they wasted a lot of paper putting e option in. I to see anyone use it. Acceptable? Yes, it is officially in the book. Just warn your opponent ahead of time so they dont die of a heart attack from shock seeing someone actually use it. lol

I only use unbound ,(when my hh death guard all forge world army is to massive, to fit in my organisation force chart) and most people don't have a problem with it being unbound. Because they have bigger problems to worry about .

But in all serious unbound ok when its fluffy lie you want to take a fluffy list not when its only to make it op.
That's my view the hobby should be fun its alright facing a army you cant possibly beat, as long as give it your best shot you go out screaming FETH THE WORLD! and leave with one epic story and a grin on your face .

partninja wrote:
It can certainly be acceptable - it just depends how one goes about it.

A list full of just Wave serpents, just Hell turkeys, or just any "over powered" unit is silly. It's not even fun and took no thought. There is nothing compelling about the army.

If used as a way to make a very fluffy list, or a list full of under dog/under used type units is much different.

That's what every person who did not think long about unbound thinks.

Those who have thought about it know that the lists you think about are not competitive, TAC or interesting at all.

Peregrine wrote:

 oni wrote:
It's all about your intentions in using an Unbound list.

If your intentions are to create a fun and/or themed army to create an enjoyable, narrative game for both you and your opponent - you're safe.

If your intentions are to abuse the Unbound rule purely to win - you're not going to have any friends and someone will likely throw a shoe at your head.

I don't understand this at all. Why is making an unbound army because you want your army to be more powerful such a bad thing? Why is there a ridiculous double standard where you're free to make any abusive list you like as long as it's battle-forged (not exactly a difficult burden in 7th), but unbound is off-limits? I have yet to see any good answer to this that isn't essentially "I want to keep playing 5th edition".

The key words are 'abuse' and 'intentions'. Simply using the Unbound rule(s) to sure up an army with additional Elites and/or Heavy Support to mitigate a weakness isn't a problem - at least I don't see it as one. It's when Unbound is maliciously misused in the sole desire to win even if that means a complete disregard and lack of respect for their opponent. I (and most others) play 40K to have fun, to have an enjoyable social interaction playing a game with a mature, like-minded individual... I (and most others) have no desire to be the punching bag for some codependent, emotionally stunted, man child who compensates for his inferiority by thinking they can in some manner prove their worth or somehow establish dominance by winning a game. If this is your intention behind using the Unbound rule(s), whether your conscious of it or not, you're better off saving your money and just going around punching babies.

 oni wrote:
The key words are 'abuse' and 'intentions'. Simply using the Unbound rule(s) to sure up an army with additional Elites and/or Heavy Support to mitigate a weakness isn't a problem - at least I don't see it as one. It's when Unbound is maliciously misused in the sole desire to win even if that means a complete disregard and lack of respect for their opponent. I (and most others) play 40K to have fun, to have an enjoyable social interaction playing a game with a mature, like-minded individual... I (and most others) have no desire to be the punching bag for some codependent, emotionally stunted, man child who compensates for his inferiority by thinking they can in some manner prove their worth or somehow establish dominance by winning a game. If this is your intention behind using the Unbound rule(s), whether your conscious of it or not, you're better off saving your money and just going around punching babies.

But how is this any different from a player with the same attitude and a battle-forged list?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:
So you think the only way for non-imperial armies to compete is to go unbound?
That's what this particular branch of the argument was..

That's exactly what I'm saying. The only way for non-imperial armies to compete with the ridiculous number of options that imperial armies have (outside of taking all of the imperial options) is to take an unbound army. If I'm playing Tau and I want to add a couple of superheavies to my list I have to pay the HQ + troops tax for multiple FOCs to get multiple LoW slots, and since Tau superheavies suck I probably have to take those detachments from a different army. If I want support units like inquisitors and assassins I have to pay that HQ + troops tax again, and they won't be as good as the imperial version because they won't be battle brothers with the rest of my army (no assassins in drop pods, inquisitor psychic buffs, etc). The only way to avoid paying HQ + troops taxes that imperial armies don't have is to play an unbound army.