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.

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

It depends on what you're bringing and how you play it.

There are people I know who I would gladly play unbound against, and those who I wouldn't trust with safety scissors, much less an unbound list.

If you're a cool person, you're probably making cool unbound lists, if you're not, you're not. Unbound didn't really add anything new in that regard, it just gave people more power to pursue whatever ends they were already pursuing.

Most events won't allow it, but also usually put restrictions on the number of detachments and/or sources one can use as well.

That said, honestly, with the ability to take multiple detachments, be they normal CAD's, allies, formations with increasingly silly special abilities (or entire armies composed of three or four formations), etc, it's more and more difficult to really see Unbound as all that bad.

In general however, Unbound is not typically seen favorably. That may or may not change.

I wouldn't call a sisters CAD, allied knights and an assassin "unbound". It's a 3 source list but technically Knights don't take an ally slot so your list is still battleforged. As long as you take CAD, Allied detachments, codex detachments and formations you aren't running unbound. Just keep in mind that most tournaments only allow 2 sources for your list.

Personally I don't mind unbound armies, but it varies of course.
Why wouldn't you be able to use an assassin? You are allowed to take any number of detachments and formations, so you could take:
Primary: Knights
Ally: Sisters
Ally: Assassin

Okay, that's good to know. In regards to 'tournaments' - I really don't plan on getting involved in anything like that. However, several FLGS's near me have leagues every month, and I was curious as to whether it would be kosher in that. Although from the sounds of it, it may vary from place to place.


It also sounds as though I can take more than one allied detachment. As I said, I'm fairly green, so I was under the impression you could only have one main force and one allied force.

@Toofast: I was intending (depending on points) on running Knights as my primary detachment, as opposed to taking them as a LoW choice for a primary Sisters detachment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Dethric: Yeah, I didn't realize that I could take more than one ally. I thought that I would have to run a single faction in order to ally them in, hence my interest in unbound. That clears things up and makes them a lot easier, though.

 Toofast wrote:
I wouldn't call a sisters CAD, allied knights and an assassin "unbound". It's a 3 source list but technically Knights don't take an ally slot so your list is still battleforged. As long as you take CAD, Allied detachments, codex detachments and formations you aren't running unbound. Just keep in mind that most tournaments only allow 2 sources for your list.

You're not exactly limited to only 1 ally anymore (outside of events that do just that), just like you're not limited to just 1 CAD. You can take as many as you want of either assuming you have the points and/or models to do so. This allows for a lot more flavorful combinations of models, as well as interesting ones, but with that comes the potential for abuse. Regardless it's hard to call Unbound "bad" when it loses bonus that a CAD has all to drop a Troop Tax when some CADs do that for you (the Blood Angels 1st Company FOC from Exterminatus for example).

 ClockworkZion wrote:
You're not exactly limited to only 1 ally anymore (outside of events that do just that), just like you're not limited to just 1 CAD. You can take as many as you want of either assuming you have the points and/or models to do so. This allows for a lot more flavorful combinations of models, as well as interesting ones, but with that comes the potential for abuse. Regardless it's hard to call Unbound "bad" when it loses bonus that a CAD has all to drop a Troop Tax when some CADs do that for you (the Blood Angels 1st Company FOC from Exterminatus for example).

I think the problem with having followed the game for a good while, but only jumping in at 7th edition is that a lot of what I had learned in the past is now a bit outdated. This is all good information and it really makes things a lot simpler for when I decide to jump into these leagues.

SweaterKittens wrote:several FLGS's near me have leagues every month, and I was curious as to whether it would be kosher in that.

Well then go ask them. We won't know how your local leagues are set up, or if they allow unbound or not. The people who play there / are organizing the leagues will know.

Technically you can make a bound list with all you've got as people have noted. And that' the exact reason why i don't mind unbound and haven't from the start. You could have played technically unbound since 6-th. Min cad requirements don't make your list less cheezy if you go for the min/max anywayz.

 Toofast wrote:
I wouldn't call a sisters CAD, allied knights and an assassin "unbound". It's a 3 source list but technically Knights don't take an ally slot so your list is still battleforged. As long as you take CAD, Allied detachments, codex detachments and formations you aren't running unbound. Just keep in mind that most tournaments only allow 2 sources for your list.

To be fair, it's 100% unbound in nature, and it's only the IoM and its ton of books that has access to allied triple LoW detachments and Assassins that you can transport.

I would say that you may be able to play that list as "battleforged" but it would only be fair to consider it unbound and tell your opponents they might as well play unbound if they're xenos.


As the lines keep on blurring, people will gradually accept unbound, and keep on fielding their pseudo-unbound battleforged combos to gain an advantage over unbound lists.

Nah, unbound is generally not accepted.

Unbound is fine for fun, friendly games. Get all your nice models, and mash them into a 'force'.
It throws balance out the window though, which is a big reason why people don't like it.
If you can use allies rules, try that first.

Unbound is at its core a marvelous concept. Build an army entirely consisting of the models that you like the most, build to a theme or narrative for a story. Craft specific forces to scenarios that fit the tale you are trying to tell. All are fantastic in an environment of creativity and good sportsmanship.

However the moment someone gets competitive, it becomes abusable.

 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

Going strictly by the internet (over)reactions, it seems like people are still really afraid of Unbound, in my group however it has been adapted with little/no fanfare, and as with ALL (unbound or CAD) lists it includes the caveat - Don't be an A-hole.

Most groups are sufficiently unhappy with Unbound that I'd suggest at the very least making sure you're able to field a bound list.

It's not actually that silly given the degree to which you can be a cheesedick without needing to go to Unbound (there's a guy at my FLGS who runs ten sniper Scouts, a Master of the Forge, a Storm Wing, the occasional Dreadnaught, and a Knights detachment), but folks could have a knee-jerk reaction, decide you're a horrible munchkin they don't want to play, and be generally unpleasant.

With what you're trying to do I'd suggest running the Sisters primary and take exactly one Knight; playing a Knights detachment is a very, very skew list that leads to most games being hilariously one-sided. Either the other side doesn't have the AT to handle the Knights and they lose because they can't play or they have too much AT and you lose because all your Knights get wrecked turn two. Knights are an interesting concept but a primary detachment of them alone doesn't make for fun games.

Most people do not play with the unbound rules. And I'm pretty sure 99% of tournaments only accept bound lists.

Given the fact that you can take multiple detachments in normal games anyway, there is very little reason to play unbound unless you're running nothing but HQ models or something equally hilarious.

Practically speaking i doubt anyone will say no to a game with units as you describe. I would try to have one CAD at least, so that it's at sort of battleforged

In actual play terms, someone will have real issues with an army that seriously abuses 'best of' units, like mixing flyrants with wave serpents. That's not so much a 'is it unbound' question, as it is, 'do I really want to play with this guy' question.

I think the real issue for the vast majority of 40k games is just, will it be enjoyable -- unless you want to participate I the tournament scene, where your army must comply with their rules, of course.

 Gunzhard wrote:

Going strictly by the internet (over)reactions, it seems like people are still really afraid of Unbound, in my group however it has been adapted with little/no fanfare, and as with ALL (unbound or CAD) lists it includes the caveat - Don't be an A-hole.

Doesn't sound "unbound".

 Byte wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

Going strictly by the internet (over)reactions, it seems like people are still really afraid of Unbound, in my group however it has been adapted with little/no fanfare, and as with ALL (unbound or CAD) lists it includes the caveat - Don't be an A-hole.

Doesn't sound "unbound".

Are you implying that unbound automatically means being an A-hole? ...that is the problem with the internet hah; not at all. Sometimes you just want to do things a little different or field that extra dreadnought or HQ or assault squad you just painted up. Sometimes your narrative has all of the leadership dead, and you run a list with no HQ. I have a stormraven/droppod dreadnought list that is pretty easy to defeat but super cool regardless.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Byte wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

Going strictly by the internet (over)reactions, it seems like people are still really afraid of Unbound, in my group however it has been adapted with little/no fanfare, and as with ALL (unbound or CAD) lists it includes the caveat - Don't be an A-hole.

Doesn't sound "unbound".

Are you implying that unbound automatically means being an A-hole? ...that is the problem with the internet hah; not at all. Sometimes you just want to do things a little different or field that extra dreadnought or HQ or assault squad you just painted up. Sometimes your narrative has all of the leadership dead, and you run a list with no HQ. I have a stormraven/droppod dreadnought list that is pretty easy to defeat but super cool regardless.

Of course not and I'm not the "internet" I'm one dude.

It sounds ridiculous to hear, Oh we play unbound with no issues silly "internets", but donkeycave lists aren't allowed.

I generally find that playing Unbound lists just leads to my army falling apart. ^^;

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.

You play unbound with your friends because you do not have a proper army and have a hodge podge mix of models. Otherwise if you build a unbound army with spamming in mind then it becomes broken.

Say if you are a new player and collected 500 pts of Tyranids, 500 pts of Necrons, 500pts of Eldar, and if you lack the proper hq and troops then I can see that as an unbound army with out too much things making it over powered.

However, if you had no army and decided to build 1500pts of an unbound army ignoring hq and troops with the intent to spam a single or few units then some people might not play you. Like a list of 80 Jokearo with lascannon rings, or 15 night scythes or wave serpents, then I think people might not want to play you.

A few facts about unbound:

1. It's more balanced than CAD+Allied, because it doesn't matter anymore if your codex didn't have this OP alternate detachment or formation (or if your faction prevents transport for an assassin, or if your LoW cannot be taken as a detachment of 0-3-5 LoW because IoM).
2. It's more diverse than CAD+Allied.
3. 20 Annihilation Barges or 11 Night Scythes has counters.
4.10 Wave Serpents is not a good unbound build. Plus you can do 9 Wave Serpents in a bound list, so who cares.

You will always have to write a somewhat balanced list in order to be TAC, and that alone is what prevents lists from being completely overpowering.

The schema restrictions simply limit the number of viable options, limiting the game without creating any particular balance, we just end up with the most optimized builds for that set of requirements.

Unbound is a problem if people use it to ignore FOC and spam their most OP models.
I often find that Unbound is not worth giving up the Detachment-bonuses.

But your list is actually Battleforged!
Sisters of Battle => CAD
Imperial Knights => Imperial Knight Detachment
Vindicare => Assassin Detachment

morgoth wrote:
To be fair, it's 100% unbound in nature, and it's only the IoM and its ton of books that has access to allied triple LoW detachments and Assassins that you can transport.
I would say that you may be able to play that list as "battleforged" but it would only be fair to consider it unbound and tell your opponents they might as well play unbound if they're xenos.

Wait, what? The hell are you talking about?
The list is Battle-forged. Period.

Kangodo wrote:
Unbound is a problem if people use it to ignore FOC and spam their most OP models.
I often find that Unbound is not worth giving up the Detachment-bonuses.

But your list is actually Battleforged!
Sisters of Battle => CAD
Imperial Knights => Imperial Knight Detachment
Vindicare => Assassin Detachment

morgoth wrote:
To be fair, it's 100% unbound in nature, and it's only the IoM and its ton of books that has access to allied triple LoW detachments and Assassins that you can transport.
I would say that you may be able to play that list as "battleforged" but it would only be fair to consider it unbound and tell your opponents they might as well play unbound if they're xenos.

Wait, what? The hell are you talking about?
The list is Battle-forged. Period.

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.

Generally it isn't. CADs are generally flexible enough for you to do what is needed inside the troop tax. Usually unbound lists that can't afford that are either poorly planned fluffy lists or something unfun like extreme MSU of single models

There is also the occasional guy who just bought what he likes and cares not for FOC

 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".

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..