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..

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.

Back when I were a lad(second ed, yo) my mates and I used to play with what we had. I had loads of Eldar, one had Dark Angels, someone else IG etc. We'd play to points but any sort of FOC was out.

This was also allowed in the local GW.

People pish and moan enough about balance as it is, so Unbound shouldn't really get anyone's knickers in a twist, imfo.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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?

I don't think I often agree with Peregrine, but regarding Unbound he is dead on... and frankly even if these hypothetical 'doom and gloom' nightmare Unbound lists ever hit a table most seem to have serious deficits and glaring weaknesses.

Unbound is fine and generally a great idea. The trouble is the units that get taken make Unbound rather annoying. For instance, you could take 87 Crisis Suits, 6 Riptides, 7 Daemon Princes, 7 Flying Hive Tyrants, the list goes on. Generally, as long as you're not being a total WAAC, Unbound is fine and accepted.

There's absolutely nothing abusive about Unbound armies that isn't also abusable within Battle Forged armies.

Players make the problem in either format.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
There's absolutely nothing abusive about Unbound armies that isn't also abusable within Battle Forged armies.

This. Really, with the ability to take multiple CAD's, armies of nothing but formations, etc, there's really no reason that Unbound should really be an issue at this point.

Peregrine wrote:

 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?

It can absolutely be the same with Battle Forged, yes, but the no-limitations format of Unbound allows for more extreme abuse.

I'm not arguing that Unbound is a bad thing - in fact I love Unbound, I quite often play and play against Unbound armies, but it's the player attitude... their intentions... their reasons for using Unbound that can make it a positive or a negative.

It's the extremes that it allows for that a CAD or multiple CAD's somewhat (not entirely, but somewhat) mitigate.

The only thing multiple CAD"s do is force a Troops tax, but give a bonus to them for doing so, along with rerolling the Warlord trait.

As much as I dislike the concept of Unbound, the fact that you can take multiple CAD's makes any significant opposition fairly moot, particularly alongside Formations which let you take stuff outside of that restriction anyway and get bonuses for doing so.

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

Not entirely true. There are formations out there which allow armies to plug in support characters in armies other than Imperials.

As one example, the Harlequin 'Path of Heroes' formation is one each of Solitaire, Shadowseer and Death Jester with no troupes required. As a second, Mogrok's Bossboyz gives you three Big Meks, a Warboss and a Wierdboy without taking up slots in your other detachments. Chaos Space Marines can field one of the best support characters in the game - Be'Lakor - as a dataslate formation.

When it comes to building an unbound army it all depends on the mindset and environment you are playing in. Generally if you are building one to just kick everyones teeth in and they are playing with lists that don't have the tournament mindset you wont make many friends. However if you are wanting to build a list that is silly fun or has a cool theme then I say go for it! Just get the idea of what the environment is at the stores your planning to play at and base it around that.

In my area, good luck finding a game. No one will play against you and thus far aside from a fun tournament with that purpose, tournies here do not allow unbound.

I'd rather that unbound not have been added to the rule book.

I would not play in an event that allowed unbound.

I would play against unbound in the pick up game. I only have one deal-breaker criteria in a pick-up game. Don't be a jerk.

 kronk wrote:
I'd rather that unbound not have been added to the rule book.

I would not play in an event that allowed unbound.

I would play against unbound in the pick up game. I only have one deal-breaker criteria in a pick-up game. Don't be a jerk.

Well said!

And Exalted!

 jreilly89 wrote:
you could take 87 Crisis Suits, 6 Riptides, 7 Daemon Princes, 7 Flying Hive Tyrants

... and a Partridge in a Pear tree!

That would be a very expensive megapocalyplse ultimate showdown army LOL. On the other hand, GW would be very happy at how much money that guy spent building that army!

Also: can you imagine transporting it?

Kangodo wrote:
A CAD of Eldar, combined with a Detachment of Assassins and a Detachment of Imperial Knights, is still Battleforged.

Or you could do Eldar+Dark Eldar+Harlequins if you want all battle-brothers.

For the most part I don't like unbound, and wish they hadn't added it. Most common use is/will be cheese. However, for some corner cases, it can be useful. When I wanted to field my Skyweavers, but didn't have a Voidweaver, unbound was the only way I could.

Unbound is a large debate.
I'd be interested to implement Unbound at the RTT level.
This is because I'm organizing a local tourney bimonthly.

My FLGS owner told me this weekend that in his tournament scene, almost noone plays Unbound, even though he allows it, because they are afraid to lose Objective Secured.

...which was honestly surprising to me.

I don't like the idea of Unbound because of the potential for stuff like this:

3 Bloodthirsters
4 Riptides
Solitaire
Canoptek Harvest
A blob of Ork Boyz
A White Scar Biker squad

 jasper76 wrote:
My FLGS owner told me this weekend that in his tournament scene, almost noone plays Unbound, even though he allows it, because they are afraid to lose Objective Secured.

...which was honestly surprising to me.

I don't like the idea of Unbound because of the potential for stuff like this:

3 Bloodthirsters
4 Riptides
Solitaire
Canoptek Harvest
A blob of Ork Boyz
A White Scar Biker squad

Or 5 Flyrants or Dreadknights.

 Grey Templar wrote:
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.

Old Space Wolves codex...nothing but Lone Wolves.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
My FLGS owner told me this weekend that in his tournament scene, almost noone plays Unbound, even though he allows it, because they are afraid to lose Objective Secured.

...which was honestly surprising to me.

I don't like the idea of Unbound because of the potential for stuff like this:

3 Bloodthirsters
4 Riptides
Solitaire
Canoptek Harvest
A blob of Ork Boyz
A White Scar Biker squad

Or 5 Flyrants or Dreadknights.

Well, TBH you can build a bound tournament list with 5 flyrants already.

The sillyness that's possible with "bound" lists drastically outweighs at this point I think the possibilities of Unbound. I'm still surprised to hear myself espouse that view, but formation and detachment bonuses are becoming increasingly powerful and ridiculous.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The sillyness that's possible with "bound" lists drastically outweighs at this point I think the possibilities of Unbound. I'm still surprised to hear myself espouse that view, but formation and detachment bonuses are becoming increasingly powerful and ridiculous.

Yep. Even the most recent Tyranid list was Battleforged, but still nasty.

Unbound is absolute negatory here. In an attempt to flip off GW with their "almost unbound" setup of infinite detachments, our rule is max 1 detachment per 1k points, and no unit can be taken more times than it could in a single CAD.

Ex: in a double CAD you could take 2 hive tyrants, but not 4. You could however take a tervigon and the swarmlord along with the 2 tyrants. By doing this, we've cut down on the amount of spam possible, but haven't hurt armies that have overloaded slots from using that variety.
IE BA could run 3 death co and 3 sanguinary guard in double cad, and our nid player likes running 3 solo venomthropes, a couple zoanthropes, and a hive guard unit as 6 elites.

I like unbound cause i can create a squad of SAG meks led by a MFF Megamek joined by a few wierdboyz and KMK.

And i also think that bound was irrelevant since 6-th. Now it gets obsec and reroll to warlord trait at very list. Not once has obsec won me games, tbh.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Old Space Wolves codex...nothing but Lone Wolves.

What's a base lone wolf? I wonder what people would say if I came with a 2000 point army, with, what, 100 individual units....

 kingbobbito wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Old Space Wolves codex...nothing but Lone Wolves.

What's a base lone wolf? I wonder what people would say if I came with a 2000 point army, with, what, 100 individual units....

Killteam.

However, they're more like 30-40 pt base, i think.

Now you can run 133 mucolid spores in 2000

I would play you in a non-kill point game sure! In a kill point game not so much (but this isn't saying much because kill points is already super unbalanced) and during that game when I bring chaos renegades and tarpit your knights with 40+ models per knight and each time a kill is secured on one of my squads it comes back on a 2+ plus with outflank then begins tarpit your knights again while my Word Bearers/World Eaters prance around te board killing everything else and taking all of the objectives you can't complain about it being overpowered (also haha Mr. you can't beat this with non-imperium I just gave you a valid strat right here to beat it). If you are ok with me being a tad bit cheesy like that vraks unending list with CSM support I am ok if you bring (and actually happy if you do) and entire BF list of literally just adamantium lance formations.

Remember: You are spending slot of points on singular models (what I'm trying to point out above) so remember armies such as orks, tyranids, Chaos guard, and to some extent normal guard will probs give you a lot of trouble.

niv-mizzet wrote:
Unbound is absolute negatory here. In an attempt to flip off GW with their "almost unbound" setup of infinite detachments, our rule is max 1 detachment per 1k points, and no unit can be taken more times than it could in a single CAD.

Ex: in a double CAD you could take 2 hive tyrants, but not 4. You could however take a tervigon and the swarmlord along with the 2 tyrants. By doing this, we've cut down on the amount of spam possible, but haven't hurt armies that have overloaded slots from using that variety.
IE BA could run 3 death co and 3 sanguinary guard in double cad, and our nid player likes running 3 solo venomthropes, a couple zoanthropes, and a hive guard unit as 6 elites.

Ah, I get it. You won't let people build their armies as they please.

Is so hard to simply not play against you find undesirable rather than creating overbearing general rules that also stop people using things you don't really care about?

I don't understand the need to pile on layers of extra rules instead of just finding someone to do something mutually enjoyable :(. Perhaps I am just lucky enough to have plenty of people to hand that want similar enough things out of the game as I do?

Indeed. you dont "have" to play against unbound if you dont want to, and if you are in a tourney then you already read the rules and should of tagged out if they did allow it

at the same time Unbound may allow for extreme cheese but that doesn't mean that is the ONLY way to build on it.

anything from gits and shiggle lists and just taking what you have on hand, to very intricately themed fluff lists.

The only thing that isnt acceptable in a game situation is cheaters and thats it. the rest is clashing attitudes towards that game.

Some people try and abuse unbound by playing something stupid like 10 Riptides and 1 Etheral.

Other people make cool fluff bound lists like A horde of Crisis suits only, With a regular Crisis suit commander leading them against the Orks!

Other people want to try cool lists that just somehow break the limits, like one extra troop choice for a REAL horde of Orks!

Two out of three of these are acceptable, and I'll give you a hint, its not the first one.

 luky7dayz wrote:
Some people try and abuse unbound by playing something stupid like 10 Riptides and 1 Etheral.

Other people make cool fluff bound lists like A horde of Crisis suits only, With a regular Crisis suit commander leading them against the Orks!

Other people want to try cool lists that just somehow break the limits, like one extra troop choice for a REAL horde of Orks!

Two out of three of these are acceptable, and I'll give you a hint, its not the first one.

Why is the first one not acceptable?
You could totally have a fun game putting your 10 Riptides vs. a player of a similar mindset who brings 1 farseer and 10 wraithknights.

It's impossible to draw an arbitrary line regarding what's acceptable and what's not, because different people will have vastly different opinions.

True.

But generally it's about perceived intent - which is a very nebulous measure, admittedly.

I'd have no problem playing any unbound list. As noted above, a 1500 point knight detachment of four knights is 'bad enough', and the free bonuses for some formations is ridiculous (I think it hit its zenith recently with one of the blood angels formations -the Archangels Sanguine Wing - a 950 point formation given 400 points worth of free wargear)

For that matter, I'm tempted to try some unbound armies myself - I keep looking at superheavies other than knights, and wondering about doing something like a Renegades & Heretics traitor baneblade company, or some chaos marine legion superheavy tank formations....

Yes, I think so anyway but I try to be cool with whatever my opponent/other players want to do. It basically comes down to communication like so many problems regarding shared activities. Example if someone wants to play unbound and do some Genestealer Cult/ Gue'vesa it's fine and doesn't really require any extra communication, anybody wants to get really crazy though should be able to find some one of equal crazy. As to cheese factor bound seems like it has a lot of if not most of the nightmare scenarios that people are thinking up so it's kinda moot.

 oni wrote:

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.

Nice load of rubbish man. I can make similar sweeping generalisations about you and post about your socialy inept crybabies club that plays games for enjoyable social interactions, did they close all the pubs and kidnap all the girls where you live, or demolished the benches in the park? Not nice really, is it? And 'Malicious' intent, seriously?

Truth is, 10 riptide or 7 flyrants is a perfectly fine list. It's just like armoured division or a fighter squadron in WW2 and make sense from a fluffy and military perspective. It poses problems in a game due to possible bad matchup but hey be mature and enjoy the spectacle of being blown to bits by an efficient, deadly force. Maybe it's you who is actualy a WAAC if you cant stand being a punching bag for a few hours while pushing toys on the table in a game known to be unbalanced to 11?

Back to your deep and detailed psychological analysis of a player with a strong spamy list and a desire to win, I think (and only think because I play mediocore lists at best in 40k) that there can be more to it than proving one's worth or establishing dominance. Efficient force is simply a joy to watch and play, the guy might be not aware that instead of having fun he should find the deepest levels of his empathy, carefuly observe the opponent body language and watch out for having too much advantage. It might even not be about winning, in PC game Wargame European Escalation I used to love taking only Challengers, Leopards and Abramses with minimum required mobile AA and just roll down the map while stabilisers did the rest. It surely wasnt about the win itself as I could do that with low tier infantry and early tank as well, it was about pure destruction fun. Not to mention I'd love to play against all those malicious abusal unbound list, nightmare mode ftw.

Unbound itself is not a problem imo, knights codex is already a spam codex that has formations too heh. Also as lot of people said, battle forged can be just as bad + ob sec, I'd love to see what would happen if unbound became widely accepted and official for tourneys.

Honestly, I don't see what the problem with unbound is. Unless you are playing a game of annihilation or something where objective secured isn't used, a CAD army has an advantage. I don't find multiple cads to always be a hq and troop tax either. I generally like to bring 3 to 4 troop choices and 2 hqs in my lists anyway. Unbound lists are for when I want to play a tank army and i don't care about winning because without objective secured I will probably lose. That is just how it goes. I might wipe the opponent off the board with my vindicator spam, but they will win because of more victory points. And I am fine with that, and usually my opponents are fine with that. Usually the only one who complains is the guy who likes to bring cheese lists but thinks you shouldn't field a LoW or bring your own cheese to counter his cheese.

Why not. Field whatever you like.
If your opponent likes to battle you, will be another problem.

I'd always recommend building an army that can be easily adapted to a battle forged one in case your opponent is opposed to the idea of unbound.

Nobody is going to get mad at an opponent who plays sisters it's like a unicorn

There is no real point in playing unbound unless its for fluff purposes, and even then the fluff would usually still leave you with some kind of bound list. From playing in several recent tournaments, it seems like unbound is something mostly less experienced players tend to take, and the benefits of bound, while few, are actually incredibly powerful against unbound. The only army that is actually capable of being a real threat in unbound are Imperial Guard, and that is because you can potentially run the most scummy Alpha Strike list of all time, consisting of 30+ Leman Russ tanks with Hunter Killer Missiles, supported by artillery or AA, but even then, they sort of fail if they face anything AV14 or too many infantry, or anything that can consistently pop AV14, or anything fast enough to reach their lines.

My group and myself do not play unbound, I've grown up with warhammer having organisation charts, and that's how I like it.

That said, I'm sure people play and have fun with unbound with no problems. It's all about who you play with.

The fact is that whilst unbound really gives no limits on potential douchebaggery, FOC games are not too far behind.

Tyrannids for example can squeeze in 2 flyrants and 2 troop choices for every 500 points in an army. Is this any worse than an unbound list?

A couple points;
what do people call a Crimson Fists detachment when played unbound, meaning Pedro Kantor with X units of Drop Podding Sternguard? Fluffy, casual, or game breaking?

At my former job, my manager would bring forces that he enjoyed using, FOC be damned. I still curb-stomped him 2 out of 3 games using battleforged lists, so going unbound isn't OMGITSBROKEN automatically.

Felldrake wrote:
There is no real point in playing unbound unless its for fluff purposes, and even then the fluff would usually still leave you with some kind of bound list. From playing in several recent tournaments, it seems like unbound is something mostly less experienced players tend to take, and the benefits of bound, while few, are actually incredibly powerful against unbound. The only army that is actually capable of being a real threat in unbound are Imperial Guard, and that is because you can potentially run the most scummy Alpha Strike list of all time, consisting of 30+ Leman Russ tanks with Hunter Killer Missiles, supported by artillery or AA, but even then, they sort of fail if they face anything AV14 or too many infantry, or anything that can consistently pop AV14, or anything fast enough to reach their lines.

That list is also in excess of 4800 points minimum.

Is unbound an acceptable way to build?
depends on the local gaming atmosphere. does your FLGS store like it? do they not like it? clearly there is debate here on this website, and while generally a good read, it's useless in the grand scheme of things when the people you should be asking this too are your fellow local gamers in your area.

this website is an international community, chances are there will be views that are not necessarily those of your gaming group expressed here. while it's good to have opposing viewpoints present, they will not always be indicative of the attitude in your area.

Simple answer....Yes

Complicated answer...Yes, but only if you reveal what kind of broken list your bringing to your opponent and allow him to tweak his list to make it an actual game instead of a slaughter.

If I play a Chaos player and I bring a normal list and he goes "is it ok if i bring an unbound list?" and I say "sure" he better not bring 10 Hell Chickens to the table and expect me to go....ohhh ok. Thats not fun, in fact it reminds me of those @holes in Call of Duty who play Blitz to Spawn trap people. Is it really fun to pay $50 for a video game $350 for a console to sit in a single spot and hold a button down for 5-10 minutes?

same concept applies to unbound lists. So long as its in good fun and everyone is ok with it DO IT!.

Next week I fully intend to bring a broken list of fast attack against my buddy who will be playing orks as well. 3 Bliza bombas and a small horde of bikes/trukks :-p