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.

When I came back to 40k, I was shocked to see all that allied detachment bs.
Then I was shocked some more to see "formations" (yay, break the CAD some more willya).
Then I was shocked some more to hear about "dataslates" - haven't seen one yet, but the idea is at least as strange.

Then they announced unbound, and everyone seemed to think that was broken.

I'm starting to wonder if unbound is not in fact the best way to restore balance and variety to the game, since it does respect alliance rules and unit rules.
It would at least put the codexes without formations on par with those that have them, remove any concern for the armies that don't have interesting allies, overall it feels like it would be a lot fairer than the current standard.

It would also make countless new combos possible, not just Iyanden Beaststar > all other Eldar builds (this is an example, it may be factually incorrect).


What do you think ? Can Unbound really be worse for balance and diversity than CAD+Allied where only a few get Battle Brothers ?

In my experience, 40k favours fire power over utility, combine that with the fact, that a lot of units seem to have been designed with foc-restrictions in mind, Unbound essentially means that you don't have to pay a "troop tax" for your stronger units.


Of course Unbound also escalates the internal balance issues that 40k is almost famous for.


On the matter of combos: Most abilities that affect other units (so the basematerial for any sort of combos) are actually fairly restrictive in to whom they apply.



I DO like unbound, since it allows for cool themed lists and the like, but in a competitive setting I think the multiple FOC system allready allows enough elbow room for any sort of tactic you want to make.

Multiple CADs just allows for certain builds of Unbound list to break the game, such as the Inquisitorial Psychic Storm.

What gave you the idea that Unbound doesn't respect the levels of Alliance?
And what makes you think Tyranids cannot 'ally' with other races? They can, they just have a really bad level of Alliance.

It also depends heavy on the Local META.
Example: Our META does not create "Super-Broken-Mega-Unbound-Armies".
We are more likely to have Fluff based Army like All Dreads or Just a Maxed out Guard Infantry Platoon with no HQ Slot Filled.

I am not a fan of unbound. But, all the new codexes are taking away the FOC shenanigans so that Ork bike army I made must be run unbound. It's not just the fact that I have to take 2 or 4 troop choices, but I also don't have enough fast attack choices. So, when I play my ork bike mob I have to be that guy. Ironically, I can take a 'bound' list of 5 Imperial Knights. Although, people are much more accepting of my unbound bike army.

Kangodo wrote:
What gave you the idea that Unbound doesn't respect the levels of Alliance?
And what makes you think Tyranids cannot 'ally' with other races? They can, they just have a really bad level of Alliance.

I'm not saying it doesn't ... I'm saying that the added impact of having great allies can be compensated by unbound.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu42 wrote:
It also depends heavy on the Local META.
Example: Our META does not create "Super-Broken-Mega-Unbound-Armies".
We are more likely to have Fluff based Army like All Dreads or Just a Maxed out Guard Infantry Platoon with no HQ Slot Filled.

Yes well, balance is a matter of how broken things can get, no matter how fluffy you are.
It stands to reason that there is no issue whatsoever with anything when talking fun fluffy games - even home made weapons, profiles and whatnot are fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Davespil wrote:
I am not a fan of unbound. But, all the new codexes are taking away the FOC shenanigans so that Ork bike army I made must be run unbound. It's not just the fact that I have to take 2 or 4 troop choices, but I also don't have enough fast attack choices. So, when I play my ork bike mob I have to be that guy. Ironically, I can take a 'bound' list of 5 Imperial Knights. Although, people are much more accepting of my unbound bike army.

Precisely why I think it's time for unbound.

 Davespil wrote:
I am not a fan of unbound. But, all the new codexes are taking away the FOC shenanigans so that Ork bike army I made must be run unbound. It's not just the fact that I have to take 2 or 4 troop choices, but I also don't have enough fast attack choices. So, when I play my ork bike mob I have to be that guy. Ironically, I can take a 'bound' list of 5 Imperial Knights. Although, people are much more accepting of my unbound bike army.

This is what I believe Unbound was created for. My Current Unbound I am working on is an 1st Company All Sternguard Force with Stormravens. I will probably be taking a pair of Command Squads to act as "Advanced Sternguard" to I have something on the table for turn one.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Davespil wrote:
I am not a fan of unbound. But, all the new codexes are taking away the FOC shenanigans so that Ork bike army I made must be run unbound. It's not just the fact that I have to take 2 or 4 troop choices, but I also don't have enough fast attack choices. So, when I play my ork bike mob I have to be that guy. Ironically, I can take a 'bound' list of 5 Imperial Knights. Although, people are much more accepting of my unbound bike army.

This is what I believe Unbound was created for. My Current Unbound I am working on is an 1st Company All Sternguard Force with Stormravens. I will probably be taking a pair of Command Squads to act as "Advanced Sternguard" to I have something on the table for turn one.

I'm not sure it fits the bill of "not brutal at all" though.

morgoth wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Davespil wrote:
I am not a fan of unbound. But, all the new codexes are taking away the FOC shenanigans so that Ork bike army I made must be run unbound. It's not just the fact that I have to take 2 or 4 troop choices, but I also don't have enough fast attack choices. So, when I play my ork bike mob I have to be that guy. Ironically, I can take a 'bound' list of 5 Imperial Knights. Although, people are much more accepting of my unbound bike army.

This is what I believe Unbound was created for. My Current Unbound I am working on is an 1st Company All Sternguard Force with Stormravens. I will probably be taking a pair of Command Squads to act as "Advanced Sternguard" to I have something on the table for turn one.

I'm not sure it fits the bill of "not brutal at all" though.

Well it is not Efficient. even if I run the Sternguard Cheap [and I don't] that is only 2 Sternguard Squads, Two Storm Ravens and 2 Command Squads. in a 2k game I could pull out a 3rd Sternguard, but not a 3rd Stormraven.

Yeah, not everybody needs to validate their existance by shutting down their opponent's ability to do anything while beating them flat in a dice game of toy soldiers.

The case for unbound is that there exist responsible adults who also play 40k, and unbound gives them more options.

Not everybody is looking for the cheapest possible win and nothing else.

 Ailaros wrote:
Yeah, not everybody needs to validate their existance by shutting down their opponent's ability to do anything while beating them flat in a dice game of toy soldiers.

The case for unbound is that there exist responsible adults who also play 40k, and unbound gives them more options.

Not everybody is looking for the cheapest possible win and nothing else.

That's a childish take on competition if I've ever seen one.

Competition is healthy, friendly and generally a good thing.

Competition is a good thing, but in certain ways. Competing to see who can cure cancer first is good. Competing to see who can undermine government regulation or kill the most innocent civilians isn't.

Not all competition is created equal. The same is true in 40k.

Honestly, when I got back into 40k I was very much in the corner of 'Unbound?!? Not on a table sharing MY models! Bound armies only!!!' With the new codecies and the new formations and the many many ways that the people that want to spam things find ways to spam things, I don't think I care about unbound anymore. If unbound is more fun, let me have a peek at the list and see if it's something I can have fun with too and have a list to match it.

I will always have more fun with bound, forced into corners with the unhappy restrictions that make me groan aloud when I am pouring over the calculator and glaring at an army list but that's just me. I'm pretty much over thinking unbound is just a way around that.

Unbound is a great way for new players that just want to put their cool models on the table to do so without spending extra cash (right away) on a bunch of boring troops. It also removes the objective secured bonus, which means they can concentrate more on the dice-rolling, dude-killing aspect of the game until they get some experience under their belts.

It's also great for making armies that might not otherwise jive with the ubiquitous force organization chart. Yeah, at the 15th Battle for Hades Hive 15 Leman Russes had an epic duel with 2 Stompas. But you sure can't recreate that without some random infantry and an HQ standing around unless you go Unbound.

Of course, how people perceive Unbound is the same way Allies were implemented by GW vs how they were abused. Space Marines were Battle-Brothers with Tau because there were a number of battles in the lore where they fought together, and GW wanted people to recreate that. SM Captains standing around buffing Tau in big dumb combos was probably not the first thing GW expected to come out of that. Similarly, Unbound is GW trying to give the player the freedom to play the game how they want. How badly some people want to break the game does not enter into their plans. It's beer and pretzels all the way down as far as they're concerned.

Right.

Also, remember, for each unbound list that exists for no other purpose than to create the most powerful list, there are many, many more that don't. I could come up with a dozen fluffy lists for every uberpower list that would only be possible thanks to unbound.

I mean, I can't imagine many people complaining about an unbound night lords list made of only jump pack lords and warp talons, or an auxiliary list made of ogryn lead by a lord commissar.

Just like how there is a tiny pool of very high power list and a vast pile of low-powered lists, there is a small pool of high-power unbound and a limitless pile of low-powered unbound.

I think the variety even in the high-power unbound is going to be a lot greater than in the current schema.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:

I will always have more fun with bound, forced into corners with the unhappy restrictions that make me groan aloud when I am pouring over the calculator and glaring at an army list but that's just me.

I have very fond memories of doing this with my 5E Tyranids and 4E Chaos, making lists I'd never play. That was also back before I knew the game so well, so everything was just more mysterious and magical. This is the only thing I don't like about Unbound, but otherwise I find it to be a good thing. Besides, I really haven't heard of any problems caused by Unbound. Is there anything super broken that I don't know about that specifically requires Unbound?

EDIT: One of my first games I played with 6E Chaos, I wanted to run a Forgefiend (new), Land Raider (new), Terminators and Heldrake (new) at a points level that made it a very tight squeeze, just for fun reasons. I had to take minimum squads of Cultists, who did basically nothing. That said, the Cultist Champion did end up challenging Vulkan He'stan to a duel, which was great.

If 40k was more balanced, unbound would work. As it is the power levels very too drastically for Pick up games. With your close groups of mates, sure. It would probably be a blast.

 MWHistorian wrote:
If 40k was more balanced, unbound would work. As it is the power levels very too drastically for Pick up games. With your close groups of mates, sure. It would probably be a blast.

40K has never been as balanced as 6th and now 7th ed, unbound breaks the magical combos that make it look unbalanced. It may create other combos, but more likely it will allow armies that couldn't come up with a decent combo to come up with one.

Besides, if my opponent is taking advantage of being unbound to pull cheesy stuff that makes the game unfun... that's what rope is for.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
EDIT: One of my first games I played with 6E Chaos, I wanted to run a Forgefiend (new), Land Raider (new), Terminators and Heldrake (new) at a points level that made it a very tight squeeze, just for fun reasons. I had to take minimum squads of Cultists, who did basically nothing. That said, the Cultist Champion did end up challenging Vulkan He'stan to a duel, which was great.

I had that when I wanted to create a melee-only Necron list.
Because of the FOC I was still forced to take Warriors or Immortals, which was basically me throwing away points on something I didn't want to take.
Unbound allows me to take the army I want.

Sure, there are some people who abuse it to take 16 Annihilation Barges and that's why people complain about Unbound.
My question to those people is: "Did you actually face such a list or are you making up hypothetical situations?"

Pyrrean Eternals aren't a terrible melee unit, as far as Necrons go, so really it's only one non-melee unit for a forged Necron list.

That is only one out of two troops.
It's still a ranged unit.
It requires you to take a crappy HQ.

The downside of Unbound is that you cannot re-roll the Warlord Trait.
So unbound is really worth it if you want to try such a list.

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
If 40k was more balanced, unbound would work. As it is the power levels very too drastically for Pick up games. With your close groups of mates, sure. It would probably be a blast.

40K has never been as balanced as 6th and now 7th ed, unbound breaks the magical combos that make it look unbalanced. It may create other combos, but more likely it will allow armies that couldn't come up with a decent combo to come up with one.

I think you're misunderstanding that I was talking about Pick up Games. Creating custom lists for their custom list isn't possible unless you brought your entire collection with you. I don't know anyone that does that.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I think you're misunderstanding that I was talking about Pick up Games. Creating custom lists for their custom list isn't possible unless you brought your entire collection with you. I don't know anyone that does that.

Are you talking about tailoring ? I'm strongly against tailoring, but we can take that to another thread if you want

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I think you're misunderstanding that I was talking about Pick up Games. Creating custom lists for their custom list isn't possible unless you brought your entire collection with you. I don't know anyone that does that.

Are you talking about tailoring ? I'm strongly against tailoring, but we can take that to another thread if you want

I think you misunderstood. Someone's solution was to tailor your list and I said it was not really practical to do so in a PU Game. (And the need for list tailoring demonstrates how broken the game is.)

 MWHistorian wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
If 40k was more balanced, unbound would work. As it is the power levels very too drastically for Pick up games. With your close groups of mates, sure. It would probably be a blast.

40K has never been as balanced as 6th and now 7th ed, unbound breaks the magical combos that make it look unbalanced. It may create other combos, but more likely it will allow armies that couldn't come up with a decent combo to come up with one.

I think you're misunderstanding that I was talking about Pick up Games. Creating custom lists for their custom list isn't possible unless you brought your entire collection with you. I don't know anyone that does that.

That is because you don't know me.

Unbound really doesn't matter when you can legally take a double CAD with a regular army anyway.

Unbound really doesn't matter when you can legally take a double CAD with a regular army anyway.

Exactly. At my LGS we've found that it's mostly the battle-forged armies that are causing the bigger issues. We actually like unbound. People mostly use it to try out fluffy armies or to try and represent things like proper CHaos legion armies. If one of us wants to try something that could be considered "beardy" we just let everyone know a week ahead of time and usually, at least one person will turn up the following week ready to fight the cheese.

The real reason we like unbound though, is because it's ever so slightly lowered the cost of entry. Our store has a huge bits box where you can trade in old models/bits/books for store credit. The bits then get sold at a huge discount. We've found that, more often than not, a person can pick a reasonable unbound army out of the bits box for 30-40$ and have at least a 500pt Unbound list right away. We're even thinking of organizing a 500 point "Army of Misfit Models" tourney where the only armies allowed are armies picked entirely from the bitz box.