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.

Unbound does not remove unit creation restrictions. It is really quite clear.

Indeed. Continually stating there are multiple interpretations, when the actual rules do not support it, is disingenuous to say the least. The OP even too their ball home from the YMDC thread, as they werent convincing anyone.

Unbound is very simple: no "FOC" restrictions, no allowance to ignore anything else. Simples.

Yes I saw that. He's trying to tell everyone a first down requires 8 yards. When people correct him and say "No, it's 10 yards, that is clearly stated on page x of the rule book.", he covers his ears with his hands while shouting "lalalala I can't heeaarrr you!" And then says that's not what the conversation is about anyway. If you want to find out where people draw the line with unbound armies, then just ask that question and maybe leave out the wall of text describing your own home brew version of 40k rules. Half the stuff listed in your OP are not unbound armies, they are just illegal armies. You're basically asking "would you play with someone who ignored the rulebook?"

The 'Unbound' rule is very clear. What is also very clear is that not everyone agrees believes the FOC restriction is the only thing that 'Unbound' ignores. Irrespective of whether I agree with any of the interpretations, I respect your choice to apply your own home made version of 40k as well. The funny fact about all of it is, that the way I interpret the rules allows for you to still choose to apply the parent requirements. Yours doesn't. Same goes for the interpretations that are more liberal than mine, they allow me to play with how I choose to organize my 'Unbound' list. So for the purposes of this discussion, the various interpretations are literally 'reasons I won't play you'.

You seem pretty upset that someone has a different interpretation, yet you keep posting here for some reason. I can't begin to fathom what those reasons are. You have the option putting me on your ignore list, or simply not posting. You've stated your opinion which was all that's been asked for here. You're disrespecting those who disagree with that but continuously posting that it's impossible to have a different opinion in the rules. Even in the face of other people posting that they don't agree.

I'm not here to change anyone's interpretation of the rule, otherwise I would've put this in the YMDC. I've gotten some good feedback on the current state of 'Unbound' from other players. Yes, the common response is 'I won't play that list because (I think) you're breaking the 'Unbound' rule.'

Reading some of the other responses, that's not the only reason. Some are treating it as the 'U' word and are refusing to play anything 'Unbound'. There is an advantage to this, because it keeps players focused on keeping the FOC in mind when picking an army, instead of attempting to build elitist lists. Others are simply looking at the list and saying 'Sure, you're not getting Obsec then Let's go'.

Toofast, if you're interested in having a discussion on the matter then feel free to PM me. Be prepared to do some reading. I'm not going to drag this thread down to a 'Who's right' because it's not in the YMDC. I'm done posting about it in the YMDC because there are 4 Trolls there that are more interested in having the last word/brow beating, than actually discussing it.

-----
In any case, if there are any mods here, please feel free to lock this thread. I think I've gotten what I've needed to know, and have PMs going with specific people that are related to this, but off-topic.

Thank you everyone.