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.

Tycho wrote:

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.

Sounds like an awesome place.

If I played unbound.... I would make the most powerful unbound list ever though. Just like I do with bound armies. I think it's awesome to create the best list you can and then test it and tweak it some more, especially when playing against players who are also playing that game.

There'd be such a Hornet spam with a Revenant titan and twin mantleseers and a naked bikeseer for that serious chance of making it invisible + the off chance to invis the beast packs as well. Then three beast packs without any stupid DE troops or HQ. Something to make you regret you even brought those Annihilation Barges of cheesey doom.

And then it wouldn't work or would be broken by another fun unbound army. And I'd try some other crazy scheme.

Honestly, all that "beardy" bs... it's ruining a lot of the game for a lot of people.

If you don't want to play the full game, say so. Don't expect others to tell you in advance they're not writing a bad list today.

Another way of looking at it . . . is min troop and HQ Tax worth the benefit of objective secured?

col_impact wrote:
Another way of looking at it . . . is min troop and HQ Tax worth the benefit of objective secured?

Not really but you're forgetting warlord table reroll.

Imagine you're playing a table of city ruins.
Creed or Ork dude with finkin cap gets you 4 rolls on strategy, a decent chance to pick up 1. Conqueror of cities, +1 to ruin cover saves and moves through cover for all your army. Including your vehicles.

I think GW will probably drop the battleforged benefits in v8 when people get used to unbound.

morgoth wrote:

Tycho wrote:

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.

Sounds like an awesome place.

If I played unbound.... I would make the most powerful unbound list ever though. Just like I do with bound armies. I think it's awesome to create the best list you can and then test it and tweak it some more, especially when playing against players who are also playing that game.

There'd be such a Hornet spam with a Revenant titan and twin mantleseers and a naked bikeseer for that serious chance of making it invisible + the off chance to invis the beast packs as well. Then three beast packs without any stupid DE troops or HQ. Something to make you regret you even brought those Annihilation Barges of cheesey doom.

And then it wouldn't work or would be broken by another fun unbound army. And I'd try some other crazy scheme.

Honestly, all that "beardy" bs... it's ruining a lot of the game for a lot of people.

If you don't want to play the full game, say so. Don't expect others to tell you in advance they're not writing a bad list today.

Just because people have a different idea of what is fun doesn't make them neckbeards.

Sounds like an awesome place.

If I played unbound.... I would make the most powerful unbound list ever though. Just like I do with bound armies. I think it's awesome to create the best list you can and then test it and tweak it some more, especially when playing against players who are also playing that game.

There'd be such a Hornet spam with a Revenant titan and twin mantleseers and a naked bikeseer for that serious chance of making it invisible + the off chance to invis the beast packs as well. Then three beast packs without any stupid DE troops or HQ. Something to make you regret you even brought those Annihilation Barges of cheesey doom.

And then it wouldn't work or would be broken by another fun unbound army. And I'd try some other crazy scheme.

Honestly, all that "beardy" bs... it's ruining a lot of the game for a lot of people.

If you don't want to play the full game, say so. Don't expect others to tell you in advance they're not writing a bad list today.

It is the single greatest place on earth. almost 30 tables with professional terrain, regular game nights and no table fees. And yet ... people STILL complain about it. But I digress ....


To your comment about "beardy". That's why we allow people to bring whatever they want. We don't have a rule that HAVE to announce it. It's just more of a courtesy. The issue is that you never know for sure who's going to turn up and we have an odd range of players. There's a chunk like me who have been playing since Rogue trader and have three of almost everything, and then there's people just starting who have barely managed 1000point armies. For some odd reason there's not as much in between. So we do the anouncment thing just so you don't have a situation where I've shown up with the exact list you mentioned and the only people there that night have shown up with a 1000point green horde, a 1500point DA army and a Guard player with no tanks. lol

But yeah, like I said, we pretty much say bring what you want as long as you have a *legally acquired* copy of the rules. This allows the heavy hitters to play the heavy hitters with no worrying about being called WAAC, and it keeps the newer people from getting turned off by allowing them to play armies closer to what they're use to.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Just because people have a different idea of what is fun doesn't make them neckbeards.

The guy I quoted said "beardy" to refer to "powerful / competitive". but I may have misinterpreted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tycho wrote:

But yeah, like I said, we pretty much say bring what you want as long as you have a *legally acquired* copy of the rules. This allows the heavy hitters to play the heavy hitters with no worrying about being called WAAC, and it keeps the newer people from getting turned off by allowing them to play armies closer to what they're use to.

Legally acquired. ouch. doesn't that cost like 200 - 300 bucks total ? I guess it's nothing compared to the models but ...

Legally acquired. ouch. doesn't that cost like 200 - 300 bucks total ? I guess it's nothing compared to the models but ..

Nah. You can usually find codexes in the bitz box too. We also usually have someone who's already purchased the book or whatever and can lend it for a game or two if someone needs it. Not really expensive at all the way we do it. We just have the rule in place to help prevent the store from running into any trouble and to prevent any rules shennanigans.

Tycho wrote:

Legally acquired. ouch. doesn't that cost like 200 - 300 bucks total ? I guess it's nothing compared to the models but ..

Nah. You can usually find codexes in the bitz box too. We also usually have someone who's already purchased the book or whatever and can lend it for a game or two if someone needs it. Not really expensive at all the way we do it. We just have the rule in place to help prevent the store from running into any trouble and to prevent any rules shennanigans.

It also depends on how you do it to.
I have been picking up a Hard Copy of the new Codex's when I can, normally this is $50 every 2-4 months. Though this last Space Wolf immediately followed be grey Knights hurt.

I just recently played an unbound list made using the 30k Mechanicum army list.

I felt edgy and rebellious.

Then I lost the game.

col_impact wrote:
Another way of looking at it . . . is min troop and HQ Tax worth the benefit of objective secured?

Wait.. I never thought of this! I can actually create a Blood Angel-list without paying the gigantic tax on a useless overpriced HQ
Another reason to love Unbound.

morgoth wrote:
I think GW will probably drop the battleforged benefits in v8 when people get used to unbound.

Why would they do it?
They are adding more and more command benefits with each release.
It makes no sense to limit yourself in your list-building if it doesn't give you a bonus.

I think the fear around unbound is mostly unjustified. I mean who honestly has 16 A. Barges? Or 8 Wraithknights? or 9 Riptides? or any other rediculous high expense models at their disposal to field a stupid number of whatever?

Kangodo wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Another way of looking at it . . . is min troop and HQ Tax worth the benefit of objective secured?

Wait.. I never thought of this! I can actually create a Blood Angel-list without paying the gigantic tax on a useless overpriced HQ
Another reason to love Unbound.

morgoth wrote:
I think GW will probably drop the battleforged benefits in v8 when people get used to unbound.

Why would they do it?
They are adding more and more command benefits with each release.
It makes no sense to limit yourself in your list-building if it doesn't give you a bonus.

It makes no sense to limit yourself in your list-building.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xerics wrote:
I think the fear around unbound is mostly unjustified. I mean who honestly has 16 A. Barges? Or 8 Wraithknights? or 9 Riptides? or any other rediculous high expense models at their disposal to field a stupid number of whatever?

That's not even the problem.
How do you think 16 A. Barges fare against all beast packs ?

8 Wraithknights is horrible, absolutely not competitive at all.
9 Riptides ? barely better.

The fact is, an army needs to be diverse to build synergies and increase the effectiveness of units that compose it, so in effect there's never going to be a competitive unbound list made of pure spam unless there are units so overpowered they break that.
The one closest to breaking that barrier is the Annihilation barge, because it deals a lot of damage, Tesla is currently bugged WRT Snap Shots, it's got fake AV13 and is wildly undercosted.

But even that will be broken by other more TAC unbound lists I think.


Also, a WraithKnight is 2.6 points per euro, Riptides aren't much worse and I don't think AB's are worse. They're not that far from the cost of a standard army.

Have you seen what 3 wraithknights are like atm? you need to tarpit them or bye bye very tough to wound.

and i still think the most annoying unbound list is 30 odd single obliterators MON. 75% in reserve so i can tele them in whereever.. very tedious

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
Have you seen what 3 wraithknights are like atm? you need to tarpit them or bye bye very tough to wound.

and i still think the most annoying unbound list is 30 odd single obliterators MON. 75% in reserve so i can tele them in whereever.. very tedious

I have run 3 WK and I have, like every other player who ran 3WK, seen that the third one is not worth its point cost.
There are many things in the game that will wreck a WK for much less than its point cost.

morgoth wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
Have you seen what 3 wraithknights are like atm? you need to tarpit them or bye bye very tough to wound.

and i still think the most annoying unbound list is 30 odd single obliterators MON. 75% in reserve so i can tele them in whereever.. very tedious

I have run 3 WK and I have, like every other player who ran 3WK, seen that the third one is not worth its point cost.
There are many things in the game that will wreck a WK for much less than its point cost.

give me a list princess of the many things. how about i make it easier. ill give you codex's to go from and you can tell me what in them WRECKS them.
CSM.
AM/IG
Nids
Orks
SoB
start with those, and im expecting so much from each book because HEAPS of things can do it.

I personally don't like unbound because it makes an already unbalanced game, more unbalanced. The FOC shennanigans were bad enough and almost pushed me out, then 7th came and embraced that concept whole heartily.
Other games get away with no FOC restrictions because the power levels don't differ so dramatically. But in 40k I can have my fluffy 1Ksons list going up against an army of C'tans and wraiths. Every game has bad match ups, but not to 40k's "the winner is chosen before the first dice is rolled" level.

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

That sentence honestly makes no sense. Unbound can't be taken multiple times, there isn't even a FOC to take multiple times. Multiple CADs are different from Unbound because they have an HQ and Troop tax (unless your Knights, Inquisition or Assassins) that go with the FOC.

And honestly I haven't seen much that you can do with an Unbound army that can't be done with a CAD army. Unbound just seems like a way to let people play with all their stuff or new players to have a lower bar of entry into the game.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

I'd add another case: it lowers the bar of entry for new players to not need a CAD legal list right off the bat so they don't find out all the cool looking stuff they got wasn't a legal army, thus dissuading them from playing the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Double, triple, quintuple, infinite. As long as you have the models for it you can roll as deep as you want with CADs.

I run light infantry. I don't use tanks, or large armored vehicles. I end up using sentinels, Valkyries, and vendettas for everything.

If i want to be some what competent i need more than 3 fast attack slots. there is nothing overpowered about this list, so instead i generally use unbound.

morgoth wrote:
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.

6ed was one of the most broken editions the game ever had. The game literally devolved into 2++ rerollable deathstar wars. 7ed didn't even remove those deathstars either.

Unbound doesn't do anything to create new combos. There is no army that suddenly gets crazy broken because they got to take a 4th heavy support or a 3rd HQ. All unbound does is allow for spam armies but those have always been R-P-S games where the list flat out loses to what ever army has its counter which makes them unreliable competitively (and also unfun to play because its pretty much game over before rolling dice).

The top armies have a meriad of amazing unit to compose their armies with. Bad armies are bad because they don't have great units. Letting the good armies spam their amazing units and the bad armies spam their least bad unit isn't going to be some magic upheaval of the meta.

I'd add another case: it lowers the bar of entry for new players to not need a CAD legal list right off the bat so they don't find out all the cool looking stuff they got wasn't a legal army, thus dissuading them from playing the game.

I find the opposite to be true in my META.
Most of us buy for the "Cool Factor" and the fact they were all painted and for sale in the display box after watching a game.
Example:
Space Marine Terminator Capitan
Terminator Assault Squad
Siege Dreadnaught
Ravening Squad
He then brings them over and we play an unbound game and have a good time. After the game he is told he needs to pick up at least 10 Tactical Marines to make a CAD Army. That is one Tactical Marine Box or Dark Vengeance.
This should not be a problem as the Tactical Marines are not cheap they are not prohibitively expensive and he should bet a rule book anyways.
This is more or less how a few of our group got their start.
Never once have I heard "I Need to pick up a box or two of Marines for a legal army, I Quit then."
It is usually "What do I need now?"

 Anpu42 wrote:

I'd add another case: it lowers the bar of entry for new players to not need a CAD legal list right off the bat so they don't find out all the cool looking stuff they got wasn't a legal army, thus dissuading them from playing the game.

I find the opposite to be true in my META.
Most of us buy for the "Cool Factor" and the fact they were all painted and for sale in the display box after watching a game.
Example:
Space Marine Terminator Capitan
Terminator Assault Squad
Siege Dreadnaught
Ravening Squad
He then brings them over and we play an unbound game and have a good time. After the game he is told he needs to pick up at least 10 Tactical Marines to make a CAD Army. That is one Tactical Marine Box or Dark Vengeance.
This should not be a problem as the Tactical Marines are not cheap they are not prohibitively expensive and he should bet a rule book anyways.
This is more or less how a few of our group got their start.
Never once have I heard "I Need to pick up a box or two of Marines for a legal army, I Quit then."
It is usually "What do I need now?"

It swings both ways honestly. I've seen people who would love to build armies of Dreadnoughts and tanks for example. Plus unbound allows people to get a little crazy representing some of the fluff too.

What it comes down to, is what it always comes down to. Do you and your friends have fun playing the game? All the terrible scenarios about overpowered min/maxed lists and ruining other people's fun is mostly a hypothetical internet phenomenon. Now, are you never going to get into a game that's uneven? No. But that could happen with two "just for fun", fluffy, soft lists. People tend to play with like minded people and as long as there is a general consensus, there's no issue. If you have a win at all costs mentality, good for you. You're probably playing with like minded people. If you like "fluffy" lists and play with "overpowered" lists, then you're likely ruining their fun as much as they're ruining your fun.

Now I get that most of the discussion is just a way to kill time on the net, like my post for example, but from all the very game/tactics savvy people that I read on here, I wish there was more discussions about cool ways to utilize new rules as opposed to arguing if the rules can be misused and abused.

I for one, hate the idea of min/maxing, (that's just my background as a DM in dnd), but I absolutely love the new unbound rules because my beloved chaos renegades (not traitor legion), can take as many havok squads as they want. Is being able to field a 'chaos tactical squad' with 4 heavy bolters, or 2plasma and 2las or2 flak missiles worth the possibility that I might face and all riptide list? Or nothing but hive tyrants, or some crazy centurion thing? Absolutely. Because even when I've played a 24'000 point total Appocalypse game, I still talk to my opponent in advance to "get on the same page" to make sure we both have fun. I for one, always bring more than one list, if not more than one army, just to make sure the day is a success, ie. we both have a blast.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I personally don't like unbound because it makes an already unbalanced game, more unbalanced. The FOC shennanigans were bad enough and almost pushed me out, then 7th came and embraced that concept whole heartily.
Other games get away with no FOC restrictions because the power levels don't differ so dramatically. But in 40k I can have my fluffy 1Ksons list going up against an army of C'tans and wraiths. Every game has bad match ups, but not to 40k's "the winner is chosen before the first dice is rolled" level.

You haven't tried it.
What if it made it more balanced ? Would you give it a shot ?
Does it even matter to be bound when some have formations, others have multiple CADs and dataslates ?

Your 1Ksons suck balls against anything, any game has that kind of match up.
Go play SC2, try a mass Zealot vs a mass Stalker. Unless you make the rush, which you won't against a good player, you've lost hands down.

There's such a thing as not picking the wrong tool for the job.

Are you going to whine because your hammer doesn't handle screws all that good ?

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I personally don't like unbound because it makes an already unbalanced game, more unbalanced. The FOC shennanigans were bad enough and almost pushed me out, then 7th came and embraced that concept whole heartily.
Other games get away with no FOC restrictions because the power levels don't differ so dramatically. But in 40k I can have my fluffy 1Ksons list going up against an army of C'tans and wraiths. Every game has bad match ups, but not to 40k's "the winner is chosen before the first dice is rolled" level.

You haven't tried it.
What if it made it more balanced ? Would you give it a shot ?
Does it even matter to be bound when some have formations, others have multiple CADs and dataslates ?

Your 1Ksons suck balls against anything, any game has that kind of match up.
Go play SC2, try a mass Zealot vs a mass Stalker. Unless you make the rush, which you won't against a good player, you've lost hands down.

There's such a thing as not picking the wrong tool for the job.

Are you going to whine because your hammer doesn't handle screws all that good ?

You didn't understand my point....again.
The fact that IKsons suck that bad, is what I'm talking about and no, I don't know of any other games that have units that suck that bad and then units like riptides that are auto-takes because they're so amazing to the degree 40k has. Stop replying to my comments until you take the time to read them and understand what I'm saying. Once in a while, sure, but you misinterpret and strawman every thing I say.

 CrownAxe wrote:

morgoth wrote:
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.

6ed was one of the most broken editions the game ever had. The game literally devolved into 2++ rerollable deathstar wars. 7ed didn't even remove those deathstars either.

Unbound doesn't do anything to create new combos. There is no army that suddenly gets crazy broken because they got to take a 4th heavy support or a 3rd HQ. All unbound does is allow for spam armies but those have always been R-P-S games where the list flat out loses to what ever army has its counter which makes them unreliable competitively (and also unfun to play because its pretty much game over before rolling dice).

The top armies have a meriad of amazing unit to compose their armies with. Bad armies are bad because they don't have great units. Letting the good armies spam their amazing units and the bad armies spam their least bad unit isn't going to be some magic upheaval of the meta.

I disagree.

6th ed was dominated by deathstars, but below them there were a myriad interesting builds, some of which are surfacing in 7th now that those deathstars have lost a lot of steam with the new psychic.
Not only that, but the average win ratio among the top five was about 50% for each of the five armies. And that's never happened before.

Unbound allows a ton more combos to be created, there are lots of armies that suffer because they can't take 12 Heavy Supports.

Bad armies have good units too, if CSM were not limited to the CAD, they could field some really scary gak.
I don't think Eldar could field much worse than what's currently CAD, and one of the reasons they're so "awesome" is that their troop tax can be turned into HS equivalent units, and their HQ tax can be turned into a deadly beast star.
Remove the CAD+allies, go unbound, and suddenly those benefits are not so great because nobody else is now forced to fit bad units in their army to respect the CAD.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

You didn't understand my point....again.
The fact that IKsons suck that bad, is what I'm talking about and no, I don't know of any other games that have units that suck that bad and then units like riptides that are auto-takes because they're so amazing to the degree 40k has. Stop replying to my comments until you take the time to read them and understand what I'm saying. Once in a while, sure, but you misinterpret and strawman every thing I say.

It's because you can't express it correctly. again.
Every single RTS, all of which had a lot more testing and patching than 40K, has units as gakky as thousand sons, and units as awesome as Riptides which are auto-takes when you use that army.

If you don't know, don't talk.

morgoth wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

morgoth wrote:
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.

6ed was one of the most broken editions the game ever had. The game literally devolved into 2++ rerollable deathstar wars. 7ed didn't even remove those deathstars either.

Unbound doesn't do anything to create new combos. There is no army that suddenly gets crazy broken because they got to take a 4th heavy support or a 3rd HQ. All unbound does is allow for spam armies but those have always been R-P-S games where the list flat out loses to what ever army has its counter which makes them unreliable competitively (and also unfun to play because its pretty much game over before rolling dice).

The top armies have a meriad of amazing unit to compose their armies with. Bad armies are bad because they don't have great units. Letting the good armies spam their amazing units and the bad armies spam their least bad unit isn't going to be some magic upheaval of the meta.

I disagree.

6th ed was dominated by deathstars, but below them there were a myriad interesting builds, some of which are surfacing in 7th now that those deathstars have lost a lot of steam with the new psychic.
Not only that, but the average win ratio among the top five was about 50% for each of the five armies. And that's never happened before.

Unbound allows a ton more combos to be created, there are lots of armies that suffer because they can't take 12 Heavy Supports.

Bad armies have good units too, if CSM were not limited to the CAD, they could field some really scary gak.
I don't think Eldar could field much worse than what's currently CAD, and one of the reasons they're so "awesome" is that their troop tax can be turned into HS equivalent units, and their HQ tax can be turned into a deadly beast star.
Remove the CAD+allies, go unbound, and suddenly those benefits are not so great because nobody else is now forced to fit bad units in their army to respect the CAD.

The great armies are great because of how many amazing units they have that cover a wide range of functions and roles that allow them to build well rounded army lists that can handle most if not all match ups reliably well. This is what bad armies don't have. They have a few good units but they can't write good lists with them. They don't get to do certain roles well and suffer greatly in the grande scheme of things.

Look at AM for a moment. They have Wyvern which is one of the best units in the game right now but If I made an unbound army of only Wyverns I can't kill vehicles, I'm not gooat at killing MCs, Can't hurt flyers or invisible units, and I'm super prone to antitank weapons. This means That despite writing a list that is only amazing units, It is still a terrible army. And frankly AM can't write a great list because they just don't have any good options for dealing with MCs or vehicles well (except for Pask, its all either unreliable, fragile as heck, or overcosted) and they are slow so can't get around the board to grab objectives well either. Unbound doesn't fix that because taking infinite units doesn't suddenly make bad units good at something they're not.

Unbound may let you write lists that spam good units, but that doesn't mean its a good army.

I understood MWHistorian just fine. Are you actually trying to compare RTSs with table top games? Way to strawman (again) and move the goal posts.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
Have you seen what 3 wraithknights are like atm? you need to tarpit them or bye bye very tough to wound.

and i still think the most annoying unbound list is 30 odd single obliterators MON. 75% in reserve so i can tele them in whereever.. very tedious

I have run 3 WK and I have, like every other player who ran 3WK, seen that the third one is not worth its point cost.
There are many things in the game that will wreck a WK for much less than its point cost.

give me a list princess of the many things. how about i make it easier. ill give you codex's to go from and you can tell me what in them WRECKS them.
CSM.
AM/IG
Nids
Orks
SoB
start with those, and im expecting so much from each book because HEAPS of things can do it.

morgoth, I'm curious as to your reply to this post.

I like unbound as it allows for some really fluffy armies. And there's also the fact that since it's legal, people don't have to feel awful about making an all-dread army or whatnot.

The crazy combos unbound allows for aren't even that crazy. All wraithknights? You know what's better than that? 2-3 wraithknights combined with a few wave serpents with DAVU. And you can make that army with battle-forged, so you get benefits.

Battle-forged will always be better because of the benefits of using the CAD. And that's fine! I just wish people would realize that by now and accept unbound is just another way of making an army and it's honestly not as good as battle-forged...

7th killed 40k in my area, and I mean dead. 2 stores, 40 players a year ago. The most either can conjur now is 4 for a prize supported tournament. They don't want to "restrict" people by not allowing unbound. The players don't want to bother with entry fees after 2 transcendent ctan lists have cleaned house last few tournaments. Pickup games are non-existant. On the bright side, people are trying warmahordes and infinity in the area.