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.

So we have learned that there will be some new mode of fielding armies in an Unbound way that allows for people to populate lists with such spammy monstrosities as 10 riptides in a 2000 point list.

Lots of people on this forum are panicking over the Pandora Box that is being opened by the prospect of Unbound play. What we don't know is the plan GW has to balance out the inclusion of Unbound play into the more familiar "Battle Forged" play. I think its entirely do-able to balance out Unbound and Batte Forged play.

My question to the community is how would YOU balance that? Imagine you are a game designer and you are tasked with supporting Unbound play versus the Battle Forged mode that follows the FOC. Presumably there should be pros and cons for choosing either mode and not just a patently obvious way to proceed. Ideally, of course you make rule changes that make either mode a strategically viable mode. So, important here is to provide enough gusto to the Battle Forged mode that it can contain the abusive silliness that the Unbound mode could muster.

As a starter, I would suggest that if I as a Battle Forged player had twice as many points as an Unbound player I could handle the Unbound player -- easily. This is definitely overkill. With twice as many points the Battle Forged player would have more points than he needs to keep the Unbound player in check. I think we could do better than just give the Battle Forged player twice as many points to play with. As that is, there would be little incentive to play Unbound. But this is an important starting place to make note of. It means that potentially Unbound is containabled and that Unbound and Battle Forged play are completely balanceable in theory with one another.

So what say you? Rather than panic, how would you incorporate an Unforged mode successfully into the more familiar Battle Forged mode?

50% more points? 25% more points? A sideboard mechanic? Where do you think the balancing point is? What mechanic would you implement to balance out the two modes?

Battle Forged lists achieve the true objective, forging a narrative, and so automatically win the game if they have any models alive at the end of the last turn.

The problem is that your assuming people will use unbound to wreck the game. And sure, some will, but what about that guy who legitimately makes an army of maulerfiends and forgefiends. Does he deserve to face an army 50% bigger than his?

My initial thoughts on balancing an unbound list vs. a battle-forged list.

This also seems to check all the boxes as far as nerfing deathstars without telling anyone what they CANNOT bring to a game.

Tweaks to the Tyranids/MC side might be in order since that codex seems to be generally thought of as under-powered.




Battle-forged - you obey all FOC rules and stick to one Codex.

If you bring a battle-forged list and play against an unbound list you immediately receive the following VP bonuses.

You receive Victory Points determined by what your OPPONENT brings.

For every Codex/Dataslate/Formation after the first one that your opponent brings, you receive two VPs.

For every duplicate of a unit your opponent brings (other than troops and their transports) you receive one VP.

For every superheavy your opponent brings you receive five VPs.

For every flyer (including FMC) after the first one your opponent brings, you receive two VPs.

For every MC your opponent brings after the first one, you receive two VPs.

For every D strength weapon your opponent brings, you receive three VPs.

For every 2++ rerollable your opponent rolls during the game you immediately receive seven VPs.

Victory Point conditions stack and are cumulative. Ergo, the second FMC in your opponent's list will yield you five VPs (+2 flyer, +2 MC, +1 duplicate unit).

In all instances in which a dispute arises the maximum number of VPs must be conveyed to the battle-forged list player.

VPs win games. Tabling your opponent just ends the game prematurely. VPs are then tallied.

Super premature thread.

It's silly to have a proposed rules thread, for rules that aren't out or even validated as being true yet.

col_impact wrote:
My question to the community is how would YOU balance that?

My make believe solution would be to appropriately price units so that any points combination would be roughly equal in strength, but that would require rewriting every codex. It should be possible if every codex used the same pricing scheme for models and was balanced internally. If a certain composition is assumed, then army list points escalating as more of the same unit are purchased might address that by scaling the army appropriately such as more than two of units X, Y, and Z means they all cost an additional Q points per model.

It wouldn't ever be perfect, but it would be closer.

I think that this will depend highly on how the Allies matrix (and in particular Battle Brothers) shakes out. I think being able to field ICs from more than one army in the same unit is probably on its way out, which will chop out some of the potential abusiveness of Unbound. The need for scoring will also hamper Unbound to a degree as well.

I suspect what we'll see is Battle Forged lists being able to make better use of the synergistic abilities within their own codex plus perhaps having additional unique synergies.

The rules aren't out yet. Your mission: wait until they are lol -

locking