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.

It really doesn't change anything, though. There's no discussion to be had, because whether you're exercising this rule or your own freedom of choice, the opposing player's reaction will be the same. Do you really need to add "as per rule whatever on page whatever" to the end of the sentence "I am not going to play against your army"? You are not any more or less justified in refusing to play someone because it's backed up by the rules.

Not to be patronising, but if you haven't played Pokémon, I'll explain my reference - Pokémon trainers apparently are not allowed to refuse a challenge from another once their eyes have met. This is actually just a game mechanic to make most trainer battles basically unavoidable because they stand like stalwart sentinels, their vision a laser trip that you can't avoid because, upon seeing you, they run at you and your character stops moving (apparently can't move when observed). When they reach you, your character turns and looks directly at them, and they'll say some random bit of dialogue such as "I like shorts! Let's battle!". You are not allowed to flee from a trainer battle. In short, trainer battles are completely obligatory, so the only way you can refuse is if there was some rule (like this one). Playing 40k, however, is not obligatory. There is no need for a rule to exempt you from this obligation because there is no obligation.

I'm really interested in what exactly these "discussions" you and Jasper76 have referenced in this context are.

 ninjafiredragon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Unbound armies require opponent consent. In fact, any method of army list building requires opponent consent.

Bolded in the rulebook, p.116

Not in tournaments it wont

Of course it will. You know the rules that are being played and consent to adhere to them the moment you sign up.

 Sir Arun wrote:
I'm sure the list will do particularly well against Grav Centurion and sniper spam.

The point was it's disgusting and doesn't require unbound. I have no doubt some other super broken combo will come out within a week as people learn to break and abuse the rules.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
I'm really interested in what exactly these "discussions" you and Jasper76 have referenced in this context are.

Here is an example of the type of hypothetical conversation I am hoping this new rule will remove from my life:

Without the rule
Me: Lets start up this Hecatar Minor campaign I've been working on. Everyone bring a 1500 points Battle-Forged, 1 FOC, no more than 2 of any type of unit.
Space Marine Player: Sure thing.
Eldar Player: You have no right to tell me I can't bring an Unbound army with Eldar, Tau, Tyranids, Orks, and Daemons. And I'll spam whatever I want, thank you very much.
Me: Please just conform to the list rules I've provided.
Eldar Player: No way man, you have to have a rule to pull something like that!
Me: Look dude, you're a nice guy, and everyone gets along with you, but I took the time to create this campaign specifically with Space Marines vs. Eldar in mind, and nobody wants to play against your Unbound army because it breaks the theme of the campaign, and all you're doing is spamming the best units out of each codex. Please just conform to the list rules I've provided.
Eldar Player: OK...this time...

With the rule
Me: Lets finish up the Hecatar Minor campaign between . Everyone bring a 1500 points Battle-Forged, 1 FOC, no more than 2 of any type of unit.
Space Marine Player: Sure thing.
Eldar Player: OK, I'm in.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
It really doesn't change anything, though. There's no discussion to be had, because whether you're exercising this rule or your own freedom of choice, the opposing player's reaction will be the same. Do you really need to add "as per rule whatever on page whatever" to the end of the sentence "I am not going to play against your army"? You are not any more or less justified in refusing to play someone because it's backed up by the rules.

I agree with you, but I have find people that do not see it that way. Call them rule-lawyers if you want, some people are highly affected by what does the rulebook say, to the point that common sense is not only left behind, but openly considered irrelevant.

Have a look at some YMDC topics and you will eventually find someone who says 'it doesn´t matter that it is common sense, the rules say otherwise'.

(...)
I'm really interested in what exactly these "discussions" you and Jasper76 have referenced in this context are.

I can´t speak for jasper76, of course, but I was thinking about players who bring a highly competitive list, and a competitive mindset to match, to a friendly 'let´s all have fun' group with players more interested in narrative games or cool models. I found a lot of people like this at the end of 5th, after the infamous Codex: Grey Knights. And 6th made it worst: some people refused to buy flyers & fortifications while other people ran to buy them, which made an even bigger difference in the power-level of the lists.

Eventually, some playing-for-fun players started playing exclusively among themselves, refusing to play with any competitive list/player. To all effects the community was broken in tournament/competitive and friendly/narrative. There were also a lot of rage-quitting (that Codex Necrons) and the number of players dwindled.

So picking up a game with someone created some discussions. Some people claimed that it was rude to refuse to play against a 'legal' army. The other side replied that the player bringing a 'star' list to anything else than a tournament was to be blamed for that.

Then you have the Forgeworld discussion. Some 'friendly list' players wanted to use them because they look cool and some 'competitive list' players wanted to use them because some units were top-notch units. It is again a discussion about what is 'legal', when it should be obvious that (as far as I know), everything you want to field is both legal and needed of the opponent´s consent.

About the importance of the RAW, I think that was caused because 'friendly' veteran players tipically wanted to add home-made stuff (twiking existing rules, campaigns, home-made units, home-made entire Codexes or 40k Systems) while the 'competitive' veteran players were quite focused to tournaments, which the 'following the rules to the letter' mentality this brings. Thus it became quite important how something was worded.

So it may be useful to have the 'both players must agree' thing written down, stupid as it seems.


The reason I am embarrassed thinking that way is that I know full well that this is nonsensical and unnecesary, and it will solve nothing. The same player that started a discussion because he thought the other players were 'forced' to play with him even if he was a jerk because he was abiding by the letter of the rules will for sure start another discussion because... just because. The problem is the player himself.


By the way, I always thought the 'you MUST play with me' illusion came from a particularly competitive mentality perhaps related with the success of MTG. I think this tournament thing came from there, and influenced some aspects of 4th or 5th design. Some players (some of which regularly post here on dakka) see casual games as tournament training, and will not bring (or buy, or collect) a unit if it is not competitive enough. Thus their surprise, and frustration, when they meet a group with lots of sub-optimized, good-looking, original and thematic lists, that will refuse to play with him even if he is bringing a '100% legal list', while count-as, proxying and home-made rules are accepted. And it is made worse by the dwindling player-base, and the increasing difficulty of finding someone to play with.

I guess it all depends on who you play with and how many players are near your home.

It won't change those discussions, though. Ultimately it's your ability to refuse to play that is the cause for discussion, which you always had.

Why would this hypothetical WAAC Eldar player suddenly be okay with something they weren't okay with before, just because it's "in the rules" that they can refuse? If there's a mentality that you're being rude by refusing a game, it's still going to be considered rude whether or not there is a rule allowing you to do so.

If someone refuses to play because Forge World units are in your army, then they're refusing to play. The discussion is entirely about convincing them not to refuse.

As human beings, we hate to say no, and we hate no being said to us. How someone feels about their army being refused will not change just because the rules give you permission to refuse. That hypothetical Eldar player is still going to say "Hold on a minute, I want to do all this stuff and I think it's unfair you're not letting me do it". As much as a DM has full support of the rules to suddenly kill off a character because they felt like it doesn't make it okay.

This doesn't only apply to Unbound, Forge World, or other things of that nature, by the way. Would you say "Okay, I'm in" after someone decided you're not allowed to bring your Chaos Marines because you have Abaddon in it, or too many Cultists?

Jasper, you are saying that nobody will argue any more when denied access to something, just because there's a rule saying you're allowed to deny them. This is not going to happen. Imagine if you set up a game and then your opponent said "Actually, I don't have enough melta in my army to be confident about killing all your armour. I refuse to play you!". Would that be any different with or without this pointless 'rule'?

The other problem of having to get permission before bringing things, it tells your opponent what youre doing.

My friends at the FLGS tends to ask if its ok to bring fliers. I keep telling them dont ask that because now i know i need air support, whereas before i only had a thought about it.

With the nerf to Str D actually making them not gamebreaking-i-kill-half-your-army-in-one-shot strong anymore, i dont even care if people bring superheavies into my games. My general list is expecting high armor, thats why i always have a fusion bomb, or a big MC which is just as good to kill with. 8 Meltas (counting commander) is more than enough to make a super heavy have a bad day.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
It won't change those discussions, though. Ultimately it's your ability to refuse to play that is the cause for discussion, which you always had.

Why would this hypothetical WAAC Eldar player suddenly be okay with something they weren't okay with before, just because it's "in the rules" that they can refuse? If there's a mentality that you're being rude by refusing a game, it's still going to be considered rude whether or not there is a rule allowing you to do so.

If someone refuses to play because Forge World units are in your army, then they're refusing to play. The discussion is entirely about convincing them not to refuse.

As human beings, we hate to say no, and we hate no being said to us. How someone feels about their army being refused will not change just because the rules give you permission to refuse. That hypothetical Eldar player is still going to say "Hold on a minute, I want to do all this stuff and I think it's unfair you're not letting me do it". As much as a DM has full support of the rules to suddenly kill off a character because they felt like it doesn't make it okay.

This doesn't only apply to Unbound, Forge World, or other things of that nature, by the way. Would you say "Okay, I'm in" after someone decided you're not allowed to bring your Chaos Marines because you have Abaddon in it, or too many Cultists?

Jasper, you are saying that nobody will argue any more when denied access to something, just because there's a rule saying you're allowed to deny them. This is not going to happen. Imagine if you set up a game and then your opponent said "Actually, I don't have enough melta in my army to be confident about killing all your armour. I refuse to play you!". Would that be any different with or without this pointless 'rule'?

Perhaps you're right across the board. However, I kind of suspect that this rule may kill or stifle arguments that a DM has a right to place limitations and restrictions on army lists before thos areguments occur. It is no great secret that in the 40k gaming community, some people feel a need for a rule to give anyone permission to do anything that isn't specified in the rules. Just using these boards as an example, I have seen it said more times than I could ever remember "This is a game of rules. You need permission to do something that is not stated explicitly in the rules" or the equivalent. So if I am trying to DM a campaign, and I run into that attitude, I have a rule I can point to to.

I wish there was also a rule in the BRB that limited how much you could whine about it on the internet.

A Force Organization Chart, so to speak. 2 troop choices for every aimless pedantic argument.

There can be Unbound whining too, but it has to stay in News&Rumors.

as far as i saw FW is in, as when they tell you about where to get the rules for everything else it simply states that they can be found in any games workshop publication. and fw bla bla being so... otherwise anything in WD etc would be null and void.

and yeah lets also be terrorfied of unbound, haha with the base system being just as bad

What this does, in effect, is provide 'legitimate' weight to your refusal to fight against an unbound army.

Unlike the situation where Lords of War were brought into the game and refusal to play against them was you objecting and refusing to play against something brought into the game, this caveat places the unbound army back into the list of things to agree to or refuse before a game. Exactly as it has been previously with such things, we won't, fingers crossed, see them in the wider community and they will remain an experimental/friendly game like apocalypse.

Which is frankly where they belong. I applaud the rules writers for including this very valuable clause.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
they will remain an experimental/friendly game like apocalypse. Which is frankly where they belong.

My feeling is the entire way you're allowed to put an army together belongs in apocalypse, without even factoring in the crazy bits (supper heavies, ect). The other problem is the everything scoring silliness.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
they will remain an experimental/friendly game like apocalypse. Which is frankly where they belong.

My feeling is the entire way you're allowed to put an army together belongs in apocalypse, without even factoring in the crazy bits (supper heavies, ect). The other problem is the everything scoring silliness.

Removing the unbound and remembering that troop choices always totally trump anything else, I don't see that as so much of a problem.

I think my big problem with 7th at this stage is the daemon summoning and the daemon summoning factory lists I've been seeing on videos and here. I hope there's a very rapid FAQ on that.

Arent super heavies considered Lords of War? Guess that would be the only boon to unbound compared to bound - able to field more than 2 super heavies/gargantuans in a 2k game.

Ooo, that reminds me. Gargantuan Squiggoth....i can get one of those epic models and not worry about never being able to use it now! (note: i hate apoc games, far too long and far too many WTF? rules). Though thats still a....i think it was 400USD after converting the currency hahaha

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
they will remain an experimental/friendly game like apocalypse. Which is frankly where they belong.

My feeling is the entire way you're allowed to put an army together belongs in apocalypse, without even factoring in the crazy bits (supper heavies, ect). The other problem is the everything scoring silliness.

Removing the unbound and remembering that troop choices always totally trump anything else, I don't see that as so much of a problem.

I think my big problem with 7th at this stage is the daemon summoning and the daemon summoning factory lists I've been seeing on videos and here. I hope there's a very rapid FAQ on that.

Why do you assume I'm talking about unbound mgs? Battle Forged is 75% as silly as unbound and I don't think half the playerbase has even realized that yet. That's without even touching the stupid everything scoring mess. Megascoring drop pods and wave serpents for all.. sigh

Daemon summoning is less of a concern to me than the practice of allowing player total list building freedom while apparently suspending any pessimism or cynicism over what the end result may look like.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Arent super heavies considered Lords of War? Guess that would be the only boon to unbound compared to bound - able to field more than 2 super heavies/gargantuans in a 2k game.

Ooo, that reminds me. Gargantuan Squiggoth....i can get one of those epic models and not worry about never being able to use it now! (note: i hate apoc games, far too long and far too many WTF? rules). Though thats still a....i think it was 400USD after converting the currency hahaha

you can take 1 Lord of War for every HQ and 2 Troops

 ausYenLoWang wrote:


*cough* FW discussion *cough*

FW discussions are dead, there was an entry in the rulebook stating that models and their rules can be taken from any GW publication , which FW books are.

What page in the rulebook shows this?!

page 357 "introduction"
"this book is, however, only the start of your journey into... ,and there are a host of Games workshop publications that expand upon the rules in this book. these provide you with extra material you can incoporate into your games - detailing additional units you can deploy and missions you can play... "

thats the first, ill find others as well..

 gmaleron wrote:
Watched x2 Unbound Armies lose to Battleforged ones because of the troop scoring bonus, people need to chill.

fething this.

A few weeks from now you won't be hearing gak about unbound armies once people actually get more than a game or two under their belt.

If you want to play an unbound army, you lose out (rightfully) on a huge advantage. You also gain other advantages.

It's like everyone losing their gak over that Daemon summoning spam list video, but completely ignoring the fact that the 100% unprepared for it IK player manages to draw the game against the super mega fething OP list by playing to the objectives of the game.


I'll echo Gmaleron - people need to chill.

ITT: People who run psyker heavy armies say that all the other armies that don't guarantee 20+ warp charge dice just need to chill.

wow those unbound players must have been total noobs if they didnt manage to clear a TROOPS unit from an objective

 Sir Arun wrote:
wow those unbound players must have been total noobs if they didnt manage to clear a TROOPS unit from an objective

yeah total noobs, id love to see someone clear 5 max units of zombies off objectives......................... its not all that easy to get rid of 1... let alone more.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:
"I'm going to bring Paskisher as my HQ"

"No."

/thread



...so thats what permission has become?

I'm sure someone could feel emboldened to take it to that level. In practive, I think this will just end up being:

"I want to play with my Unbound army"

"No thanks." (or "Sure!")

"OK, I'll play with my Battleforged Army"

lol... pretty much sums it up. written or not.

 da001 wrote:
At the same time, and finding it somehow embarrassing, I must admit I am sort of happy they wrote it down, because it was not obvious for some people. It may help to avoid discussions.

What discussion while it avoid? You're still going to decide that you don't want to play some people because they have unbound armies and have to tell them that. Of course, they can turn around and say "I don't want to use battleforged armies" or "I don't want to use points values".

 Vineheart01 wrote:
The decision whether or not to bring certain units was always there, just people threw a total hissyfit if someone said they dont want to face FW units in a normal 40k game because to them "ITS LEGAL WHY YOU COMPLAIN ARE YOU NOOB AND CANT PLAY!?" - and sadly this new "rule" still wont shut people like that up lol.

Yeah, actually it does. I've previously argued (correctly, I feel), that ForgeWorld units with the 40K Approved stamp are a legal part of the normal WH40K game. However, with the new wording in 7th, I've now changed my position. It's clear that everything requires consent to be legal. Don't like my Wraithknight? Tell me not to play it because the rules say you have that right. In fact, don't allow anyone to play with anything you don't want them to play with. That's what the rule boils down to - official endorsement of that attitude.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Why would this hypothetical WAAC Eldar player suddenly be okay with something they weren't okay with before, just because it's "in the rules" that they can refuse?

I'll tell you if you're willing to listen. Because I like to play competitively and do my best to beat an opponent. Self-limiting sets up an un-fun state for me where I'm no longer doing my best, but know that I could do much more and am just idling along not actually trying hard at something.

A constraint imposed from outside, is not the same as a constraint imposed from inside. If you feel that it is, I suggest you go and play football for an afternoon with some five year olds and see how it compares to what you feel when you play a real match.

I fully expect you to respond with reasons why that's wrong or someone shouldn't feel that way or the perennial favourite, that I should go and play something else. Don't much care - you asked a question and that is the actual answer should you be interested in actually understanding where people are coming from rather than just looking for ways to dismiss them.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 da001 wrote:
At the same time, and finding it somehow embarrassing, I must admit I am sort of happy they wrote it down, because it was not obvious for some people. It may help to avoid discussions.

What discussion while it avoid? You're still going to decide that you don't want to play some people because they have unbound armies and have to tell them that. Of course, they can turn around and say "I don't want to use battleforged armies" or "I don't want to use points values".

Another person asked me and I answered a few posts above....

I've allready been playing with restrictions. I've denied games vs FMC spam and 2++ rerollable stuff in 6. Just cause i've tried them and they were inevitebly boring.

Now GW says something like: "You can deny a game if you want". Oh, thanks, nothing has changed here.