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 is a fantastic way to play 40K when done responsibly in the hands of respectable players.

It's the WAAC jack-holes that ruin it. People need to stop blaming the rules and start blaming the players.

Furthermore... Stop concerning yourselves with tournament play and utilize Unbound for what it's meant for; permission to play amazing themed armies.

Speedfreaks, Deathwing, Ravenwing, Ultramarines 1st Company, AM Tank Company, etc. All now permissible with the Unbound rules.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seriously... People need to start playing this game for fun again and stop worrying about "how can I win".

 oni wrote:

Seriously... People need to start playing this game for fun again and stop worrying about "how can I win".

Some people have fun by playing to win and by competing in high power tournaments.

 oni wrote:


It's the WAAC jack-holes that ruin it. People need to stop blaming the rules and start blaming the players.

If GW would not charge for the rules, sure.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 oni wrote:


It's the WAAC jack-holes that ruin it. People need to stop blaming the rules and start blaming the players.

If GW would not charge for the rules, sure.

So it can't be the Players Fault?

 oni wrote:

Seriously... People need to start playing this game for fun again and stop worrying about "how can I win".

If 2000 points of my chosen army did not cost me $900, I might play that way, but it does.

 Psienesis wrote:

 oni wrote:

Seriously... People need to start playing this game for fun again and stop worrying about "how can I win".

If 2000 points of my chosen army did not cost me $900, I might play that way, but it does.

I play to have fun and have about 6-10+k into my armies. That is why I play and spend so much money into it, to have fun.

I think it's both GW's and the players fault. GW's for not working better to errata known issues that allow for people to exploit the system solely to win easier, and for players who go out of their way to break the game to win easier.

Choices are made by both parties that allow this kind of thing to continue and to pin blame on one party and exclude the other in it seems like we're trying to scapegoat on party to save the other from responsibility.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

 oni wrote:

Seriously... People need to start playing this game for fun again and stop worrying about "how can I win".

If 2000 points of my chosen army did not cost me $900, I might play that way, but it does.

I play to have fun and have about 6-10+k into my armies. That is why I play and spend so much money into it, to have fun.

Then you are certainly better off financially than I am.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

 oni wrote:

Seriously... People need to start playing this game for fun again and stop worrying about "how can I win".

If 2000 points of my chosen army did not cost me $900, I might play that way, but it does.

I play to have fun and have about 6-10+k into my armies. That is why I play and spend so much money into it, to have fun.

Then you are certainly better off financially than I am.

I have also been collecting since 1989

I think Games-Workshop tries to establish itself has a model companie who offer a very sandbox game system based on their rather rich background. The concept behind Unbound is «if you are to spend 1000$ on our product, you should enjoy the models you buy». You should be able to make an army of only the models you think are good looking and still be able to play the game. Of course, this may make your army very weak in a setting were armies and scenerio arn't adapted to each other (thus not very competitive). The problem with sandbox game is that problem of balance are dumped on the players. Most of the the time, this doesn't cause much problem, but players without a regular gaming group will experience more difficulty. Personnaly, I can deal with GW shenanigans, unbalance and other details like that. They just keep producing good background and nice models and I will be happy.

CrownAxe wrote:Some people have fun by playing to win and by competing in high power tournaments.

And they have fun playing 40k? That seems strange, given that it's a dice game. If you wanted to compete and test skill, there are MUCH better ways to do that than 40k.

 Ailaros wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Some people have fun by playing to win and by competing in high power tournaments.

And they have fun playing 40k? That seems strange, given that it's a dice game. If you wanted to compete and test skill, there are MUCH better ways to do that than 40k.

That's why so many have left the game. And there is more skill envolved in other war games than gw games

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Some people have fun by playing to win and by competing in high power tournaments.

And they have fun playing 40k? That seems strange, given that it's a dice game. If you wanted to compete and test skill, there are MUCH better ways to do that than 40k.

That's why so many have left the game. And there is more skill envolved in other war games than gw games

That's a good thing. People are like "blame the players who want to win!" and then you're like "But that's making them leave!"

From my perspective, I say good riddance. There are plenty of players in my area who do not care about winning, myself included.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Some people have fun by playing to win and by competing in high power tournaments.

And they have fun playing 40k? That seems strange, given that it's a dice game. If you wanted to compete and test skill, there are MUCH better ways to do that than 40k.

That's why so many have left the game. And there is more skill envolved in other war games than gw games

That's a good thing. People are like "blame the players who want to win!" and then you're like "But that's making them leave!"

From my perspective, I say good riddance. There are plenty of players in my area who do not care about winning, myself included.

That's a very elitist attitude. When GW goes under, don't wonder why.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Some people have fun by playing to win and by competing in high power tournaments.

And they have fun playing 40k? That seems strange, given that it's a dice game. If you wanted to compete and test skill, there are MUCH better ways to do that than 40k.

That's why so many have left the game. And there is more skill envolved in other war games than gw games

That's a good thing. People are like "blame the players who want to win!" and then you're like "But that's making them leave!"

From my perspective, I say good riddance. There are plenty of players in my area who do not care about winning, myself included.

That's a very elitist attitude. When GW goes under, don't wonder why.

I won't. I would be surprised to see it go within my lifetime - people have been saying it's going to go now for years and years and years and years and on and on. I think that as long as it exists, someone somewhere will believe it's on the brink of collapse.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Some people have fun by playing to win and by competing in high power tournaments.

And they have fun playing 40k? That seems strange, given that it's a dice game. If you wanted to compete and test skill, there are MUCH better ways to do that than 40k.

That's why so many have left the game. And there is more skill envolved in other war games than gw games

That's a good thing. People are like "blame the players who want to win!" and then you're like "But that's making them leave!"

From my perspective, I say good riddance. There are plenty of players in my area who do not care about winning, myself included.

That's a very elitist attitude. When GW goes under, don't wonder why.

I won't. I would be surprised to see it go within my lifetime - people have been saying it's going to go now for years and years and years and years and on and on. I think that as long as it exists, someone somewhere will believe it's on the brink of collapse.

well, with such welcoming people like you, how could it fail?

Back on topic...

There are several factors to creating balance in the game.

The most basic is the cost per combat power of an individual unit in a codex. Some units are simply too expensive or cheap for what they can actually do in a game, which creates unbalance.

The second is the way different units in a codex work together or not. For example, an army with a good anti-infantry unit also needs anti-tank. A codex with weak anti-tank is unbalanced.

The third is FOC limitations on how many good units you can take and how large they can be. You could have the best, cheapest unit in the entire game, but if you are only allowed one of them it won't help too much. If you have the second-best, cheapest unit in the game and can spam it all over the place, you have a lot of unbalance.

Unbound in its purest form means you can take any units you like, but they still come out of codexes. Any restrictions on that are in some way pointing the player back to the basic codex points anyway.

Since the basic codexes have never been particularly well balanced, it seems illogical that Unbound could create more balance.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 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.

im still waiting for an answer to this. im pretty certain i KNOW why there is a silence on the subject...

bit like when he told me a baneblade had 75% the same parts as a glaive... he has no idea

 CrownAxe wrote:

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.

Or maybe that Wyvern isn't such a good unit because it lacks multiple capabilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Some people have fun by playing to win and by competing in high power tournaments.

And they have fun playing 40k? That seems strange, given that it's a dice game. If you wanted to compete and test skill, there are MUCH better ways to do that than 40k.

That's why so many have left the game. And there is more skill envolved in other war games than gw games

Unlikely.
Skill depends on two things: competition and skill ceiling.
Do you know other war games with more competition or have any evidence of the skill ceiling for 40K being anywhere close to reached ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Back on topic...

There are several factors to creating balance in the game.

The most basic is the cost per combat power of an individual unit in a codex. Some units are simply too expensive or cheap for what they can actually do in a game, which creates unbalance.

The second is the way different units in a codex work together or not. For example, an army with a good anti-infantry unit also needs anti-tank. A codex with weak anti-tank is unbalanced.

The third is FOC limitations on how many good units you can take and how large they can be. You could have the best, cheapest unit in the entire game, but if you are only allowed one of them it won't help too much. If you have the second-best, cheapest unit in the game and can spam it all over the place, you have a lot of unbalance.

Unbound in its purest form means you can take any units you like, but they still come out of codexes. Any restrictions on that are in some way pointing the player back to the basic codex points anyway.

Since the basic codexes have never been particularly well balanced, it seems illogical that Unbound could create more balance.

Exactly. Thanks.

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

Sure it does, since it gives you a bonus that might matter more than the limitation.

Kangodo wrote:

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

Sure it does, since it gives you a bonus that might matter more than the limitation.

And if you remove that bonus, it doesn't make sense.
Which is why GW will remove that bonus when people have accepted unbound.

morgoth wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

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

Sure it does, since it gives you a bonus that might matter more than the limitation.

And if you remove that bonus, it doesn't make sense.
Which is why GW will remove that bonus when people have accepted unbound.

Then they would have to remove all bonuses from all variant FOCs, something I don't see happening.

And your proof for that? Because everything so far points to the opposite as we are getting more and more bonuses, even with multiple special Detachments per Faction.

We'll see.

Until then, I'll be really curious to see everything that can be done with unbound.

morgoth wrote:
We'll see.

Until then, I'll be really curious to see everything that can be done with unbound.

still havent answered my previous question....

I find Unbound great for friendly games; tournament? Not so much.