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.

Im trying to build a monstrous creature list of wraithlords and knights. Of course, I am allowed to do this now thanks to the unbound special rules. Now, as far as I am aware, to take a wraithseer you need to have at least one unit of wraithguard. Does this tax still aplly in an unbound list. I dont think it does, I think I can take the seer with no guard at all, but I would like to know dakkas thoughts?

The general consensus, is that while you can take whatever you want, any necessary taxes must still be paid.

In other words, to take a dedicated transport, you need a squad. To take a SM Command Squad you need an HQ. To take a Wraithseer, you would need a squad of Wraithguard/blades.

Cool, thanks bud. The general consensus is good enough for me.

The Majority will say that you need to pay the tax. You're not required to since unit restrictions aren't applied until you decide to run a 'Battle-Forged' army.

Now, Im not familiar with the the rules for that particular unit, so I could be wrong on the specifics of that unit.

Given the amount of times this question is raised, and that there is always people challenging it, I do not feel there is a consensus.
It really is debatable, particularly on a Unit by Unit bases for certain situations, to the intent of the permission granted to Unbound Armies.

I don't think there is any particular restriction beyond that you have to pay the point cost for units. Simply use whichever units from your collection you want. To me, that is explicit permission to just take whatever the hell you want, whether it be dedicated transports on their own, multiples of the same unique character, or units that have a "tax" requirement. Want to use a Wraithseer? Simply use whichever units from your collection you want - in this case, you simply use your wraithseer.

OP, this is something you'll have to ask your opponent about beforehand, since you won't find a consensus here on Dakka.

The ones who say 'You have to pay the tax' are usually the first to respond.

To the OP, I'm not sure what you're going to do with that Wraithseer w/o a unit in game though if you're plannin on sticking to MC's.

 DanielBeaver wrote:
...multiples of the same unique character...

You'll need your opponents permission for this one. Black box on the page with 'Unbound/Battle-forged' rules is treated as a univeral application no matter how you build your army.

 Akar wrote:

You'll need your opponents permission for this one. Black box on the page with 'Unbound/Battle-forged' rules is treated as a univeral application no matter how you build your army.

You're right, I do see that's specifically addressed right next to the unbound rules.

Night of the Clones might not be a bad idea though....

We've been using it to answer questions like 'How many Calgars does it take to kill Horus?'

Probably doesn't make a difference in this case, but it does say to take whatever units (not models) you want. Depends how it's described in the codex I guess...

Yep, and the more specific rule says that, in order to take unit X, you must ensure Y restriction is met.

WHere is your specific permission to override that rule?

Akar - yes, first to respond as the rule is clear on this point. Its like claiming permission to assault when you disembark from an assault vehicle means you can assault despite having run, or having arrived from reserves that turn. You have permission to take any unit, granted, but then a more specific restriction on some units such as dedicated transports.

Pg 117. Been there since the rules came out.

Isnt that the reference to using whatever units you wish? I already covered that.

Please *quote* the rule you are reliant on to overide the more specific rules found in codexes.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Please *quote* the rule you are reliant on to overide the more specific rules found in codexes

Sure, when you quote where the rule that applies unit restrictions applies to 'Unbound' armies. We have the same rulebook, so when you quote where unit restrictions apply, then you'll find your answer. (Edit: It is in there on pg 117.)

Ah, so a refusal to quote the rule? Helpful.

Please, state exactly what you are reliant upon, and I can then do the same. As per the tenets of this forum it isnt sufficient to say "page 117" any longer, as that is not citing the actual rule - you need at least page 117, para x, sentence y.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep, and the more specific rule says that, in order to take unit X, you must ensure Y restriction is met.
WHere is your specific permission to override that rule?

How about
in an unbound army, these models are not bound by any detachment restrictions and do not receive command benefits.

Basically, you'd have to make the leap that how units are selected off the force org is a detachment restriction.
Given that you're talking about an Unbound army, I'd allow what you are doing, as you could be doing far, far, worse.

I don't know how much it's going to matter for RAW.
I don't think if you have wraithguard or not is going to matter if somebody wants to fight against unbound or not.

Only being able to take a Command Squad if I have a Captain, etc. in my army isn't a detachment restriction. It's a unit restriction. I don't see any rules allowing me to ignore unit restrictions.

If I'm refusing to quote a rule, then you're refusing to look at the rules.

Going back over this thread, you posted as a counter argument without giving a reference. A rule, that in all threads similar to this one, you and those that share your interpretation have failed to reference. Where is the rule about unit restrictions? Without this reference, what is the basis for supporting your interpretation? It's easy to tear down references, like the 'Take whatever units in your collection' with statements like these, but you've yet to show where this rule exists.

And yes the rule does exist, it's right there on pg 117. Unfortunately for your interpretation, it doesn't exist under 'Unbound'.

No, 'Unbound' doesn't give permission to get around the 'In order to bing x, you need x' found in a Codex. This seems to be the struggling point that many fail to grasp. It doesn't need permission to override a rule that we aren't instructed to apply.

Your rule of 'unit restrictions' exists under the 'Battle-forged' heading on Pg 117. Second sentence since you seem to appear to be adamant on ignoring what it says and when to apply it. I'm not seeing anywhere under 'Battle-forged' that states that you must apply the unit restrictions on a 'Battle-forged' list to 'Unbound' lists.

I'm not denying that 'Unbound' armies are subject to the Codex restrictions, since that is one possible interpretation. It's the weaker of the 2 interpretations. It's the weaker of the 2 interpretations, since it's ambiguous (not definite) as to whether those unit restrictions are in place when selecting 'Unbound'. So we don't have a clear point about which rule trumps which (credit to jinxdragon for wording it this way.)

The reason it's a weak argument is:
1) Applying those restrictions creates a conflict with something you already have express permission to do. Ie 'Bring whatever units in your collection you want'. Hint: You're adding in the part 'following all the requirements in the units entry'
2) Prior to picking the 'Unbound' / 'Battle-forged' methods, we are explicitly told to look at a units points, which are found in the units entry. Not the other way around. It doesn't say at any point in that part, to look at the units entry, apply those restrictions then add up the points. Again, we're told to look at the points.
** When this was discussed in another thread months ago, someone used this point to say "Well, we don't have permission to look at the unit sizes either".** Would be a valid point if the 'Unbound' rules told us to use Models, and not Units. It's a bit Off Topic, but felt it was worth mentioning.
3) 'Battle-forged' is the first time in the whole section that 'units that conform to various requirements' is even mentioned. We have 2 ways to apply those unit requirements in 7th. The first being when choosing 'Battle-forged' because that's the only place it's remotely mentioned. The weaker second being 'Apply the rule like we have in all the previous editions, because we've never had any reason to question that method before... Oh wait, 'Unbound' says we need to find this rule...'

So keep applying your weaker interpretation, you've clearly already made up your mind, and it's clear that you'd rather argue that someone who doesn't adhere to unit restrictions when building an 'Unbound' list, than simply say 'No Thanks'. Because that's what you're really telling players like the OP. 'Don't build that list because players like me won't play you' when you should be saying 'Build that list the way you want, and find like-minded players'.

Unit restrictions are completely in the Codex's they come from. They are clear in that they say "In order to take this unit, you must have this unit".

Unbound has a blanket general rule of "take whatever you want" and I admit, RAI, that it seems GW wanted you to be able to take whatever you want. However, there is nothing in the Unbound section that overrides the unit restrictions in place in the codex's, which are far more specific.

Eihnlazer wrote:
However, there is nothing in the Unbound section that overrides the unit restrictions in place in the codex's, which are far more specific.

Already covered and disproved this.

no you really didnt. but thats ok.



As I stated, i think the RAI is to allow you to litterally stick any model you want on the table, however GW didnt write their rules correctly.

They should have put: Take any model you want, paying the appropriate cost in points for said unit, with no restrictions placed on what you choose to field.

They did not however put that. They instead said to refer to your codex for points costs and made no further mention of other restrictions that are in the codex themselves.

Pg 116. 'Reference each units points value, which you can find in it's Army List Entry.' What changes from this point to when you pick an Unbound list? Nothing, were still not instructred to look at any restrictions. So yeah, I did disprove the application of unit restrictions in an 'Unbound' list.

If they had intended you to do so, they would've put 'Reference each units Army List Entry, then if you meet the criteria, then pay the points'

Oh wait, they DID say this.

Under 'Battle-forged', '... Units that conform to various requirements.' Since it's not addressed anywhere else in the rules, various requirements would have to cover the unit entry restrictions, since this is the first place that any restrictions of any kind are mentioned.are mentioned.

Where is the rule that all units in Codex have to meet their 'Parent' requirements in order to be fielded? You have a very stable argument if such a rule existed. We are not instructed to look at them until after we have decided to play a 'Battle-forged' list.

So you can ignore a rule when it suits?

You have no positive rule stating that you can ignore rules placed on units that are not detachment restrictions.

You disproved nothing. Oh, and repsonding to " please show the exact rule youre relying on, as I cannot see how your argument is formed" with "youre not reading the rules" isnt following rule 1 of the forum, nor following the tenets.

Edit for clarity.

What's odd is that the restrictions are listed are on CAD and Allied detachments, and we're told that you can take those detachments in a battle forged army. In an unbound army, you are not using either of those detachments, so the section of restrictions don't exist to ignore them.
The bit about ignoring the restrictions, and the bit about not gaining the Command Benefit seems unneeded.

-Matt

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you can ignore a rule when it suits?

A rule has to exist in the first place in order for it to even be able to be ignored. The 'Battle-forged' rule is pretty clear by stating that units form Detachments that conform to various requirements. Going off the earlier statement, it does not say 'units conform to various Detachment requirements'. Detachments are one restriction, it even says 'one common type of detachment requires the use of 1 Hq and 2 Troops'. This doesn't make it the only requirement.

Alternative Detachments is a 'various requirement'. Formations are another 'various requirement'. Requiring units to have their 'parent' unit as found in their Army List Entry, is another 'various requirement.' It's still the only place in the rulebook that it's even addressed, which as I have admitted is not a very strong argument. When compared to a rule that doesn't exist, it's very compelling.

The only difference that I am seeing is that you still have yet to show the written rule to support your interpretation of the RAW. Or can you just make up rules that don't exist, so that you can claim that I ignore them? More importantly, you countered my position challenging me to show the rule that gave me permission. There is no permission needed because we aren't instructed to look at the restrictions until we have decided to play a 'Battle-forged' army.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Please state exactly what you are reliant on, and then I will do the same

I've held up my end of the deal. Still waiting for a reference stating that we use the unit restrictions found in the Codex, outside of a 'Battle-forged' army.

Already done. As explained, you have a codex rule stating "to take x you must do y"

Please explain how The brb rule EXPLICITLY overrides, say , the command squad rule. You're told to ignore detachment rules, fair enough. Now plain how you can ignore this requirement.

Pages and para, or concede. No need for a wall of text, this should be really easy to find.

 Akar wrote:
The only difference that I am seeing is that you still have yet to show the written rule to support your interpretation of the RAW. Or can you just make up rules that don't exist, so that you can claim that I ignore them? More importantly, you countered my position challenging me to show the rule that gave me permission. There is no permission needed because we aren't instructed to look at the restrictions until we have decided to play a 'Battle-forged' army.

Actually, we are.

How many Marines can I purchase for a Tac Squad out of C: SM in an Unbound list?

So you can't do it, and now you're choosing to ignore a rule when it suits you? It's pretty convenient for you to have a rule without a page/paragraph reference with its definition to have the written rules on pg. 116-117 conflict with.

It hasn't changed. It's still there on page 116. Go to the unit, pay the points, get what you pay for. We have VERY specific instructions on what we are supposed to look at when we go to the army list entry. Or if you need it worded to match your response. It EXPLICTLY tells us what to look at.

I've NEVER said that the "you must take x to get y" rule doesn't exist. It does. Just not until we have chosen to play a 'Battle-forged' army. (2nd Sentence). You have proven your inability to show where it says that we ALWAYS apply the unit restrictions when selecting units. You won't find it because that would create a conflict with what is actually printed on pg 116.

The BRB has changed how we look at list building in 7th, so it has different rules in place long before we even get to the individual Codex. This is a case of BRB > Codex because the rules for list building are in fact, in place before looking at any army, or their rules. There never was a rule, in any of the previous editions and definitely not this one, that required us to be forced to use the restrictions in their entries to be able to take those units. That's because there was also never a rule instructing us to do otherwise. Now that there is a Rule telling us to do opposite from what we've been doing. Why should we still be stuck to a rule that never existed in the first place?

Akar, please answer rigelds question.

How many Marines can be purchased for a Tac Squad out of C: SM in an Unbound list?