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.

does anyone care about not being able to re-roll warlord traits or troops securing the objective? I'm not too fussed by it, most people just play for to kill and forget about their warlord trait by the end of deployment.

This just gives people an excuse to make super lists like having 3 wraith knights at 750pts which I saw at the weekend.

What greater penalties would you put in place to further penalise people who go unbound?

I think something like -1 to who deploys first and reserves role could be a good one.

I wouldn't put any additional restrictions.

Not every bound army has OS and re-roll Warlord Traits.

Maybe a little added bonus for have a bound army. Like for troops, lets say. Maybe add plus 1 to a reserve roll for troops. Its easy and not a big game winner, but still a bonus.

But I do agree, kinda a little lame just giving OS and re-roll on the traits


Automatically Appended Next Post:
or maybe use the CO's leadership once per game, via vox, telepathy, sign language, smoke signals....

Just 3 wraithknights is actually an easy win for my orkses.

All in all, objective secured is a big deal and won me some games on it's own.

You basically say that "OMG! He can legally create a broken unbound army! NERF IT!". And you completely forget that he can create an even more broken bound army with obsec wave serpents and stuff.

That's your opponent's army of choice that's broken - not the general rules.

Taffy17 wrote:

This just gives people an excuse to make super lists like having 3 wraith knights at 750pts which I saw at the weekend.

What greater penalties would you put in place to further penalise people who go unbound?

Don't play those people. Problem solved. No rules need writing.

Having actually fought against unbound lists, I don't think they really need any additional penalties per say. Our local group has allowed unbound from the onset of 7th and we haven't really had any problems with it (infact, the two most troublesome lists regularly seen are battle-forged).

The simple fact of the matter is the ability to score objectives that would otherwise be contested is something to care about, especially in the Maelstrom missions where you can be forced to go after enemy-held objectives. Thus far, most unbound armies that have been run at our group have lost more than they win due to being unable to score points beyond damage output.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Taffy17 wrote:

This just gives people an excuse to make super lists like having 3 wraith knights at 750pts which I saw at the weekend.

What greater penalties would you put in place to further penalise people who go unbound?

Don't play those people. Problem solved. No rules need writing.

This.

It needs no penalties because most people wont play against it.

I would only play against one in a scenario thats fairly balanced and fluffy (aka fun). Never in a bound vs unbound scenario.

 koooaei wrote:
That's your opponent's army of choice that's broken - not the general rules.

shouldn't the rules discourage you from making broken lists?

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Don't play those people. Problem solved. No rules need writing.

It was a tournament (2v2, 750pts per person), but fortunately I wasn't drawn against them.

Taffy17 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
That's your opponent's army of choice that's broken - not the general rules.

shouldn't the rules discourage you from making broken lists?.

In order for the rules to prevent broken lists, the basic rules and codices need a major overhaul.

I'd much rather go against an Unbound army that consists of nothing but Wraithknights than a Bound Serpent Spam army.

Ok, so admittedly you can get just as bad/worse things in bound armies, but unbound makes more varieties of broken list available, and unless you know your gonna be fighting a broken list in advance and have time to prepare for it there's not a lot you can do if you were just planning on running an all comers list.

Wouldn't you much rather know your opponent had a couple of troops choices at least and not just the big, the bad, and the ugly of their codex?

Taffy17 wrote:
Ok, so admittedly you can get just as bad/worse things in bound armies, but unbound makes more varieties of broken list available, and unless you know your gonna be fighting a broken list in advance and have time to prepare for it there's not a lot you can do if you were just planning on running an all comers list.

Wouldn't you much rather know your opponent had a couple of troops choices at least and not just the big, the bad, and the ugly of their codex?

Not all bound detachments require troops (Grey Knights only need to take 1, Champions of Fenris doesn't need any).

Almost every Unbound army I've seen... kinda sucks. Soo....