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.

I actually ran into my first opponent that wasn't using the force org chart and wanted to know how people feel about it. I can see some benefits to it, I can see people spamming things, or I can see some huge fluff benefits. Do you break force org? What's your reason for doing it? Are you okay with opponents doing it?

I'm personally considering playing a game with an obscene amount of dev squads and some predators, and setting up a scenario with my ork buddy that he'll have to capture the fort we're holding, maybe let him take some extra units over the points limit. Something about a horde closing in on the last bastion of an overrun world. Would you be open for doing fun scenarios with broken force org if you're not okay with playing competitively against them?

-PURGED-

 kingbobbito wrote:

I'm personally considering playing a game with an obscene amount of dev squads and some predators, and setting up a scenario with my ork buddy that he'll have to capture the fort we're holding, maybe let him take some extra units over the points limit. Something about a horde closing in on the last bastion of an overrun world. Would you be open for doing fun scenarios with broken force org if you're not okay with playing competitively against them?

That's a proper way to go unbound.

I always try to stay bound. Makes for a evener game IMO

I always follow a Force Org, if not necessarily CAD.

When I go Battleforged I don't break it t all, nor does out group.
If you break the FOC you become an Unbound Army.

Answer this though: what if there were no CAD in the rulebook?

Seriously, what if until you got a dataslate or updated codex there was no CAD for you to use, no detachment of any kind?

Nope, because I haven't found a list that's worth giving up "objective secured" yet. My army has good HQs and troops, and easily scales up to dual CAD if I want more FOC slots.

All the time, but my group tends to play "narrative" games, where we have someone actually GMing a storyline in which the battle is taking place, so what shows up on the table is a not-so-random mish-mash of things that the armies in question have to deploy to that hot-spot.

Some battles are meant to be really tough for one side or another, others are meant to be more-or-less even matches, while sometimes one army is there just to get steamrolled as part of the narrative.

I've made a couple of DE lists like this.

Generally it's because I have an HQ in a formation and don't want another in my CAD (or, what would be my CAD if I had a HQ ).

Not gone Unbound yet but the only reason i would is if i wanted to create a theme army that was impossible by using any of the FOC's.

1) To create a themed army that a CAD or special detachment can't facilitate.

2) I'd probably put it aside in 500 point or so games, just so as SM aren't limited to just two Troops and an HQ.

Much as I want my Salamanders to have Heavy Flamers in Tac/Dev Squads to match their theme/fluff, I stick to FoC.

Will admit to one occasion where I went unbound purely because I felt too lazy that day to get a troop horde in and out of the box...

Other than that, I do it for theme. An all-Canoptek list turned out to be kinda super powerful though, so I'm thinking of running it less often before it kills my reputation.

I always stick to the FOC but I do allow opponents to break it if they would like to test out an army.

 koooaei wrote:

 kingbobbito wrote:

I'm personally considering playing a game with an obscene amount of dev squads and some predators, and setting up a scenario with my ork buddy that he'll have to capture the fort we're holding, maybe let him take some extra units over the points limit. Something about a horde closing in on the last bastion of an overrun world. Would you be open for doing fun scenarios with broken force org if you're not okay with playing competitively against them?

That's a proper way to go unbound.

Sadly I'm not sure we'll do it. We need to do some heavy proxying, as I don't have nearly as many devs as I'd want and he'd want to run a lot more vehicles than he owns (I doubt footslogging orks would stand up well against 20 heavy bolters). In general we only allow proxying of a handful of similar models, as I can imagine keeping track of what dev squad has which weapon will get confusing pretty fast. And we don't really want to use imaginary vehicles or soda cans.

No.

It's weird that you would "allow" opponents to use Unbound when Unbound is in the rule book.

I only break FOC when planning for specific scenario games, usually in the context of a campaign. For example, air raids on a fortress or something like that.

Also, for campaigns, alot of times I will add on further limitations. For example, I might tell the opposing players to create a list like.

1500
1 unnamed HQ
Up to 6 Troops
Up to 3 Elites
Up to 3 Fast Attacks
No Heavy Support
No LoW
No Fortifications

pelicaniforce wrote:It's weird that you would "allow" opponents to use Unbound when Unbound is in the rule book.

You always have the option to decline a game. For example, even if an opponent follows force organization, you can say you don't want to play them if they're running 4 riptides.

jasper76 wrote:I only break FOC when planning for specific scenario games, usually in the context of a campaign. For example, air raids on a fortress or something like that.

Also, for campaigns, alot of times I will add on further limitations. For example, I might tell the opposing players to create a list like.

1500
1 unnamed HQ
Up to 6 Troops
Up to 3 Elites
Up to 3 Fast Attacks
No Heavy Support
No LoW
No Fortifications

Quite often we do this too, although usually for 500-1000. We'll often say that named characters are much too busy to involve themselves in what equates to a small skirmish. The same with heavy support and flyers, not allowed in 500.

 kingbobbito wrote:

pelicaniforce wrote:It's weird that you would "allow" opponents to use Unbound when Unbound is in the rule book.

You always have the option to decline a game. For example, even if an opponent follows force organization, you can say you don't want to play them if they're running 4 riptides.

You can, but I'm not sure if it speaks well of a game when people would rather not play than face a perfectly-legal list.

I do on occasion (usually when asked to make a list to play in 5 minutes)

but otherwise we just use multiple FOCs... I dont even like the Ork bonus's but rarely need to be unbound.

I dont care if someone else does it but will raz them. If its for a fluff army, i am totaly cool with it. If its to take al riptide armies then that person would never play in our group anyways.

If we play 1500 (normal games are 3k-3500) we are playing ZM which has its own FOCs anyway

I think Unbound is a fantastic idea. It was always possible, but now there's some authenticity and reinforcement behind doing it. Unbound really allows player to create and use all the fantastic armies that previous FOC and codex restrictions had prevented (i.g. Dark Angels Deathwing or Ravenwing, Ork Speed Freaks, Ultramarines 1st Company, etc.).

I've played and have play against Unbound armies and as long as it's all done 'in the spirit of the game' and not abused it's a lot of fun.

IMO the rules are in a good place at the moment. The needless expanse of USR's could be dialed back quite a bit, but otherwise I'm enjoying the hell out of 7th edition.

I don't think I'll ever understand why a rule needed to codified to allow people to do whatever they wanted.

Unbound was always a thing. GW just had the good sense before to let players figure it out on their own.

Then again, I'm sure some people would be thrilled if GW wrote another rule saying that points don't matter and you should feel free to play with whatever models you want regardless of their listed point values. Bringing 2000pts of models against 1000pts would be extra narrative-y.

I've run unbound, but in our group we often play highlander unbound - It's the only way to not wind up with a board of riptides, for example. say "bring what you want" and the inner 5 year old in all of us picks the most powerful thing they can think of and says "all that!"

I've once or twice realised that I was min-maxing to get more detachments, bringing a warp ead and 2 units of grots to try and squeeze more fast attack slots into the army - not for spam, for variety - and decided to drop the grots entirely and go unbound for the army I wanted.

The only thing I ever spam is boys or grots, and there's no need to go unbound for them!

 vipoid wrote:

 kingbobbito wrote:

pelicaniforce wrote:It's weird that you would "allow" opponents to use Unbound when Unbound is in the rule book.

You always have the option to decline a game. For example, even if an opponent follows force organization, you can say you don't want to play them if they're running 4 riptides.

You can, but I'm not sure if it speaks well of a game when people would rather not play than face a perfectly-legal list.

It does tell volumes about the game but to prevent an argument between different kinds of 'fun' it is easier to refuse the game. It's still just a game and if it isn't fun, I'm not doing it.

I've considered playing unbound, especially when I look at the new Blood Angel formations and all I want is to add a few Assault Marines to an already established Formation without adding more Captains or Librarians and Scout Squads that just don't have a real place with the overall feel of the army. Being forced to spend 240pts to include a 135pt ASM squad makes Unbound look really pretty. But, Battleforged makes list building a substantial part of the hobby and I enjoy that sort of thing too much to take the easy way out.

Unbound lists were made for people who want to create their own narrative mainly. Imagine a group of 100 + space marine scouts cut off from their chapter while a bunch of nids swarm the table.

If there was no far sight enclaves I'd probably do it. But since I can take crisis suit troops anyways there isn't any huge rush to do so