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.

As has been said, part of the game/hobby involves list building and working within the parameters of FOC/Detachments/Formations. Most see these restrictions/rules as a fundamental part of the game.

If you came to play people (who weren't close friends) with an unbound army, a reasonable perception could be that your unbound army is really for playing a different game because some rules are ommitted for sake of taking whatever you want.

For arguments sake, why stop at just going Unbound? Why even have points? Why not just make up what I want? Why not just homebrew some rules? Couldn't that be fun? I have no idea why no one wants to play me at the FLGS...

Why bother writing all those rules on how to build an army when the next rule is "Or, ignore everything there and just do what you want". If I'm paying ~$100 for someone to have crafted a ruleset for me to play with, I expect it to be a series of rules and restrictions and explanations. By default I have the option to do whatever the feth I want with the rules, so putting in an official rule stating "Do what you want, Forge That Narrative!" flies in the face of good game design.

I enjoy rulesets precisely because they're restrictive. Otherwise I could get absolutely fething hammered and go play green army men in the backyard.

So for me its more the principle of the matter. Unbound always existed. Enshrining it just cheapens the game and opens an already terribly balanced game to even more balance issues and further dividing an already divided player base.

WayneTheGame wrote:
I don't believe this. Maybe a competitive type of player, but there are/were plenty of games that don't necessarily use points where people don't just bring everything they have, because they have an idea for a force/battle/narrative and bring what feels appropriate. If you're playing a historical game you don't bring every regiment you own just because, you bring the regiments that would be at the battle (if refighting) or what would logically be sent (if not). I do not get where you get the idea that playing with no points means A) Bring only the most powerful stuff, because there's no reason not to and/or B) Bring everything you have. That's why games that don't have points usually have real narrative gaming, so you eyeball the things and come up with something approximately equal.

The difference here is that in a historical game you have real-world battles to copy. You know what forces were present (or would be present in a hypothetical fight) and, if the rules are doing their job, you can easily evaluate how powerful a unit is based on its real-world performance. And the power level between units is much closer to parity for real-world units. A squad of elite infantry and a squad of conscripts might not be exactly the same, but if you say "bring five squads of infantry for both sides" it's probably going to be at least close enough for the game to be enjoyable. But with 40k you have none of that. Saying "bring five squads of infantry" when one side is taking guardsmen and the other side is taking terminators is going to be a complete mismatch. Trying to figure out how many LRBTs need to match against a Warhound titan is impossible without doing a bunch of math with average firepower numbers. You need some kind of formal system for telling you how many {weak unit}s equal one {powerful unit}. IOW, you need points.

And no, none of this involves WAAC players trying to break the system. Balancing a game like 40k without points is a nightmare even if both players are sincerely intending to organize a game with balanced forces. And it's only possible at all because most people remember at least roughly what the point values of their models are supposed to be and how those point values compare to other units.

Am I a bad person for immediately planning an all Vindicator Tank army as soon as I read Unbound was a thing? Normally, I build my armies severely Troop heavy, as in four Troop slots before I touch anything else. But I'm in love with the Vindicator, and I wanted more than anything to show someone exactly why Unbound shouldn't have existed in the first place.

 Just Tony wrote:
Am I a bad person for immediately planning an all Vindicator Tank army as soon as I read Unbound was a thing? Normally, I build my armies severely Troop heavy, as in four Troop slots before I touch anything else. But I'm in love with the Vindicator, and I wanted more than anything to show someone exactly why Unbound shouldn't have existed in the first place.

I think you'd lose to Wraith Knights and Scatter bikes. Vindis are only armor 13 in the front, 11 and 10 on the side and rear. Couple Shuriken cannons to the rear and they'd be toast.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Am I a bad person for immediately planning an all Vindicator Tank army as soon as I read Unbound was a thing? Normally, I build my armies severely Troop heavy, as in four Troop slots before I touch anything else. But I'm in love with the Vindicator, and I wanted more than anything to show someone exactly why Unbound shouldn't have existed in the first place.

I think you'd lose to Wraith Knights and Scatter bikes. Vindis are only armor 13 in the front, 11 and 10 on the side and rear. Couple Shuriken cannons to the rear and they'd be toast.

Yeah that might be fun and I'd take that game but it's not gonna beat the average GT-winning army.

That's true, I'm also not up on current meta. I discovered Unbound when I popped back onto Warseer after a 6 year hiatus or so.

 Bach wrote:
As has been said, part of the game/hobby involves list building and working within the parameters of FOC/Detachments/Formations. Most see these restrictions/rules as a fundamental part of the game.

If you came to play people (who weren't close friends) with an unbound army, a reasonable perception could be that your unbound army is really for playing a different game because some rules are ommitted for sake of taking whatever you want.

For arguments sake, why stop at just going Unbound? Why even have points? Why not just make up what I want? Why not just homebrew some rules? Couldn't that be fun? I have no idea why no one wants to play me at the FLGS...

Uhh, just FYI, Unbound was created to cover highly unusual thematic armies. I'm pretty sure if you read up on them it'll even tell you so in the rulebook.

And if you saw any Unbound army I would field, your mind would not turn to powergaming as an explanation for why I chose Unbound. When I catch myself just including the best units from multiple Codexes in my Unbound lists, I put a stop to that myself before any of the models hit the tabletop.

Am I a bad person for immediately planning an all Vindicator Tank army as soon as I read Unbound was a thing? Normally, I build my armies severely Troop heavy, as in four Troop slots before I touch anything else. But I'm in love with the Vindicator, and I wanted more than anything to show someone exactly why Unbound shouldn't have existed in the first place.

Probably not the best example. That would be a fairly weak army IMO. Heavy firepower for sure, but issues with range, hull points and speed? Recipe for disaster in 7th. There are some Marine/Tau/Eldar builds that could potentially table this on turn 1 or 2 and still have dice left over.

I totally get the initial feeling most players have when they hear "unbound". I think most of us immediately conjure up some horrible all riptide/wraith knight scenario. At my LGS though, we've found that Battle Forged armies tend to have so many advantages that unbound isn't as scary as we initially thought it was. Plus, when you see some of the things Eldar/Tau/Marines can do, you just kind of shrug at unbound.

We've actually grown to like it as it allows armies like Orks and BA to stay more competitive than their current codexes would typically allow. For example, one Ork player simply uses a few more HQ slots and a few more heavy slots than he'd normally be allowed. Hardly game breaking, but he's a good enough player that those few extra bits really get him over the "hump" so to speak. When used like this, we've found unbound to actually be a pretty cool addition to the game.

Tycho wrote:

Am I a bad person for immediately planning an all Vindicator Tank army as soon as I read Unbound was a thing? Normally, I build my armies severely Troop heavy, as in four Troop slots before I touch anything else. But I'm in love with the Vindicator, and I wanted more than anything to show someone exactly why Unbound shouldn't have existed in the first place.

Probably not the best example. That would be a fairly weak army IMO. Heavy firepower for sure, but issues with range, hull points and speed? Recipe for disaster in 7th. There are some Marine/Tau/Eldar builds that could potentially table this on turn 1 or 2 and still have dice left over.

I totally get the initial feeling most players have when they hear "unbound". I think most of us immediately conjure up some horrible all riptide/wraith knight scenario. At my LGS though, we've found that Battle Forged armies tend to have so many advantages that unbound isn't as scary as we initially thought it was. Plus, when you see some of the things Eldar/Tau/Marines can do, you just kind of shrug at unbound.

We've actually grown to like it as it allows armies like Orks and BA to stay more competitive than their current codexes would typically allow. For example, one Ork player simply uses a few more HQ slots and a few more heavy slots than he'd normally be allowed. Hardly game breaking, but he's a good enough player that those few extra bits really get him over the "hump" so to speak. When used like this, we've found unbound to actually be a pretty cool addition to the game.

Uhh, what advantages do Battle Forged armies actually have over Unbound ones?

Can you not take formations in an Unbound army or something?

And I'm pretty sure you could, if you wanted to, recreate a Battle Forged army as an Unbound one and still have the list be totally legal.

Can you not take formations in an Unbound army or something?

No. You cannot. That is the whole point of Battle Forged vs Unbound.

And I'm pretty sure you could, if you wanted to, recreate a Battle Forged army as an Unbound one and still have the list be totally legal.

Huh? No. That makes no sense. Unbound is for things not covered by the normal list construction rules. Why on earth would you go to the trouble of creating a Battleforged list and then say it's "Unbound"? You would lose all of your command/formation benefits. Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly?

 Pouncey wrote:

Tycho wrote:

Am I a bad person for immediately planning an all Vindicator Tank army as soon as I read Unbound was a thing? Normally, I build my armies severely Troop heavy, as in four Troop slots before I touch anything else. But I'm in love with the Vindicator, and I wanted more than anything to show someone exactly why Unbound shouldn't have existed in the first place.

Probably not the best example. That would be a fairly weak army IMO. Heavy firepower for sure, but issues with range, hull points and speed? Recipe for disaster in 7th. There are some Marine/Tau/Eldar builds that could potentially table this on turn 1 or 2 and still have dice left over.

I totally get the initial feeling most players have when they hear "unbound". I think most of us immediately conjure up some horrible all riptide/wraith knight scenario. At my LGS though, we've found that Battle Forged armies tend to have so many advantages that unbound isn't as scary as we initially thought it was. Plus, when you see some of the things Eldar/Tau/Marines can do, you just kind of shrug at unbound.

We've actually grown to like it as it allows armies like Orks and BA to stay more competitive than their current codexes would typically allow. For example, one Ork player simply uses a few more HQ slots and a few more heavy slots than he'd normally be allowed. Hardly game breaking, but he's a good enough player that those few extra bits really get him over the "hump" so to speak. When used like this, we've found unbound to actually be a pretty cool addition to the game.

Uhh, what advantages do Battle Forged armies actually have over Unbound ones?

Can you not take formations in an Unbound army or something?

And I'm pretty sure you could, if you wanted to, recreate a Battle Forged army as an Unbound one and still have the list be totally legal.

Formations are the only type of detachment you can use in Unbound armies. Which means you can't use regular detachments like CADs (so no ObSec generally speaking) but also you can't use the Decurion style super detachments. Which means that you can't use the Gladius detachment to get 500+ point of free ObSec SM transports (which is actually a battleforged list you can't recreate as Unbound because now your list is illegal by being 500 pts over)

Tycho wrote:

Can you not take formations in an Unbound army or something?

No. You cannot. That is the whole point of Battle Forged vs Unbound.

Ah.

Well then. That explains that.

And I'm pretty sure you could, if you wanted to, recreate a Battle Forged army as an Unbound one and still have the list be totally legal.

Huh? No. That makes no sense. Unbound is for things not covered by the normal list construction rules. Why on earth would you go to the trouble of creating a Battleforged list and then say it's "Unbound"? You would lose all of your command/formation benefits. Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly?

You generally wouldn't. My point wasn't that Unbound lists were better.

Now I don't even remember what my point was though...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Formations are the only type of detachment you can use in Unbound armies. Which means you can't use regular detachments like CADs (so no ObSec generally speaking) but also you can't use the Decurion style super detachments. Which means that if you use the Gladius detachment to get 500+ point of free SM transports (which is actually a battleforged list you can't recreate as Unbound because now your list is illegal by being 500 pts over)

Well, that explains that then.

Back in 6th detachments were a separate idea from formations, and I haven't really played much 7th.

Ugh ... terminology fail on my part. CrownAxe said it better. I tend to erroneously use formation and detachment interchangeably.

my first taste of unbound was playing against 14 farseers, while it wasn't what id call competitive, the psy rolling and psychic phase took so long that id never play it again, as it stands with unbound, if the army looks cool and is made for fluff, I'm ok with it, if its made for cheese and competition, play someone else.

 Formosa wrote:
my first taste of unbound was playing against 14 farseers, while it wasn't what id call competitive, the psy rolling and psychic phase took so long that id never play it again, as it stands with unbound, if the army looks cool and is made for fluff, I'm ok with it, if its made for cheese and competition, play someone else.

Personally, I'd use Unbound to mix IG, Sisters of Battle and Space Marines together in a 1,000 points list, with the latter two providing small enough numbers they wouldn't qualify for any formation on their own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tycho wrote:
Ugh ... terminology fail on my part. CrownAxe said it better. I tend to erroneously use formation and detachment interchangeably.

And that's pretty much how they're used now in the actual rules. My misunderstanding is because in 6th they were different things. In 7th they're essentially different terms for the same thing.

 Pouncey wrote:

Tycho wrote:

Am I a bad person for immediately planning an all Vindicator Tank army as soon as I read Unbound was a thing? Normally, I build my armies severely Troop heavy, as in four Troop slots before I touch anything else. But I'm in love with the Vindicator, and I wanted more than anything to show someone exactly why Unbound shouldn't have existed in the first place.

Probably not the best example. That would be a fairly weak army IMO. Heavy firepower for sure, but issues with range, hull points and speed? Recipe for disaster in 7th. There are some Marine/Tau/Eldar builds that could potentially table this on turn 1 or 2 and still have dice left over.

I totally get the initial feeling most players have when they hear "unbound". I think most of us immediately conjure up some horrible all riptide/wraith knight scenario. At my LGS though, we've found that Battle Forged armies tend to have so many advantages that unbound isn't as scary as we initially thought it was. Plus, when you see some of the things Eldar/Tau/Marines can do, you just kind of shrug at unbound.

We've actually grown to like it as it allows armies like Orks and BA to stay more competitive than their current codexes would typically allow. For example, one Ork player simply uses a few more HQ slots and a few more heavy slots than he'd normally be allowed. Hardly game breaking, but he's a good enough player that those few extra bits really get him over the "hump" so to speak. When used like this, we've found unbound to actually be a pretty cool addition to the game.

Uhh, what advantages do Battle Forged armies actually have over Unbound ones?

Can you not take formations in an Unbound army or something?

And I'm pretty sure you could, if you wanted to, recreate a Battle Forged army as an Unbound one and still have the list be totally legal.

Unbound can take formations but not detachments. Furthermore formations in an unbound army can't use their command benefits.

To be fair Battle forged can be the exact same as unbound the restriction for battle forge is that it must be made up of detachments (which includes formations) apart from that you have free reign to pick the most powerful units / formations that you want even from multiple factions hardly any different than unbound in most regards except you get more benefits from battle forged. Besides even if you roll unbound and decide to have multiple factions you are still bound by the levels of alliance so any apocalypse or desperate allies will be affected the same as it was in a unbound army as it was in a battleforged army (so no land raiders for Ork, daemon prince leading crisis suit squads or other crazy combos which some people think unbound is all about)





You can still have restrictions on unbound armies as much as you do for normal armies at my club we usually have a limit on the number of Lords of war, formations etc you can field unbound isn't that hard (usually combo armies can work like allies
To be fair normal armies these days can flat out break the rules through formation, ally and other shenanigans anyway it all comes down to the player. You can field an army of nothing but Knights, crazy lists that give free units (at least unbound you still have to build to a set points limit)

Tycho wrote:

I totally get the initial feeling most players have when they hear "unbound". I think most of us immediately conjure up some horrible all riptide/wraith knight scenario. At my LGS though, we've found that Battle Forged armies tend to have so many advantages that unbound isn't as scary as we initially thought it was. Plus, when you see some of the things Eldar/Tau/Marines can do, you just kind of shrug at unbound.

We've actually grown to like it as it allows armies like Orks and BA to stay more competitive than their current codexes would typically allow. For example, one Ork player simply uses a few more HQ slots and a few more heavy slots than he'd normally be allowed. Hardly game breaking, but he's a good enough player that those few extra bits really get him over the "hump" so to speak. When used like this, we've found unbound to actually be a pretty cool addition to the game.

It's a good thing you can't have a bound army that's all riptides or mostly wraithknights. Wait...

Exactly, unbound armies are mostly worse (as in less good) than bound. Even most of the extreme spam examples are either buildable in bound or just not very good. There are a few outliers but I've never actually seen seem outside of hypotheticals.

 insaniak wrote:
If you have a system that allows you to take whatever you want, logic says the best option is to take the best and most powerful options...

The traditional army building setup limited the way those overly powerful options could be fielded, which helped somewhat to give the game at least some semblance of balance.

Unbound removes those restrictions, and so is regarded with distrust by those who don't want to wind up facing a fluffless army of cherry picked power units.

The idea of Unbound isn't inherently bad.... But in a game as unbalanced as 40k, it's best kept for games with friends, IMO.

This is actually rather spot on.

Unbound...is something that can be abused. And in a competitive scene it will be abused.

The original idea I suspect was to allow people to field themed armies - Flying Circus 'nids, Ork Kults of Speed, SM companies, Kroot Merc armies...that sort of thing. These are all things that really can't be done with the current detachments and systems, though 7th ed. is shifting a lot of that with the formations in the Decurion style detachments.

But the problem comes in with competition - as said, people will cherry pick and abuse the lack of constraint to build an all star list. Riptides and WKs running around without leashes? Oh my.

With a formation that lets you take 3-9 riptides with a nice little bonus they have no leashes in bound.

Is having to take a wind rider host in order to take 1-12 wraithknights really a leash?

I don't see how unbound makes riptides or wraithknights a bigger problem.

Unbound is only a problem with wierd cases. E.g. If the fireblade's ability is allowed to stack (I don't see why it would be since stuff generally does not stack in 40K) then you could have a 2K army with 33 of them in a single unit firing 1155 shots. These specific problem cases can be ruled against.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Reason Unbound lists are not fun.

Warhound titan 720
-Double barrel Laser Destroyer
-Double Barrel Laser Destroyer

Warhound Titan: 720
-Vulken Mega bolter
-Blasma Blast Canon

1440 pts list, and it total a legal unbound list.

sit in a corner and blast everything. Only thing thats gonna hurt it is if you get into melee with Str8+ weapons, which even then, they can stop and on a 6, anything under a blast template is just dead, on a 3-5, they take a S6 wound so.

Your not gonna have a good time.

It could be a bound list with 350 points of FOC tax.

So twin warhound is a problem at 1.5K but fine at 1.8K?

OP, in case you don't already have all the info you need to run your tank force as a bound army, here's a link that lists a bunch of formations, which include multiple choices for all-vehicle armies and of course give bonuses.

http://bloodofkittens.com/formation-compendium-2/