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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

bodazoka wrote:
I wonder if tournament players would prefer to unrestricted armies? sure you could stack yourself with whatever is the best out of your codex but that IMO will not win you a tournament. You will hammer allot of armies for sure but when you come up against that foil army.. you are screwed.

I love the magic phase in fantasy I am super excited to see it in 40K also!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I seriously do not understand people wanting 5 years between releases..

I can't speak for others, but my view is I don't need or want frequent changes of the game. I play other games if I want variety. I would greatly prefer GW to "finish" 40K, stop messing around with the rules and codexes, and make campaign books and optional rules for people who want even more variety.

I'd prefer them to finish 40K and make some other new interesting games to go alongside it for variety, rather than trying to sell me the same product over and over again with a reducing time period between each version.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 unmercifulconker wrote:
A new Rulebook costs £50+ why the feck would I want to pay that every 2 years.

because thats less than ONE night at the pub.... its not a huge investment

and iv drunk in pubs in about 13 countries and 50 quid... HAHA that can be a cheap night

Don't make me chose between 40K and a night in the pub. At it's current standard, 40k won't do well.

tyrannosaurus wrote:

 yakface wrote:

valace2 wrote:

Mark my words the two wont intermix, those two White Dwarf pages do nothing to confirm that they do.

Why would battle-forged armies get 'in-game bonuses' if they can't be played against unbound armies? What would be the point of giving them 'bonuses' if both sides are getting a bonus?

The whole point of a bonus is that it gives you an advantage, i.e. an advantage against the unbound army to compensate for the fact that they can bring nearly anything they'd like in their army.

I don't get how you can read that WD article and come away thinking the two types of armies aren't meant to play against each other because there would be no point in giving battle-forged armies a bonus if that were the case.

This. Based upon the article, unbound is not a game type, but a list choice. So yeah, you could refuse to play against an unbound list, just as you could refuse to play against Riptides, or Ultramarines because they suck. I would have to ask why anyone would still want to play 40k at all if they have to refuse to follow a large part of the core rules to make it fit into their idea of how it should be played.

Because that's how themed lists in Warmachine work? GW's isn't above a bit of plagiarism, and we have no confirmation that the only thing you need to do to get a bonus is use the Battle Forged structure. It could be something that discourages spamming if implemented correctly.

It won't be. But it could be.

Left Hand of the Pheonix wrote:

But my main point is this, if you do play an army full of fliers there is a HUGE problem. I believe there is a rule which states if you don't have any models on the board at the end of any FULL game turn, you lose. That is ANY game turn. So if you go 2nd with all your heldrakes, you lose. Go first you still lose. You need ground troops still, to ensure you don't auto lose the game.

You mean there's currently a rule?

 unmercifulconker wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 unmercifulconker wrote:
A new Rulebook costs £50+ why the feck would I want to pay that every 2 years.

because thats less than ONE night at the pub.... its not a huge investment

and iv drunk in pubs in about 13 countries and 50 quid... HAHA that can be a cheap night

£50 is less than one night in a pub? Are the drinks £5 a pint?

The pub is a choice, if I want to play warhammer I have to buy the rulebook. I do not want to have to fork out whatever it is every 2 years just to have the choice to play.

playing the game is a choice as well. and its never been considered a cheap hobby.

and yeah i mean i was in paddington in london and paying the rough 5 pound a pint, cheapest i found beer in europe etc was 1.5 euro a pint at a club in Prague. thats still 2.5 aus$ so yeah. but a pint here in perth 10$ a pint min so for 10 pints i get a rulebook for 2 years (and i can well drink more than 10 pints).. not too bad. sure it would be great if it was cheaper, i wouldnt complain thats for sure. but here we are at.

so for 2 years its not too bad if this was a year then i would say totally valid. 2 is ok, 4-5 would be great... but i think we are now past that kind of release scedule

NoggintheNog wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

bodazoka wrote:
I wonder if tournament players would prefer to unrestricted armies? sure you could stack yourself with whatever is the best out of your codex but that IMO will not win you a tournament. You will hammer allot of armies for sure but when you come up against that foil army.. you are screwed.

I love the magic phase in fantasy I am super excited to see it in 40K also!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I seriously do not understand people wanting 5 years between releases..

I can't speak for others, but my view is I don't need or want frequent changes of the game. I play other games if I want variety. I would greatly prefer GW to "finish" 40K, stop messing around with the rules and codexes, and make campaign books and optional rules for people who want even more variety.

I'd prefer them to finish 40K and make some other new interesting games to go alongside it for variety, rather than trying to sell me the same product over and over again with a reducing time period between each version.

Heck I'd even enjoy to see a return of Necromunda, Gorkenmorka, or BFG.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 unmercifulconker wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 unmercifulconker wrote:
A new Rulebook costs £50+ why the feck would I want to pay that every 2 years.

because thats less than ONE night at the pub.... its not a huge investment

and iv drunk in pubs in about 13 countries and 50 quid... HAHA that can be a cheap night

£50 is less than one night in a pub? Are the drinks £5 a pint?

The pub is a choice, if I want to play warhammer I have to buy the rulebook. I do not want to have to fork out whatever it is every 2 years just to have the choice to play.

playing the game is a choice as well. and its never been considered a cheap hobby.

and yeah i mean i was in paddington in london and paying the rough 5 pound a pint, cheapest i found beer in europe etc was 1.5 euro a pint at a club in Prague. thats still 2.5 aus$ so yeah. but a pint here in perth 10$ a pint min so for 10 pints i get a rulebook for 2 years (and i can well drink more than 10 pints).. not too bad. sure it would be great if it was cheaper, i wouldnt complain thats for sure. but here we are at.

so for 2 years its not too bad if this was a year then i would say totally valid. 2 is ok, 4-5 would be great... but i think we are now past that kind of release scedule

Still, it seems like a bad idea how GW is already falling and losing money to increase prices yet again along with increase the rate of codices.

GW aren't losing money. They have made a profit for several years, although it decreased in the last half-year report.

However I do think prices are a problem now.

RoninXiC wrote:A quick release which actually FIXES things, enables the use of more choices, better balance etc.
Those things WOULD make it ok to release a new edition rather quickly.

But

That's not what GW does. They only stirr things up. Add stuff, leave the old annoying things in.
They don't want to make the game better, they want to make it different.

This. So very much this...

We're now at the beginning of the seventh edition. We ought to have a damn near airtight rule-set. Instead, we have a shambling unbalanced mess built on various leftover bitz'n'pieces from the various editions.

ausYenLoWang wrote:

 unmercifulconker wrote:
A new Rulebook costs £50+ why the feck would I want to pay that every 2 years.

because thats less than ONE night at the pub.... its not a huge investment

and iv drunk in pubs in about 13 countries and 50 quid... HAHA that can be a cheap night

Man, you must have lots of money. £50 is a weeks worth of food for me. That's in no way cheap. Particularly not when compared with what I can get for a similar amount from other companies...

There is nothing to 'buy into'. If people are saying they don't like something, it's generally because they don't like that thing, not because it's cool to be in the cranky crowd.

What's 'being in the cranky crowd' got to do with the price of eggs? I'm not saying people on here are generally cranky, I'm saying that whenever GW does anything, everyone here jumps on it (which is fine, it's a hobby discussion forum after all), and overwhelmingly slams GW on price, design, ideas, history, business ethics... whatever. Before you disagree, people do also see whatever good GW does on each of these points as well, but MY point is that it's overwhelmingly negative. I play with a number of different groups and people, and generally they comment about GW shenanigans but never to the extent of the piranha froth that occurs on Dakka. The comment also needs to be looked at in context with regards to who I was talking to. They seemed quite down about the new edition, and I was trying to give a positive spin on it amongst all the froth of the last 70 pages.

There is plenty of positivity around here when people think it is warranted. Just see the discussion on the Imperial Knights (at least up until the rules were spoilered) for a prime example of this in action.

Sure, agreed.

Dakka isn't some hive-mind conspiracy that is out to drag poor, innocent little GW down into the mud. It's a community of people from a wide range of backgrounds with an incredibly varied range of different ideas on what makes up a good wargaming experience. So if there seems to be one overwhelming theme to the commentary where one particular company is concerned, sure, you can dismiss that as the mindless mob in action... Or you could consider that just maybe there's a reason for it.

Yeah... annnnnd? When did i say dakka was a conspiracy against GW? I said whenever anything GW related gets leaked or discussed everyone is quick to slam them (myself included), but taking a step back and looking at it from another angle, I'll still play 40k, and there are other options to deal with the new release.

The more I read, the angrier I get.

These words being bandied round, 'competitive', 'Win at all costs' and so on as derogative terms for those worried about the potential for further unbalance with this Unbound army stuff. As though wanting a game with two players both trying to win, placed, by the game, in adversarial roles, to have a measure of strategy and opportunity for either side to win through choices rather than random dice rolls or who spend the most on giant robots is somehow being a douche.

I just want the chance to compose an army, using my brain to try and work out a good mix of various choices, bring that to play, have a couple of hours of good gaming fun whilst using my brain, again, to make choices and try to outwit my opponent, to try to win at 40k. Not to show up and have my carefully chosen army blasted off the table on turn 1 by some guy who blew his month's salary on the new monster of choice so he could field 10 of them and kill everyone else's well painted and lovingly crafted armies.

This article makes it much more difficult for me to rationalize that I'm playing 'a more complex chess game of wit and strategy, with lovingly modeled and painted armies' vs 'we put all our toys on a table and make pew-pew noises'.

It feels like the game is being dumbed right down whilst at the same time being smothered with extra layers of spurious rules.

I really need to see these rules and do some soul searching.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
GW aren't losing money. They have made a profit for several years, although it decreased in the last half-year report.

However I do think prices are a problem now.

Huh. I could have sworn they were. What did they mid-year reports state again?

Saw this at BoLS, couldnt resist a chuckle.



Also regarding the cranky crowd thing, I will admit as my opinion, when I read Dakka, generally there is negativity. Sometimes and I stress sometimes, not most of the time but sometimes the negativity can be a little un-warranted. Most of the time however is genuine concern for the hobby which I see no problem with, people are unhappy their hobby is being turned into something different. This circumstance though for me feels different from the past times I felt negativity towards a decision GW has made.

People talking about Unbound with things like all fliers making you auto-lose.. don't you think that if you're going to use Unbound in the first place you're going to ignore a rule like that if it fits the narrative?

The whole point of Unbound seems to be the pinnacle of "forge the narrative" in that you hash out precisely what you want with your opponent and do it. It's pure insanity for pickup games or competitive games, but it reads like exactly what is needed for actual campaign/scenario/narrative games.

I highly doubt that Unbound is going to see much use outside of campaign games and the like, because it's so crazy that it'd have to be regulated in some fashion (via talking to your opponent about the scenario/narrative) to prevent abuse.

WayneTheGame wrote:
People talking about Unbound with things like all fliers making you auto-lose.. don't you think that if you're going to use Unbound in the first place you're going to ignore a rule like that if it fits the narrative?

The whole point of Unbound seems to be the pinnacle of "forge the narrative" in that you hash out precisely what you want with your opponent and do it. It's pure insanity for pickup games or competitive games, but it reads like exactly what is needed for actual campaign/scenario/narrative games.

I highly doubt that Unbound is going to see much use outside of campaign games and the like, because it's so crazy that it'd have to be regulated in some fashion (via talking to your opponent about the scenario/narrative) to prevent abuse.

I have to ask, how is this exactly what campaign/scenario/narrative games need? The ignore FOC was already there by just ignoring the rules.

Unbound sounds fun, and there are too many things we don't know with regards to it being something broken. How does an unbound list score objectives? What are the benefits of being 'forged in battle'? Are warlords still a thing and if so, how does that work with unbound?

What I do know is that I can most likely take an all DC list without Astorath now. That makes me happy. Although that requirement is in-codex, will that be important or not?

So whats everyone thoughts on the new psyker rules?

 insaniak wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
Two new powers, only the "bad" one allows summoning.... your Rune Priest can't do it anyway, won't have access to the daemonic powers. ...

And again, it's only a guess that the two types of Daemonology will be divided between 'good' and 'bad' armies...

I really hope that guess is wrong. 40K should never be about good vs evil (plus Tyranids), it should be about bad vs worse (plus Tyranids).

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The more I read, the angrier I get.

These words being bandied round, 'competitive', 'Win at all costs' and so on as derogative terms for those worried about the potential for further unbalance with this Unbound army stuff. As though wanting a game with two players both trying to win, placed, by the game, in adversarial roles, to have a measure of strategy and opportunity for either side to win through choices rather than random dice rolls or who spend the most on giant robots is somehow being a douche.

I just want the chance to compose an army, using my brain to try and work out a good mix of various choices, bring that to play, have a couple of hours of good gaming fun whilst using my brain, again, to make choices and try to outwit my opponent, to try to win at 40k. Not to show up and have my carefully chosen army blasted off the table on turn 1 by some guy who blew his month's salary on the new monster of choice so he could field 10 of them and kill everyone else's well painted and lovingly crafted armies.

This article makes it much more difficult for me to rationalize that I'm playing 'a more complex chess game of wit and strategy, with lovingly modeled and painted armies' vs 'we put all our toys on a table and make pew-pew noises'.

It feels like the game is being dumbed right down whilst at the same time being smothered with extra layers of spurious rules.

I really need to see these rules and do some soul searching.

And I'm sure any suggestions of that nature have nothing whatsoever to do with the way people expressing your particular view on the future of the game keep characterising anyone who doesn't share that view as just wanting to "put all our toys on a table and make pew-pew noises", no siree bob, nothing at all. No link whatsoever between dismissively implying people who do prefer a narrative and/or cooperative experience over a competitive one are little children playing with army men. None.

Unbound is just for selling more models.

Timmy isn't constrained by a HQ and 2 Troops any more. He can get that awesome MegaSpikyNaut and the GW store owner has a framework to let him play it on Sunday. Oh, your army of 1 MegaSpikyNaut isn't very effective? Well Timmy, why not add this reasonably priced set of UberLords? FOC is an artificial purchasing friction. Unbound will see lots of play in GW stores.

Any benefits for narrative/fluffy play are coincidental. The community will adapt and even make great things out of it though.

The same theory applies to the proliferation of detachments and allies. GW do not want anything in the way of you expanding your collection. As a corporation with a legal obligation to maximise profit for their shareholders, it's entirely unsuprising.

Ignoring Unbound and Battle Forged for a minute (I think we all knew something about the FOC was changing, given how meaningless it's become)...

Psychic Phase: 1d6 + Mastery Level of psykers.

Does... does that mean Zoanthropes could potentially use BOTH their powers now?

Also, I have to wonder what Adamantium Will is going to do now (if anything). Black Templars are supposed to be all about the psychic defense, but they don't actually use Psykers and so won't be getting the +ML dice to dispel enemy psychic powers. Maybe each unit with the Adamantium Will rule adds X dice to your psychic defense pool?

I'm not super excited, I admit, to buy up a new rule book. On the other hand, I'm not a huge fan of 6th edition, so maybe a few rules tweaks will save a few of my armies/models from being dust collectors and paper weights.

 streamdragon wrote:
Ignoring Unbound and Battle Forged for a minute (I think we all knew something about the FOC was changing, given how meaningless it's become)...

Psychic Phase: 1d6 + Mastery Level of psykers.

Does... does that mean Zoanthropes could potentially use BOTH their powers now?

Also, I have to wonder what Adamantium Will is going to do now (if anything). Black Templars are supposed to be all about the psychic defense, but they don't actually use Psykers and so won't be getting the +ML dice to dispel enemy psychic powers. Maybe each unit with the Adamantium Will rule adds X dice to your psychic defense pool?

I'm not super excited, I admit, to buy up a new rule book. On the other hand, I'm not a huge fan of 6th edition, so maybe a few rules tweaks will save a few of my armies/models from being dust collectors and paper weights.

Or Adamantium Will might be something like Magic Resistance for 40k?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
Ignoring Unbound and Battle Forged for a minute (I think we all knew something about the FOC was changing, given how meaningless it's become)...

Psychic Phase: 1d6 + Mastery Level of psykers.

Does... does that mean Zoanthropes could potentially use BOTH their powers now?

Also, I have to wonder what Adamantium Will is going to do now (if anything). Black Templars are supposed to be all about the psychic defense, but they don't actually use Psykers and so won't be getting the +ML dice to dispel enemy psychic powers. Maybe each unit with the Adamantium Will rule adds X dice to your psychic defense pool?

I'm not super excited, I admit, to buy up a new rule book. On the other hand, I'm not a huge fan of 6th edition, so maybe a few rules tweaks will save a few of my armies/models from being dust collectors and paper weights.

Or Adamantium Will might be something like Magic Resistance for 40k?

Ooof, I really hope not. MR is almost pointless in Fantasy.

I would have no problem if a community really made some sweet narrative stuff and tailored some cool games and not just use unbound lists to do those cheesy op gak fests. My problem is not that much with unbound lists itself as such but how it would be utilised; I doubt you would see many cool narrative games.

What I would like unbound lists to show:
Army of Bloodcrushers vs Thunderwolf cavalry, yes that would be badass

Special Character mayhem, everyone uses heroes, ultimate showdown, who would be the last standing.

Assault squads vs raptors vs stormboys, who would rule the jump pack

WayneTheGame wrote:
The whole point of Unbound seems to be the pinnacle of "forge the narrative" in that you hash out precisely what you want with your opponent and do it. It's pure insanity for pickup games or competitive games, but it reads like exactly what is needed for actual campaign/scenario/narrative games.

The problem being that it's not presented as an option for campaign or scenario games, but as one of two standard ways to build your army.

For all GW's talk of 'narrative' gaming, 6th edition has been remarkably light on campaign material outside of for Apocalypse. That's part of what has people so confused... they keep saying that they want to encourage narrative gaming, but they don't actually do anything to do so.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The more I read, the angrier I get.

These words being bandied round, 'competitive', 'Win at all costs' and so on as derogative terms for those worried about the potential for further unbalance with this Unbound army stuff. As though wanting a game with two players both trying to win, placed, by the game, in adversarial roles, to have a measure of strategy and opportunity for either side to win through choices rather than random dice rolls or who spend the most on giant robots is somehow being a douche.

I just want the chance to compose an army, using my brain to try and work out a good mix of various choices, bring that to play, have a couple of hours of good gaming fun whilst using my brain, again, to make choices and try to outwit my opponent, to try to win at 40k. Not to show up and have my carefully chosen army blasted off the table on turn 1 by some guy who blew his month's salary on the new monster of choice so he could field 10 of them and kill everyone else's well painted and lovingly crafted armies.

This article makes it much more difficult for me to rationalize that I'm playing 'a more complex chess game of wit and strategy, with lovingly modeled and painted armies' vs 'we put all our toys on a table and make pew-pew noises'.

It feels like the game is being dumbed right down whilst at the same time being smothered with extra layers of spurious rules.

I really need to see these rules and do some soul searching.

This is how I feel. I'm not hyperventilating. I'm not a hater. I love 40k, I've been playing it most of my life. The idea that "wanting to win is immature" is ridiculous. It's a competitive strategy game where two people with (close to) equally strength armies, fight it out and the better player wins.
Apparently that's not what 40k is anymore, so if 7th proves to be what it's looking like, then I am out because I want a different kind of game than one where spending the most money is the winning strategy.

 azreal13 wrote:

tyrannosaurus wrote:

 yakface wrote:

valace2 wrote:

Mark my words the two wont intermix, those two White Dwarf pages do nothing to confirm that they do.

Why would battle-forged armies get 'in-game bonuses' if they can't be played against unbound armies? What would be the point of giving them 'bonuses' if both sides are getting a bonus?

The whole point of a bonus is that it gives you an advantage, i.e. an advantage against the unbound army to compensate for the fact that they can bring nearly anything they'd like in their army.

I don't get how you can read that WD article and come away thinking the two types of armies aren't meant to play against each other because there would be no point in giving battle-forged armies a bonus if that were the case.

This. Based upon the article, unbound is not a game type, but a list choice. So yeah, you could refuse to play against an unbound list, just as you could refuse to play against Riptides, or Ultramarines because they suck. I would have to ask why anyone would still want to play 40k at all if they have to refuse to follow a large part of the core rules to make it fit into their idea of how it should be played.

Because that's how themed lists in Warmachine work? GW's isn't above a bit of plagiarism, and we have no confirmation that the only thing you need to do to get a bonus is use the Battle Forged structure. It could be something that discourages spamming if implemented correctly.

It won't be. But it could be.

I actually likened it to Themed Teams vs non-themed teams in HeroClix. The bonuses will be small, and sometimes not worth it, but it's a way to play. Though notalways the best.

Tier lists in Warmahordes at least can hold their own. I don't see Battle-forged being able to do the same.against an unbound list.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The more I read, the angrier I get.

These words being bandied round, 'competitive', 'Win at all costs' and so on as derogative terms for those worried about the potential for further unbalance with this Unbound army stuff. As though wanting a game with two players both trying to win, placed, by the game, in adversarial roles, to have a measure of strategy and opportunity for either side to win through choices rather than random dice rolls or who spend the most on giant robots is somehow being a douche.

I just want the chance to compose an army, using my brain to try and work out a good mix of various choices, bring that to play, have a couple of hours of good gaming fun whilst using my brain, again, to make choices and try to outwit my opponent, to try to win at 40k. Not to show up and have my carefully chosen army blasted off the table on turn 1 by some guy who blew his month's salary on the new monster of choice so he could field 10 of them and kill everyone else's well painted and lovingly crafted armies.

This article makes it much more difficult for me to rationalize that I'm playing 'a more complex chess game of wit and strategy, with lovingly modeled and painted armies' vs 'we put all our toys on a table and make pew-pew noises'.

It feels like the game is being dumbed right down whilst at the same time being smothered with extra layers of spurious rules.

I really need to see these rules and do some soul searching.

This is how I feel. I'm not hyperventilating. I'm not a hater. I love 40k, I've been playing it most of my life. The idea that "wanting to win is immature" is ridiculous. It's a competitive strategy game where two people with (close to) equally strength armies, fight it out and the better player wins.
Apparently that's not what 40k is anymore, so if 7th proves to be what it's looking like, then I am out because I want a different kind of game than one where spending the most money is the winning strategy.

And so Games Workshop finally figured out how to make a tabletop game "pay to win".

 MRPYM wrote:
So whats everyone thoughts on the new psyker rules?

Not enough to really decide. It could go a lot of ways from finally limiting divination (blessings really) being so effective to making the 25 point upgrade to get the ability basically worthless (a psyker level is 25 so even twin-linking your guns isn't all that cheap), it might remove the general deny the witch so offensive spells will be slightly worth it but might counter them. Adds some extra randomness and the multiple dice rolls sounds odd. New spells sound intriguing but were badly worded and can be potentially bad or broken.

I would really enjoy the demon summoning if it meant during a game with psykers, there could be a small chance each turn that demons could find a way to the material realm thanks to those dirty selfish psykers and the demons would summon in a random location and play randomly attacking anyone. Would be fun to be fighting for an objective and then all of a sudden Bloodthirster enters the material world and makes the player decide should they continue fighting for the objective but risk the wrath of Khorne or instead risk leaving the objective but allowing the enemy to feel khornes wrath.

Although more randomness with randomness would probably not play out well.

Random demon summoning as in no one can summon demons willingly, they could just appear due to psyker actions in a structured game would be fun and fit fluff. I would like to see demon summoning tested, I will hold final judgement on it but at the moment, I like it.

My hope is that when we see the rules play out in the book there will really be three ways to form a list.

1. Unbound: This involves both players agreeing to an unbound game. It's the fluffy/weird/forge the narrative stuff GW pushed in their shift towards the "beer and pretzel" crowd.

2. Battle-forged: The standard FoC for all armies. A strict guideline needs to be followed inside of a single codex and if those requirements are met the player gets army-specific buffs.

3. Battle-forged, with allies: Essentially what we have now. Follow the ally matrix, use two or more codices. The tradeoff is that you don't get the army-specific bonuses someone gets for using a single codex army.

The more I think about it the more I believe this is the route. I refuse (yes, perhaps I'm being naive) that GW would cannibalize its own game by intending for one side to follow rules and one do whatever the heck it wants.

Right now in 6th the rage is allied power lists that take advantage of the strongest units from multiple books. Many people don't like that purely from a fluff perspective and/or only want to play their one army. The battle-forged buff helps mitigate this gap.

I could be completely wrong, but I don't believe the intention is to ever seen battle-forged vs. unbound armies on the tabletop.

It does not say that Battle Forged can't have Allies etc does it?