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.

 Xerics wrote:
Why is everyone complaining about unbound so hard?

In war today we only send in the best tools for the job. If that means we send on a few B-1's screaming overhead for a strafing run without any infantry or tanks then so be it because the only tool we need for the job is those B-1's.

The FoC is more akin to a full on deployment which as we know isn't what Warhammer 40k is. It is a bunch of skirmishes. So why not bring only the tools for the job? What's the point of bringing infantry in when the opponent has flamers? Why send in the troops if you know they are going to just get slaughtered on the first turn by a drop pod harboring a flamer dreadnought? Unbound is a show of force which we use in every modern day war. Why should the future have reverted? It's about time they "caught up" with our tactics.

Does playing a table-top game against a bunch of B-1's and nothing else sound like fun to you? Sounds pretty dull to me.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Xerics wrote:
Why is everyone complaining about unbound so hard?

In war today we only send in the best tools for the job. If that means we send on a few B-1's screaming overhead for a strafing run without any infantry or tanks then so be it because the only tool we need for the job is those B-1's.

The FoC is more akin to a full on deployment which as we know isn't what Warhammer 40k is. It is a bunch of skirmishes. So why not bring only the tools for the job? What's the point of bringing infantry in when the opponent has flamers? Why send in the troops if you know they are going to just get slaughtered on the first turn by a drop pod harboring a flamer dreadnought? Unbound is a show of force which we use in every modern day war. Why should the future have reverted? It's about time they "caught up" with our tactics.

Does playing a table-top game against a bunch of B-1's and nothing else sound like fun to you? Sounds pretty dull to me.

Sounds like a deathstar unit. Sound familiar? Something like screamerstar or jetseer council, or gravstar, or revenant titans, or white scars bike army, or wraithstar, or triptides, or farsight bomb. Are those games with those deathstars any more fun than having a bunch of B-1's strafe you to death?

 Xerics wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Xerics wrote:
Why is everyone complaining about unbound so hard?

In war today we only send in the best tools for the job. If that means we send on a few B-1's screaming overhead for a strafing run without any infantry or tanks then so be it because the only tool we need for the job is those B-1's.

The FoC is more akin to a full on deployment which as we know isn't what Warhammer 40k is. It is a bunch of skirmishes. So why not bring only the tools for the job? What's the point of bringing infantry in when the opponent has flamers? Why send in the troops if you know they are going to just get slaughtered on the first turn by a drop pod harboring a flamer dreadnought? Unbound is a show of force which we use in every modern day war. Why should the future have reverted? It's about time they "caught up" with our tactics.

Does playing a table-top game against a bunch of B-1's and nothing else sound like fun to you? Sounds pretty dull to me.

Sounds like a deathstar unit. Sound familiar? Something like screamerstar or jetseer council, or gravstar, or revenant titans, or white scars bike army, or wraithstar, or triptides, or farsight bomb. Are those games with those deathstars any more fun than having a bunch of B-1's strafe you to death?

Nope, they are no so much fun, so in my personal view, they just took one of the worst parts of the game and made it even worster.

 Xerics wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Xerics wrote:
Why is everyone complaining about unbound so hard?

In war today we only send in the best tools for the job. If that means we send on a few B-1's screaming overhead for a strafing run without any infantry or tanks then so be it because the only tool we need for the job is those B-1's.

The FoC is more akin to a full on deployment which as we know isn't what Warhammer 40k is. It is a bunch of skirmishes. So why not bring only the tools for the job? What's the point of bringing infantry in when the opponent has flamers? Why send in the troops if you know they are going to just get slaughtered on the first turn by a drop pod harboring a flamer dreadnought? Unbound is a show of force which we use in every modern day war. Why should the future have reverted? It's about time they "caught up" with our tactics.

Does playing a table-top game against a bunch of B-1's and nothing else sound like fun to you? Sounds pretty dull to me.

Sounds like a deathstar unit. Sound familiar? Something like screamerstar or jetseer council, or gravstar, or revenant titans, or white scars bike army, or wraithstar, or triptides, or farsight bomb. Are those games with those deathstars any more fun than having a bunch of B-1's strafe you to death?

So the solution to fix it is to just spam OP units?
People like me wanted to end that kind of cheese, not welcome it with open arms. If you thought that the deathstars were abused cheese, wait until you see the unbound netlists.

 Xerics wrote:
Why is everyone complaining about unbound so hard?

In war today we only send in the best tools for the job. If that means we send on a few B-1's screaming overhead for a strafing run without any infantry or tanks then so be it because the only tool we need for the job is those B-1's.

... and how much fun is it for the Taliban player to sit there and take a bombing run with no effective countermeasures?

I suppose they have to count on "winning the scenario" by hiding in caves...

The point is, it's a game. There's supposed to be an element of rules structure that encourages a heated competition between two players who both have an opportunity to win and have fun doing so. If that, to you, means one player trying not to die while his opponent gets to roll all the dice then I'm sure you'll love Unbound. I think most of us disagree with that concept though.

If every model on the board is a Queen, you are way closer to playing checkers than you are to playing chess.

Several posts deleted.

Please stay on topic.


Oddly enough pointless arguments over the semantics of what a law is/isn't and the like isn't on topic.


Thank you.

 jasper76 wrote:
If every model on the board is a Queen, you are way closer to playing checkers than you are to playing chess.

My brother set up a chess game like that, way back when we were growing up and we had an Atari 2600 game console. We had a chess game for it, where you could customize it by setting up the pieces however you like. He set up a game where each side had a king and 31 queens. He started the game, the computer started it's "thinking" phase, and has never come out of it. Seriously, years later, we'd put the cartridge in and power it up, and it would just cut to the image of the two sides set up, all dem queens, and the "thinking" text across the screen.

shade1313 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
If every model on the board is a Queen, you are way closer to playing checkers than you are to playing chess.

My brother set up a chess game like that, way back when we were growing up and we had an Atari 2600 game console. We had a chess game for it, where you could customize it by setting up the pieces however you like. He set up a game where each side had a king and 31 queens. He started the game, the computer started it's "thinking" phase, and has never come out of it. Seriously, years later, we'd put the cartridge in and power it up, and it would just cut to the image of the two sides set up, all dem queens, and the "thinking" text across the screen.

"The only winning move is to not play" indeed.

 jasper76 wrote:
If every model on the board is a Queen, you are way closer to playing checkers than you are to playing chess.

Cept you have to pay $75 per queen to put them there and $100 for the rules pamphlet giving you permission to use queens.

GW is attempting to charge us for playing Cowboys and Indians.

shade1313 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
If every model on the board is a Queen, you are way closer to playing checkers than you are to playing chess.

My brother set up a chess game like that, way back when we were growing up and we had an Atari 2600 game console. We had a chess game for it, where you could customize it by setting up the pieces however you like. He set up a game where each side had a king and 31 queens. He started the game, the computer started it's "thinking" phase, and has never come out of it. Seriously, years later, we'd put the cartridge in and power it up, and it would just cut to the image of the two sides set up, all dem queens, and the "thinking" text across the screen.

Was it Battle Chess? Loved that game. Two pawns against each other, one stamps the foot of the other with his lance and then stabs him in the face.

Good times. Good times.

 Xerics wrote:
Why is everyone complaining about unbound so hard?

In war today we only send in the best tools for the job. If that means we send on a few B-1's screaming overhead for a strafing run without any infantry or tanks then so be it because the only tool we need for the job is those B-1's.

If Warhammer 40,000 was actually balanced - with every unit worth its points and not one iota more - then Unbound would not be the abomination that it is. If Wave Serpents weren't a flat-out better unit for their price than the equivalent value of Eldar Guardians, it would not matter so much if someone took all of one and none of the other.

There'd still be problems - an army dominated by a single unit type will exaggerate its strengths and weaknesses (against an all AV14 Land Raider army for example, anything with Strength 7 or less might as well sit the game out), but this would at least be balanced out by their own hard counters.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

shade1313 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
If every model on the board is a Queen, you are way closer to playing checkers than you are to playing chess.

My brother set up a chess game like that, way back when we were growing up and we had an Atari 2600 game console. We had a chess game for it, where you could customize it by setting up the pieces however you like. He set up a game where each side had a king and 31 queens. He started the game, the computer started it's "thinking" phase, and has never come out of it. Seriously, years later, we'd put the cartridge in and power it up, and it would just cut to the image of the two sides set up, all dem queens, and the "thinking" text across the screen.

"The only winning move is to not play" indeed.

Yeah, that's really the kind of game setup that boils down (for the vast majority of players, I'm sure there are some chess geniuses who could try to work out a viable strategy) to "smash armies together for mutual annihilation, see who's left standing at the end, probably a stalemate".

 Xerics wrote:
Sounds like a deathstar unit. Sound familiar? Something like screamerstar or jetseer council, or gravstar, or revenant titans, or white scars bike army, or wraithstar, or triptides, or farsight bomb. Are those games with those deathstars any more fun than having a bunch of B-1's strafe you to death?

You seem to have this idea that people love deathstars. I'm sure there are some that do, but for the most part, no, they suck, we want them to go away, not become worse.

The Unbound stuff sounds like rubbish, but the missions are similar to what YAMS does for Infinity - i.e might be a fun change. That alone won't bring me back to the game, however.

 Xerics wrote:
Why is everyone complaining about unbound so hard?

In war today we only send in the best tools for the job. If that means we send on a few B-1's screaming overhead for a strafing run without any infantry or tanks then so be it because the only tool we need for the job is those B-1's.

We're talking about a GAME which should be FAIR and FUN. War is not nor should it be any of those words. While some measure of realism is good in a game (even one in the distant future where nukes are common but people choose to run at each other with chainsaws), the primary purpose of Warhammer 40,000 isn't to simulate Desert Storm but to provide two or more players some shared enjoyment where they ostensibly have the same chance to win excluding their own tactics/skill level. That is fundamentally different from the type of war you'd want to wage.

 streamdragon wrote:

shade1313 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
If every model on the board is a Queen, you are way closer to playing checkers than you are to playing chess.

My brother set up a chess game like that, way back when we were growing up and we had an Atari 2600 game console. We had a chess game for it, where you could customize it by setting up the pieces however you like. He set up a game where each side had a king and 31 queens. He started the game, the computer started it's "thinking" phase, and has never come out of it. Seriously, years later, we'd put the cartridge in and power it up, and it would just cut to the image of the two sides set up, all dem queens, and the "thinking" text across the screen.

Was it Battle Chess? Loved that game. Two pawns against each other, one stamps the foot of the other with his lance and then stabs him in the face.

Good times. Good times.

Noooo, this was WAAAAAY before Battle Chess. Like, late 70s/early 80s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Chess released in '79.

I am wondering how much of this hate/fear is just because it’s 7th Edition.

I had this back when 3rd Edition D&D was announcing it in a tiny little paragraph in a Dragon Magazine Letters to the Readers. We had three players just decided to hate it D&D 3rd Edition right then and there. The funny thing they become one of the biggest proponents once it had been out for a few months.
The one of ours that had the biggest issue was one of player who had the most issues with 2nd Edition. His problem was that they addressed all of his problem, but not the way thought they should have.
They all still played 3rd Edition D&D and still had fun

Then D&D 4th Edition was announced and the same thing happened. They killed off a bunch of Sacred Cows (Many of them sent off to Krusty Burger kitchens) and tried to address the issues once more, but not the way half of my group thought they should have fixed the problems.

Now with D&D Next (We still call it D&D 5th), it looks like they tried to please everyone, and that never works, but there was some of it we liked (My group was one of the Play-Testers) and a lot we did not like.

WH40k is giving me the same vibe as D&D Next. A failed Attempt to address ALL of the issues. This does not mean it is a Failure.
We don’t have all of the facts

On Battle-Forged vs. Unbound:
1] They now are giving us multiple ways for both the “Fully-Non-Competitive-Player” to the “Hyper-Competitive-TFG-WAAC-Player”.
2] Unbound…as an Old-Rouge-Trader-Player, “This how us old Folks used to Play”. There were not FOCs, No Army List. You had to build you tanks out of WWII Models and Deodorant Sticks. The core book gave to some pages to Photocopy and glue onto cardstock to give you some Space Marines and Orks to play.

I love the concept of Unbound, and those in my group have talk to also love it. The consensus looks to be, we will build “Battle-Forged List” and “Unbound List” and “Forge Unbound Narrative Battles”.


On the Physic Phase:
1] As an Old-Rouge-Trader-Player I don’t remember how it worked back then, I remember my Level 4 Librarian armed with a Thunder Hammer and Force Axe getting 12-24 S8-10 Attacks each turn.
2] I do remember the 2nd Edition Physic Phase, I had no issue with it, if fact I liked better than the 3rd-6th set because sometimes we were not sure when some power were happen. You will also be more likely to remember to use all of them.

Overall I think those who walk into 7th with an open mind “Wanting” to enjoy it will enjoy it. Those who walk in “Wanting” to hate it will Hate it.

shade1313 wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

shade1313 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
If every model on the board is a Queen, you are way closer to playing checkers than you are to playing chess.

My brother set up a chess game like that, way back when we were growing up and we had an Atari 2600 game console. We had a chess game for it, where you could customize it by setting up the pieces however you like. He set up a game where each side had a king and 31 queens. He started the game, the computer started it's "thinking" phase, and has never come out of it. Seriously, years later, we'd put the cartridge in and power it up, and it would just cut to the image of the two sides set up, all dem queens, and the "thinking" text across the screen.

Was it Battle Chess? Loved that game. Two pawns against each other, one stamps the foot of the other with his lance and then stabs him in the face.

Good times. Good times.

Noooo, this was WAAAAAY before Battle Chess. Like, late 70s/early 80s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Chess released in '79.

Wow. Suddenly I feel younger again!

Also I feel the need to find a copy of Battle Chess...

On topic, I'm actually somewhat looking forward to the new rules. That might be because I've been somewhat disillusioned with 6th E and what I see as 'meh' updates to the armies I play. (Or lack of update, in the case of Orks.) We'll see though. I rarely play 40k lately, so if it's somehow massively worse than 6th (which I'm inclined to doubt) then I guess I can continue to play WHFB instead.

The unbound armies rule sounds absolutely awesome. I'm looking forward to seeing what horrific Chaos armies I can unleash on my friends... *scheming*… Also it would allow for even fluffier armies. Play Night-Lords? Now you can have an all raptor army! I love this shift from stale competitive play full of cookie-cutter lists, to more of a free for all style of play, where anything (up to a certain extent) can go. I think that this is the golden age for 40k.

 MetalOxide wrote:
The unbound armies rule sounds absolutely awesome. I'm looking forward to seeing what horrific Chaos armies I can unleash on my friends... *scheming*… Also it would allow for even fluffier armies. Play Night-Lords? Now you can have an all raptor army! I think that this is the golden age for 40k.

Or the All Vangaurd Lighting Claw Armies lead by Shrike.

I now want to see a Night-Lord vs. Raven Guard Battle.

I'm still amazed that some people don't see the problems inherent in an Unbound army

(Yes, I do see all the cool stuff. Starting players being able to play immediately with what models they have. Amazing themed forces. Cool narrative games.)


Which of these sounds more reasonable:

You have 10 Heldrakes. It is your responsibility, before showing up at the gaming store to play, to negotiate with an opponent for bringing a non-standard list. You were aware, before buying and painting 10 Heldrakes, that this formation was a non-standard list.


Your opponent has brought his entirely legal 10 Heldrake army to the gaming store. Now that both of you are at the store, with your armies in tow, you can back out of a game or try to get him to alter his list if he has other models with him, or maybe try to alter your list with any extra models you have, to make a game that might be more fun for you and less trying for your Battle-Forged Space Marine army.



I know that 'narrative games' sound awesome. They are awesome. However, narrative games require communication and planning before the game (unless you make up a narrative as you go along, which you can do with any game, at any time, so if you are using narrative in that sense, you are always good, so shut it). Let me illustrate.

You have a cool narrative idea for an Orky Air Force (which, I will admit, sounds good to me!). You bring your models (all those cool ork airplanes, and maybe some deffkoptas) to the game store/club. Your opponent has a cool narrative idea for a dense, urban warfare game, and brings a massive fortification network, tons of IG ground-pounders with flamers and det charges, and grabs all of the game venue's Cityfight ruins to set up on the board.

If you let your opponent have 'his' narrative game, you will have a board with rubble all over it and almost nowhere you can even PLACE a dakkajet base, and your narrative plan is foiled. If you set out a table that supports being able to place many, many large-based fliers (without them toppling over), your opponent's narrative plan of dense, urban warfare is spoiled.

You need to talk about those types of expectations before the game. If the game overtly sets up almost ANY army selections as valid for a pick-up game, then you have problems.


Also, for all of those who are arguing that 'let people play with what they have' is a good choice for Games Workshop:

Why not let them play with their Warhammer Fantasy models? What about their Epic or Warmaster models? What if they want to glue Riptide arms on a Stonehorn? Why shouldn't the rules support letting them make up their own models? Why should the rules limit them to valid unit choices? What if I have 7 IG troopers, a Star Dragon, 3 Terminators, and a Wraithknight?

Unless you are okay with 'plonk down any plastic from GW and write your own rules', you are already accepting the value and utility of some limits and regulation on 'play what you own'. We are then just discussing the best parameters for restrictions that we all agree should exist.*

*Related anecdote:

A man asks a woman if she would be willing to sleep with him if he pays her a billion dollars. She replies affirmatively. He then offers five dollars and asks if she would still be willing to sleep with him for the revised fee. The woman is greatly offended and replies as follows:

She: What kind of woman do you think I am?

He: We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over the price.

I think that we've already established that some limitations on your army composition are necessary (otherwise, meet my Epic Landraider army!). We're now discussing whether the ones that GW has seemed to establish with the 'new rules' leak are adequate.

 warboss wrote:

 Xerics wrote:
Why is everyone complaining about unbound so hard?

In war today we only send in the best tools for the job. If that means we send on a few B-1's screaming overhead for a strafing run without any infantry or tanks then so be it because the only tool we need for the job is those B-1's.

We're talking about a GAME which should be FAIR and FUN. War is not nor should it be any of those words. While some measure of realism is good in a game (even one in the distant future where nukes are common but people choose to run at each other with chainsaws), the primary purpose of Warhammer 40,000 isn't to simulate Desert Storm but to provide two or more players some shared enjoyment where they ostensibly have the same chance to win excluding their own tactics/skill level. That is fundamentally different from the type of war you'd want to wage.

But the game isn't fair and fun. the game has become "I win because (insert deathstar here)".

 Anpu42 wrote:

2] Unbound…as an Old-Rouge-Trader-Player, “This how us old Folks used to Play”. There were not FOCs, No Army List. You had to build you tanks out of WWII Models and Deodorant Sticks. The core book gave to some pages to Photocopy and glue onto cardstock to give you some Space Marines and Orks to play.

I love the concept of Unbound, and those in my group have talk to also love it. The consensus looks to be, we will build “Battle-Forged List” and “Unbound List” and “Forge Unbound Narrative Battles”.

If you and your group love Unbound so much, why do you guys need a 100$ rulebook to tell you to ignore the rules and play like that? What kept you from just ignoring the FOC in all previous editions and just "forge the narrative"?

 Anpu42 wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:
The unbound armies rule sounds absolutely awesome. I'm looking forward to seeing what horrific Chaos armies I can unleash on my friends... *scheming*… Also it would allow for even fluffier armies. Play Night-Lords? Now you can have an all raptor army! I think that this is the golden age for 40k.

Or the All Vangaurd Lighting Claw Armies lead by Shrike.

I now want to see a Night-Lord vs. Raven Guard Battle.

That would be awesome to see… somebody must make it happen!

 Xerics wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 Xerics wrote:
Why is everyone complaining about unbound so hard?

In war today we only send in the best tools for the job. If that means we send on a few B-1's screaming overhead for a strafing run without any infantry or tanks then so be it because the only tool we need for the job is those B-1's.

We're talking about a GAME which should be FAIR and FUN. War is not nor should it be any of those words. While some measure of realism is good in a game (even one in the distant future where nukes are common but people choose to run at each other with chainsaws), the primary purpose of Warhammer 40,000 isn't to simulate Desert Storm but to provide two or more players some shared enjoyment where they ostensibly have the same chance to win excluding their own tactics/skill level. That is fundamentally different from the type of war you'd want to wage.

But the game isn't fair and fun. the game has become "I win because (insert deathstar here)".

Yes, and alot of that (but admittedly not all) is because of the loosey goosey army construction allowed in 6e with allies, dataslates, and such. Unbound accentuates that problem instead of "fixing" it. You seem to recognize the issue but are wondering why people are complaining "so hard" about something that makes it worse. Obviously the details in this situation will make or break it as a simple single line about getting permission to use unbound armies would solve everything... but so would a single line in the 40k 4th, 5th, or 6th edition rulebook about FW and they've chosen not to do so. The line about warforged units getting a bonus makes me think their won't be an official "permission only" line but it's still possible.

 MetalOxide wrote:
The unbound armies rule sounds absolutely awesome. I'm looking forward to seeing what horrific Chaos armies I can unleash on my friends... *scheming*… Also it would allow for even fluffier armies. Play Night-Lords? Now you can have an all raptor army! I love this shift from stale competitive play full of cookie-cutter lists, to more of a free for all style of play, where anything (up to a certain extent) can go. I think that this is the golden age for 40k.

OMG, I can have my citadel journal edition Cult of Khorne berserker termie army in landraiders back where everyone can burst into a khorne bloodthirster!

I'm kinda liking the sound of the unbound army lists, sure some are going to be broken as hell such as those that are twenty riptides only, but it can also provide some brilliantly themed lists!

I'm looking at pure CSM raptor armies, or a horde of nothing by IG troopers fighting dozens of trygons. Some things we've always wanted to try out but had to stick to apocalypse and apocalypse MK2. Now there isn't the 3k point minimum buy in which I like and the games wont be 20 hour long marathons. They could be short and sweet battles that were being replicated from a novel we read?

And those complaining how 40K is no longer a skirmish game? Hey with Unbound army lists you can easily break that 10 man squad of marines down to 10 1 man squads and have them all act individualy, ergo 40K has just became Killteam!

Yeah the book shall be a rip off, but some of the ideas we've only heard brief tid bits about aren't worth slating the entire thing and classing it as a failure already? We don't know whats coming, we've had a paragraph from a WD and that's it (come on 40k radio, tell us more damn it!). I know it's hard, especially with GW, but come on, for once, lets have some hope and faith!

Preach over, man I should apply to the Ecclesiarchy

I'll be honest, on my first pass through that White Dwarf article I was sort of terrified when I reached the psychic phase section. My initial reaction was dislike, but the more I think about it the more I realize that if it is done even remotely well it could mitigate some of the deathstar builds and add a layer of thinking and tactics to the game.

I am hoping that more rumors are leaked that confirm my hopes, but for now I am inclined to be cautiously optimistic about the direction it is going. Battle forged vs. unbound I don't see being a problem in my meta so I'm going to hold judgment on that until I see how it really works.

My only fear is that one of my armies will be completely nerfed by the new rules edition, but between IG, GK, and Daemons I don't see it happening unless FMCs receive a major change and the psyker perils table just completely blows. I could see GKs getting a solid boost in warp charge points due to the amount of MSU brotherhood of psyker units you can cram into a game.

Would anyone on here complain if I went "unbound" and actually just set a monster mash of greater demons and demon princes on the board? If people want fluff, the first waves of leaders had come in and were wiped out, and the ruinous powers sent in their heavy hitters. Boom. Rationale has been reached, and I don't really care about OP units, I just played as close to monster mash with the 4th/5th demon book, and this would be a working continuation. If I lose, I lose. If I win, sweet. I do fear the upcoming OP options, but I guess we'll see. Can't be as bad as 5 titans, right?