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.

The fact you have to say to people 'good luck' when an edition change is coming is quite telling.

tag8833 wrote:
You've got an interesting idea here. Post a topic in Proposed rules, and see what sort of feedback you get.

Thanks. Already posted it right after making that post though. It was promptly abused.

I will admit it's not perfect, it was an idea I had rolling around in my head for a little while that I only spent a couple hours actually working on (most of that just typing) but I haven't had time to go back to and actually start re-evaluating it all yet.

Of course that doesn't stop people from bashing on it or trying to tear it down instead of offering something constructive to say about the thing, like ideas on ways to adjust some of the points costing methods (instead of just telling me they don't work as is) or perhaps recommending how to slot certain special rules (instead of making broken as hell models just to basically mock the idea) and so on.

Good times.

Loki, I say good luck because there are plenty of players out there who are more than happy for a new edition and some change, and that they should stand in the face of adversity- IE the players in their group who try to break all the rules. GW will ruin things by making the models too expensive.. The type of game you play is always dictated by your opponent and yourself.

So, I say good luck in your endeavors of having fun!

 Brometheus wrote:
Cool! I can have a full army of Heldrakes? I can't wait to make new friends with my collection. Might even throw in a unit of cultists to forge a narrative

They also told me not to forget those Riptides. Gotta collect em all!

You know.. They wouldn't be saying that stuff if people aren't doing it. So happy that no one plays that crap in my area. Feel sorry for those of you who have to put up with it in "casual" play.

The players create balance or break the game. Stick together, stick with your gaming groups, and encourage others to ensure everyone has fun- no matter the edition. I love my miniatures, and will find a way to keep getting stuff out of all the money I put into it. Good luck

So you're encouraging people to ignore the rules? I literally cannot think of any other tabletop wargame where players feel that they can just ignore the core rules because they don't fit into their idea of how the game 'should' be played. Imagine refusing to play against TIE fighters in X-Wing because you think they're too powerful.

I still feel like my opponent is doing me a massive favour by letting me use my titan, despite it being, you know, in the rules [or course I would let them know I'm bringing it beforehand]. Lots of people who feel that they can refuse to play against knight titans too.

I'm looking forward to unbound armies so that I can create fluffier armies. I'm thinking of an entire army of Noise Marines for laughs. A World Eaters army in landraiders sounds great too. This opens up lots of modelling and collecting opportunities. Also, it gives more opportunities to have more narrative style games. Some people will refuse to ignore certain rules because they are THE RULES. Unbound armies should encourage more creativity in scenario creation, and give more support to narrative driven gamers, which I think is a very good thing.

Dude. I'm saying that if someone can take an army of all Heldrakes, that does not mean GW broke the game. Where did I mention anything about flat out ignoring rules?

In a sorta related note, if I am playing certain rules that are not normal and my opponent is doing so as well, who is to say that is incorrect?

and it is a good thing.. If I can ignore FoC and take 4 Sorcerer HQs as a retinue for my Warlord in a store event, well that's a win win win win x100

 Brometheus wrote:
Cool! I can have a full army of Heldrakes? I can't wait to make new friends with my collection. Might even throw in a unit of cultists to forge a narrative

They also told me not to forget those Riptides. Gotta collect em all!

You know.. They wouldn't be saying that stuff if people aren't doing it. So happy that no one plays that crap in my area. Feel sorry for those of you who have to put up with it in "casual" play.

The players create balance or break the game. Stick together, stick with your gaming groups, and encourage others to ensure everyone has fun- no matter the edition. I love my miniatures, and will find a way to keep getting stuff out of all the money I put into it. Good luck

+1

I agree.

Keep the crazy unbound stuff for casual, but even then don't be a mega douche about it.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Unbound armies should encourage more creativity in scenario creation, and give more support to narrative driven gamers, which I think is a very good thing.

Except from what we've seen the "unbound" rules don't add anything to narrative games. They don't do anything to guide you in constructing narrative-based forces or designing narrative-based missions, they just say "do whatever you want". It's only going to be "support" for narrative games if you're already that kind of player and playing that kind of game, if you're a competitive player (or any other kind of player) then the "unbound" rules will "support" you in doing that other stuff instead.

I'm a narrative player and you know what? If I wanted to take 10 battlewagons I'd just say "I think 10 battlewagons would be cool for this mission" and my opponent would agree and thats that.

They really haven't given us gak with Unbound.

 Peregrine wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Unbound armies should encourage more creativity in scenario creation, and give more support to narrative driven gamers, which I think is a very good thing.

Except from what we've seen the "unbound" rules don't add anything to narrative games. They don't do anything to guide you in constructing narrative-based forces or designing narrative-based missions, they just say "do whatever you want". It's only going to be "support" for narrative games if you're already that kind of player and playing that kind of game, if you're a competitive player (or any other kind of player) then the "unbound" rules will "support" you in doing that other stuff instead.

I think you underestimate how difficult it can be to arrange narrative style games. In my experience they take a lot of back and forth, arguments and compromise to come up with something that everyone is happy with. Also, some people will just flat out refuse to bend any rules because playing by the rules as written is very important to them. If it's in the book, then for me it will make it a lot easier to arrange fluffy games which don't strictly follow the FOC.

I'm also hoping it will take the wind out of the sails of the "I'm not playing that" crowd. Everything is in, which, for me, equates to lots of fun.

 Dakkamite wrote:
I'm a narrative player and you know what? If I wanted to take 10 battlewagons I'd just say "I think 10 battlewagons would be cool for this mission" and my opponent would agree and thats that.

They really haven't given us gak with Unbound.

Exactly this.

A rule granting the player to ignore certain rules shouldn't be lauded as being creative or narrative oriented; it should be criticized as a lazy way of writing rules for something players could have have done for several editions now by talking with their opponent.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
In my experience they take a lot of back and forth, arguments and compromise to come up with something that everyone is happy with.

How exactly is saying "do whatever you want" supposed to help with this? Real support for narrative games would be providing a structure to help resolve those compromises in a way that leads to interesting story-focused games, not just saying "you deal with this problem" and removing all of the rules.

Also, some people will just flat out refuse to bend any rules because playing by the rules as written is very important to them. If it's in the book, then for me it will make it a lot easier to arrange fluffy games which don't strictly follow the FOC.

I think you badly overestimate how open-minded people are going to be. The rules saying "X is legal" hasn't stopped people from whining and crying endlessly about how FW isn't "real 40k", so expect this to end up like mysterious terrain: it's in the rules, but hardly anyone uses it because it's obviously stupid.

 Peregrine wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
In my experience they take a lot of back and forth, arguments and compromise to come up with something that everyone is happy with.

How exactly is saying "do whatever you want" supposed to help with this? Real support for narrative games would be providing a structure to help resolve those compromises in a way that leads to interesting story-focused games, not just saying "you deal with this problem" and removing all of the rules.

Also, some people will just flat out refuse to bend any rules because playing by the rules as written is very important to them. If it's in the book, then for me it will make it a lot easier to arrange fluffy games which don't strictly follow the FOC.

I think you badly overestimate how open-minded people are going to be. The rules saying "X is legal" hasn't stopped people from whining and crying endlessly about how FW isn't "real 40k", so expect this to end up like mysterious terrain: it's in the rules, but hardly anyone uses it because it's obviously stupid.

While I do agree with what you said, you don't need to put it as, for lack of a better term, harshly. If someone can find a silver lining in this dark cloud, then more power to them. Personally Unbound, if it is as people have guessed, has killed any desire for me to play in tournaments, but it has motivated to start looking into being a TO for my flgs.

26 single man obliterator squads for 1850.

It's SO FLUFFY!

I like how the article states that "Glen" was looking forward to using his 4 riptides with his broadsides. I wish he actually had before someone decided "hey this is a great idea!"
My hope at this point is that the new allies matrix and psychic phase will tighten up some of the craziness, and unbound will just go the way of escalation. Then again I was originally hoping they'd be making a tighter update to 6th.

You know what they say about hope...

We don't know what the bonus is for being forged in battle yet, so tournament players may well never want to go unbound just because of the handicap, regardless of being able to field 15 units of long fangs or not.

We also don't know how unbound lists interact with mission objectives yet either. It might not be that bad, things tend to turn out better than hoped for here!

I personally don't like the idea too much, but I'm reserving judgement. Crying over it now is like moaning at the idea of a horseless carriage without understanding that it will have an engine and petrol and a steering wheel, because a horseless carriage is just a box, IT CAN'T MOVE!

 greyknight12 wrote:
I like how the article states that "Glen" was looking forward to using his 4 riptides with his broadsides. I wish he actually had before someone decided "hey this is a great idea!"
My hope at this point is that the new allies matrix and psychic phase will tighten up some of the craziness, and unbound will just go the way of escalation. Then again I was originally hoping they'd be making a tighter update to 6th.

You know what they say about hope...

Ye, we know so little. There is the possibility that they have realised the upset escalation and the allies have caused so split the game in two. On the one side more restrictions on what you can take, so limiting you greatly to what can be done, on the other much less restriction on what you can take so you can do things that are not legal under the FOC. However there are massive penalties for not using the FOC making it impractical to use unbound against battle forged. We don't know anything about how the rules work. It could be as clear as APOC/normal 40k split, but at lower point levels. The very fact that they accept that battle forged armies need bonuses implies that the designers have some realisation that some people will try and abuse it.

I don't understand all this pishing and moaning about unbound forces.

~~wavy lines~~

When I started playing in the early 90s, we all used 'unbound' armies because that's all we had - a handful of metal minis with one addition every couple of weeks, depending on what you wanted and how much pocket money you saved!







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thokt wrote:
26 single man obliterator squads for 1850.

It's SO FLUFFY!

Are they those one man chaos Dev squads? Effing brutal.

I might have to reconsider my thoughts in the post above...

 Dakkamite wrote:
I'm a narrative player and you know what? If I wanted to take 10 battlewagons I'd just say "I think 10 battlewagons would be cool for this mission" and my opponent would agree and thats that.

They really haven't given us gak with Unbound.

But the inverse is also true.

If I want a nice tight, single-FoC, no allies, no Flyers, no broaken Kelly-Dexes game, I'd just say "I want a nice tight, single-FoC, no allies, no Flyers, no broaken Kelly-Dexes game" and my opponent would agree and thats that.


They've taken absolutely nothing away by adding more options (which, as you've said, you're free to ignore).

Nurgle Plague Obliterators....they wont die, deep strike, T5? and each counts as its own squad...oh my!

However until the book drops we don't actually know what 'unbound' will give us, I still think there will be a framework to that, i.e. you cant simply have 9 hellrakes and that's it, you may still need a HQ, even if its a helldrake, but its adds X % to the cost so it restricts that to maybe 8or 7 drakes for example.

I am looking forward to the new edition, change is as good as a holiday, and I got on with 6 quite well, not as much as I loved 4th edition, just seemed to gel with that edition.

Play with what comes in front of you, if you get a 7 riptide force, make a game of it to piss him off, or maybe these objective cards will make a 7 tide army lose a lot??

We wont know till end of the month. wait and see.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
I'm a narrative player and you know what? If I wanted to take 10 battlewagons I'd just say "I think 10 battlewagons would be cool for this mission" and my opponent would agree and thats that.

They really haven't given us gak with Unbound.

But the inverse is also true.

If I want a nice tight, single-FoC, no allies, no Flyers, no broaken Kelly-Dexes game, I'd just say "I want a nice tight, single-FoC, no allies, no Flyers, no broaken Kelly-Dexes game" and my opponent would agree and thats that.


They've taken absolutely nothing away by adding more options (which, as you've said, you're free to ignore).

Except that it's much easier to get people to agree to drop restrictions than to agree to add restrictions, because you're making it more restrictive.

You're essentially saying that the rules don't matter because you can just re-write them; but what we're saying is that yes you can write them, but it'd be nice if they were balanced in the first place.

Herzlos wrote:


Except that it's much easier to get people to agree to drop restrictions than to agree to add restrictions, because you're making it more restrictive.

You're essentially saying that the rules don't matter because you can just re-write them; but what we're saying is that yes you can write them, but it'd be nice if they were balanced in the first place.

Not in my experience.

Getting strangers to play with something "outside" the rules has consistently proven surprisingly difficult, if not impossible.

Agreeing to leave out X, or refrain from using Y has never been difficult at all.

Rick_1138 wrote:
We wont know till end of the month. wait and see.

I agree, there is too much stress involved with trying to guess what they will do to 7th, its not good for my blood pressure.

 Dakkamite wrote:
I'm a narrative player and you know what? If I wanted to take 10 battlewagons I'd just say "I think 10 battlewagons would be cool for this mission" and my opponent would agree and thats that.

They really haven't given us gak with Unbound.

But what if your opponent didnt agree? They might have like one or two squads capable of denting all those battlewagons, why would he think thats cool?

It feels to me as though it's a money grab. Allow as many of the most powerful units as you wish - it just so happens that they're also generally quite expensive to purchase.

I'd be interested to know the points per £pound (or points per $dollar, whatever) for things like Riptides and the super heavies that are now going to be almost a requirement for competition play. Just how many points of value do we get for our Investment in the big models?

Do any armies with low PPP (points per pound) have any chance at all, or is this becoming a rich kid hobby, even more than it was?

This is just too funny. I just wish that pararaph in the WD article ended not with "Thrilling stuff" but with "This is great news!".

Would have been the icing on the cake.

Unbound lists may not be adding rules however the 36 card deck of objectives will. I am speculating that this unbound option has been added to work well with the new mission systems.

It's all very well saying unbound is not adding anything to narrative games because there aren't any rules to help guide them when we haven't seen the rules yet. The maelstrom missions sound awesome to me in principle and with unbound lists this could lead to some very fun and interesting list building.

Spam lists are bad, we all agree. Unbound lists may lead to more of these in pick game environments, we all agree. Tournaments will be fine, Battle-forged only rule if they feel it's needed. Now should we labour the point anymore without seeing anymore of the rulebook?

 unmercifulconker wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
I'm a narrative player and you know what? If I wanted to take 10 battlewagons I'd just say "I think 10 battlewagons would be cool for this mission" and my opponent would agree and thats that.

They really haven't given us gak with Unbound.

But what if your opponent didnt agree? They might have like one or two squads capable of denting all those battlewagons, why would he think thats cool?

How is that really any different than now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 turgon868 wrote:
Unbound lists may not be adding rules however the 36 card deck of objectives will. I am speculating that this unbound option has been added to work well with the new mission systems.

It's all very well saying unbound is not adding anything to narrative games because there aren't any rules to help guide them when we haven't seen the rules yet. The maelstrom missions sound awesome to me in principle and with unbound lists this could lead to some very fun and interesting list building.

Spam lists are bad, we all agree. Unbound lists may lead to more of these in pick game environments, we all agree. Tournaments will be fine, Battle-forged only rule if they feel it's needed. Now should we labour the point anymore without seeing anymore of the rulebook?

FOOL! This is a grimdark thread. There are no limits, there is only war!

 Thokt wrote:
26 single man obliterator squads for 1850.

It's SO FLUFFY!

That's really, really cool, actually. though it's more fleshy, considering Obliterator's appearance!

Anyways, I quite like the idea of Unbound armies. All out Chaos Terminator army? Yuss!

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Thokt wrote:
26 single man obliterator squads for 1850.

It's SO FLUFFY!

That's really, really cool, actually. though it's more fleshy, considering Obliterator's appearance!

Anyways, I quite like the idea of Unbound armies. All out Chaos Terminator army? Yuss!

Chaos Terminators vs Space Marine Terminators, it would make the very ground shake.

Only taking Farsight Enclave Riptides with ECPA, HBC, Tl-SMS and EWOs and enough shield drones to severely hamper grav gun fire ...how are you going to counter them?