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.

Zewrath wrote:

unbound is the same as unlimited primary detachments. no FOC. so it goes 2 ways you can take infinte of them ( points allowing) or you can take NONE, because you dont have a primary detachment.

No, not exatcly. You will need a primary attachment and you still have to respect the allies matrix, so you cannot ally with yourself, except Space Marines who have explicit permission to do so.

Well different Chapter Tactics Marines to each other and the Supplement books to their parent book, but regardless it's not the same as a double FOC army sort of thing.

Formations are the big thing I think that needs to be fixed. Being able to take an unlimited number of them really makes a mess of things.

Zewrath wrote:

unbound is the same as unlimited primary detachments. no FOC. so it goes 2 ways you can take infinte of them ( points allowing) or you can take NONE, because you dont have a primary detachment.

No, not exatcly. You will need a primary attachment and you still have to respect the allies matrix, so you cannot ally with yourself, except Space Marines who have explicit permission to do so.

You don't really need to be able to ally with yourself if you can just take whatever you fething please from your codex

I just hope this FOC thing doesn't turn into formations. Build this formation, buy these models and get this bonus.

I'm just really worried that my army won't be playable after 7th drops because I don't have enough models to fill any formations. And the way they've been packing everything up, the fireblade cadre and the ghostwarrior set, seems like THOSE are the types of armies GW wants us to field.

Dungeons and Dragons went through some sweeping changes and you don't see those groups in the backs of shops, rolling dice like they used to, and if they are they're playing 3.5 or 2nd...

Most of the ones i know are playing Pathfinder.

Not much D and D going on around here...

I'm getting twitchy about 7th.

My WTF-O-Meter is twitching something fierce.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Oh, and it looks like DE and Eldar won't be changing how they ally (and if they do it won't be by much). The "Ask Gromrindal" section for WD 15:

That's good news. The two Eldar factions being battle brothers was one of the good things in the ally chart.

Got a postcard in a mail order today. 4 of 4.

Picture of a Chaos Marine with "There is only War" on the Aquila.

I'm assuming the other three will be the Commisar, Knight and Dark Angel or are they different from the posters?

What i think is funny is the stir that the mention of unbound lists has made. Just w few months ago people were posting about how they hate the force org chart. Now that there is no force org chart (for unbound games) the community is up in arms.

Prior to 6th edition everyone was saying that the codex got updated too slowly (which they were). Now members of the community are upset at all the new rules and releases.

Seems like GW players are just an upset lot.

I don't recall people hating the FoC. Plenty of people upset with how GW was circumventing it with formations and special snowflake ally slots.for everything.

 sennacherib wrote:
What i think is funny is the stir that the mention of unbound lists has made. Just w few months ago people were posting about how they hate the force org chart. Now that there is no force org chart (for unbound games) the community is up in arms.

Prior to 6th edition everyone was saying that the codex got updated too slowly (which they were). Now members of the community are upset at all the new rules and releases.

Seems like GW players are just an upset lot.

Or, is it possible, that maybe we don't all share the one opinion? And just maybe different people have different views on how the game should evolve, and maybe you just saw two different sides of a debate?



No, couldn't possibly be that people actually have valid opinions. We are all just an upset. Just looking to complain about something, no matter what we get. I mean this unbound FOC thing is just perfect! Exactly what EVERYONE asked for (with no exceptions, remember, thats that shared opinion at work again!)

 Crimson wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Oh, and it looks like DE and Eldar won't be changing how they ally (and if they do it won't be by much). The "Ask Gromrindal" section for WD 15:

That's good news. The two Eldar factions being battle brothers was one of the good things in the ally chart.

Because I love me some Venoms and Wave Serpents with beast packs led by Farseers and Warlock Seer Councels led by the Baron!

/s

 Bull0 wrote:

Zewrath wrote:

unbound is the same as unlimited primary detachments. no FOC. so it goes 2 ways you can take infinte of them ( points allowing) or you can take NONE, because you dont have a primary detachment.

No, not exatcly. You will need a primary attachment and you still have to respect the allies matrix, so you cannot ally with yourself, except Space Marines who have explicit permission to do so.

You don't really need to be able to ally with yourself if you can just take whatever you fething please from your codex

You aren't allow to bring a group consisting of 3 terminators in a normal SM codex, unbound or battleforged. Just as you aren't allowed to take more units that has the 0-1 restriction.

You are allowed to take 4 hellturkeys because you have a CSM codex allied with a suplement, but you aren't allowed 4 hellturkeys if you play CSM and ally with CSM, because ally matrix prohibs you from doing so. Battleforged and Unbound isn't changing those restrictions (in terms of limits ally matrix and unique units/items etc.).

 TheKbob wrote:

Because I love me some Venoms and Wave Serpents with beast packs led by Farseers and Warlock Seer Councels led by the Baron!

/s

I am not talking about specific mechanic implications; BB rules have problems and should be altered. However, I am pleased that Eldar and Dark Eldar have the best level of alliance possible; they should trust each other more than any filthy mon-keigh.

 Crimson wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

Because I love me some Venoms and Wave Serpents with beast packs led by Farseers and Warlock Seer Councels led by the Baron!

/s

I am not talking about specific mechanic implications; BB rules have problems and should be altered. However, I am pleased that Eldar and Dark Eldar have the best level of alliance possible; they should trust each other more than any filthy mon-keigh.

Allies of Convenience.

 sennacherib wrote:
What i think is funny is the stir that the mention of unbound lists has made. Just w few months ago people were posting about how they hate the force org chart. Now that there is no force org chart (for unbound games) the community is up in arms.

Prior to 6th edition everyone was saying that the codex got updated too slowly (which they were). Now members of the community are upset at all the new rules and releases.

Seems like GW players are just an upset lot.

Next time try to understand someone's arguments. The complaints about the FOC was that it was basically useless and creating grossly imbalanced armies. So GW's way to fix it is to get rid of it and embracing imbalance...the exact opposite of what we wanted. So yeah, we're not happy about that.

 TheKbob wrote:

Allies of Convenience.

Yeah, I'd be fine with if BB was removed and AoC was the best level available to anyone. I just don't want Eldar to have better relationship with, say, IG or Tau, than they have with the Dark Eldar.

 Crimson wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

Allies of Convenience.

Yeah, I'd be fine with if BB was removed and AoC was the best level available to anyone. I just don't want Eldar to have better relationship with, say, IG or Tau, than they have with the Dark Eldar.

Or Space Marines, xenophobic by definition, having better relations with xenos than with Sisters of Battle.

 Crimson wrote:
However, I am pleased that Eldar and Dark Eldar have the best level of alliance possible; they should trust each other more than any filthy mon-keigh.

Okay, Dark eldars do not trust dark eldars, with good reasons. Why should craftworld eldars trust dark eldars? Allies of convenience at beast. I agree that neither should trust non-Eldars though.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
However, I am pleased that Eldar and Dark Eldar have the best level of alliance possible; they should trust each other more than any filthy mon-keigh.

Okay, Dark eldars do not trust dark eldars, with good reasons. Why should craftworld eldars trust dark eldars? Allies of convenience at beast. I agree that neither should trust non-Eldars though.

I want to see Horus Heresy style imbalanced allies where you have stuff like Tau treating Guard as Allies of Convenience while Guard see Tau as Battle Brothers. You know, so the thing actually fits the narrative more.

But the rules should not fit the narrative, the narrative should be forged by the rules! I mean, by you. I mean, by the roll of a dice .
No, seriously, it is a good idea.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

Allies of Convenience.

Yeah, I'd be fine with if BB was removed and AoC was the best level available to anyone. I just don't want Eldar to have better relationship with, say, IG or Tau, than they have with the Dark Eldar.

Or Space Marines, xenophobic by definition, having better relations with xenos than with Sisters of Battle.

Look, I don't know how much clearer GW needs to be- they hate Sisters and they hate people who play Sisters even more.

I, uh, feel like I should say just kidding, but then I don't think that's actually untrue.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Okay, Dark eldars do not trust dark eldars, with good reasons. Why should craftworld eldars trust dark eldars? Allies of convenience at beast. I agree that neither should trust non-Eldars though.

So if Dark Eldar do not trust Dark Eldar, should the be allies of convenience with units from their own army too? It is the best case scenario, DE mercenaries hired by the Craftworld etc. In a situation where it is Eldar vs. non-eldar, the different Eldar factions will work together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I want to see Horus Heresy style imbalanced allies where you have stuff like Tau treating Guard as Allies of Convenience while Guard see Tau as Battle Brothers. You know, so the thing actually fits the narrative more.

Whilst I dig the idea of uneven alliance, your specific example doesn't make any sense. Why would guard see filthy xenos as battle brothers? It would make more sense other way around.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Or Space Marines, xenophobic by definition, having better relations with xenos than with Sisters of Battle.

Yeah... SM should be desperate allies at best with any xenos army.

 sennacherib wrote:
What i think is funny is the stir that the mention of unbound lists has made. Just w few months ago people were posting about how they hate the force org chart. Now that there is no force org chart (for unbound games) the community is up in arms.

Link me to one of those posts, please, because I must have missed them. All of them. Every complaint I see about the FOC is how certain armies are allowed to exploit or break it in ways that other armies are not.

 sennacherib wrote:
Prior to 6th edition everyone was saying that the codex got updated too slowly (which they were). Now members of the community are upset at all the new rules and releases.

I think you are conflating two different issues.
Issue 1: Codexes are not released quickly enough to keep up with the Core rule changes, and thus older codexes fall behind and become less competitive / fun to play.
Issue 2: GW is fragmenting the codexes into 1 million pieces with a new fragment coming out every single week. The quality on the fragments are wildly inconsistent, because they suffer from inadequate play testing, resulting in players being unable to keep up with new changes, and Codexes that used to cost $30 now cost $100 - $150 because they are sold in many, many pieces.

I don't think that anyone is complaining that GW's speed of rereleasing the existing codexes is too fast. I think everyone is complaining about new codexes and dataslates being added weekly without sufficient quality control or content to warrant their price point. For instance, the Imperial Knight codex which is priced like a full codex, but only includes 2 units.


Now, I've got a question. I've seen repeatedly that "Unbound" armies will make it easier for new players to start in 40k. I don't understand this at all. When I was a new player, I was a little overwhelmed with where to start building my collection. The game requirements of 1 HQ and 2 troops made the decision much easier, and guided me into the construction of my 5K point army. If I showed up with my Hive Tyrant and 2 units of Termagaunts to play my first opponent running 3 riptides, I'm pretty sure that it would discourage me rather than encourage me. Or, if I decided that I love big things, and so I started by building my army with 3 Wraith Knights, and no one was willing to play me, I think that I would have been discouraged. How does a lack of structure benefit new players in any way?

 Accolade wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

Allies of Convenience.

Yeah, I'd be fine with if BB was removed and AoC was the best level available to anyone. I just don't want Eldar to have better relationship with, say, IG or Tau, than they have with the Dark Eldar.

Or Space Marines, xenophobic by definition, having better relations with xenos than with Sisters of Battle.

Look, I don't know how much clearer GW needs to be- they hate Sisters and they hate people who play Sisters even more.

I, uh, feel like I should say just kidding, but then I don't think that's actually untrue.

I actually did laugh out loud on that.
I wish you were joking though.

tag8833 wrote:
Now, I've got a question. I've seen repeatedly that "Unbound" armies will make it easier for new players to start in 40k. I don't understand this at all. When I was a new player, I was a little overwhelmed with where to start building my collection. The game requirements of 1 HQ and 2 troops made the decision much easier, and guided me into the construction of my 5K point army. If I showed up with my Hive Tyrant and 2 units of Termagaunts to play my first opponent running 3 riptides, I'm pretty sure that it would discourage me rather than encourage me. Or, if I decided that I love big things, and so I started by building my army with 3 Wraith Knights, and no one was willing to play me, I think that I would have been discouraged. How does a lack of structure benefit new players in any way?

Many players buy miniatures before reading the rules. When they want to try those minis, sometimes it's not possible because they lack an HQ or 2 troops choices. Then they need to buy MORE stuff to play. With Unbound, this kind of players can battle while not having the necessary for a battle-forged army.

 Crimson wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I want to see Horus Heresy style imbalanced allies where you have stuff like Tau treating Guard as Allies of Convenience while Guard see Tau as Battle Brothers. You know, so the thing actually fits the narrative more.

Whilst I dig the idea of uneven alliance, your specific example doesn't make any sense. Why would guard see filthy xenos as battle brothers? It would make more sense other way around.

Count as Gue'vesa Auxiliaries.

Wouldn't it still make more sense the other way around? Auxiliaries usually aren't given command.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Wouldn't it still make more sense the other way around? Auxiliaries usually aren't given command.

"Battle Brothers" implies being able to take commands, as well as give them. Indeed, the very term seems "hierarchy-neutral".

If anything, the "lower" part of the hierarchy should regard their superiors as "battle brothers", as far as receiving their orders go, and the "higher" part be more distant, no?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Wouldn't it still make more sense the other way around? Auxiliaries usually aren't given command.

"Battle Brothers" implies being able to take commands, as well as give them. Indeed, the very term seems "hierarchy-neutral".

If anything, the "lower" part of the hierarchy should regard their superiors as "battle brothers", as far as receiving their orders go, and the "higher" part be more distant, no?

Exactly what I was thinking honestly. Or you could assume the Auxiliaries trust the Tau more than the Tau trust them.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Wouldn't it still make more sense the other way around? Auxiliaries usually aren't given command.

"Battle Brothers" implies being able to take commands, as well as give them. Indeed, the very term seems "hierarchy-neutral".

If anything, the "lower" part of the hierarchy should regard their superiors as "battle brothers", as far as receiving their orders go, and the "higher" part be more distant, no?

Exactly what I was thinking honestly. Or you could assume the Auxiliaries trust the Tau more than the Tau trust them.

Yes, you are right, never mind. Mixed it up with Crimson.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
However, I am pleased that Eldar and Dark Eldar have the best level of alliance possible; they should trust each other more than any filthy mon-keigh.

Okay, Dark eldars do not trust dark eldars, with good reasons. Why should craftworld eldars trust dark eldars? Allies of convenience at beast. I agree that neither should trust non-Eldars though.

yeah, but by this logic, a mono dark eldar army should have a special rules making them work as allies of convenience since they do not trust each other. Eldar and Dark eldar should be battle brothers imo, and it's something that i really like about 40k. There's no reason for both races to hate each other, like in fantasy. Imo, you could see theyr relationship like the one the first american settlers (who went to the new world to avoid religious persecution) had with British. Sure, it was a strained, sometime violent relationship, but they sure as hell would have helped the other if some demented xeno organism tried to eat them.