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.

 MWHistorian wrote:
As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.

Honestly, the more I know of unbound the more I come to see it as a "sandbox" mode that will rarely if ever see any play outside friendly circles.

 Battlesong wrote:
And personally, I greatly appreciate your effort.

Thanks! I'm finding more people who like my articles here than in the actual comments for said articles which is kind of funny.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bubber wrote:
Also just remembered that you can't get the Apoc templates any more - I wonder if GW will re-release them or I have use the cardboard ones I made.

I got a set (along with 3 Vortex Markers) off eBay. It was still sealed and all the parts were in the original plastic!

The new shooting rules won't bother me, it's pretty much how I've always played it, rather than bothering with 'wound pools' or anything like that.

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.

Honestly, the more I know of unbound the more I come to see it as a "sandbox" mode that will rarely if ever see any play outside friendly circles.

I could see it being exactly as successful as the community wants it to be.

I'm not a competitive player by any measure, but an Unbound format where there was a good emphasis on points for painting/converting/modelling and cool fluffy/thematic lists, rather than purely on recording the most wins with the most spammy, math hammered, finely honed list sounds really appealing to me.

I acknowledge it won't be everyone's cup of tea, but I have no issues with GW giving us more choices, as long as they really are choices, and not false choices.

I have to admit, I might be falling back in love with 40K a little bit again.

 azreal13 wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.

Good thing it doesn't look like the two are supposed to be cross compatible then!

What gives you that idea.

From the screen caps of WD.

It refers to "battle forged or unbound" as one of the things you decide on with your opponent, alongside points values etc, before you begin the game.

Of course, there's nothing stopping you choosing to mix and match, but the implication certainly seems to be that it is an either/or decision, game by game.

Actually, what was quoted just above seems to say pretty much the exact opposite. Otherwise, what is the point of the "Objective Secured" bonus, if you don't ever play against Unbound armies? What was quoted above seems to indicate that you would be at a distinct advantage if you played a Battle-Forged Army against an Unbound army, because all of your Troops would score above and beyond any others, so if the Unbound army had no troops (in the example), then you would have the upper hand.

I seriously doubt there will be a "you must play Battle-Forged vs Battle-Forged or Unbound vs. Unbound", especially with the move toward less structure that they seem to be going toward.

 Perfect Organism wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.

People keep saying stuff like that, but I've yet to see much evidence that unbound armies will be much more powerful than battle forged ones. The most powerful deathstar units at the moment are ones which tank damage with re-rollable invulnerables. Being able to spam extra killing power isn't going to work, because they can shrug off the 10% more damage you manage to squeeze out by eliminating the 'filler' from your list.

You can also make an unbound army which is really difficult to kill, by having all your units only vulnerable to a narrow range of threats (or just a seerstar / screamerstar combination) but then the objective secured rule actually becomes quite good, because you are generally playing for points rather than tabling your opponent.

I'm not talking about obvious screamerstarriptidewraithknight spam cheese.
I'm talking about the guy that brings his IG armored battalion list full of Lemun Russ's.
My bound tac-list simply won't have the anti-tank to deal with all the threats.
Having scoring troops won't do anything to help me win against that.

BUT, since we're on the topic.

But now GW has endorsed the guy that brings his chaos converted riptide,anhialation barge, chaos wraithknight and chaos thunderfire cannons. That's all perfectly legit now and it's lazy, a cash grap doesn't sound fun.

The greatest creativity comes when we have to work within a limited rule set. As an artist we find that our best work comes from when we're given a framework. Our work often falls apart when we're told "Do whatever." It usually comes out crap. That's why successful artists find a style, genre and niche, because it gives them that framework to work around, through and over.

When I was doing the illustrations for Hard Magic by Larry Correia, I was told to do the work in a 1930's noir pulp style. My first few drawings he rejected because "they're too good." I had to dig down into my inner pulp artist to find the art he wanted. It was fun and pushed myself as an artist. Okay, maybe I'm meandering, but I'm trying to say that this unbound could be fun if you have the right player enviroment, but without that small group of likeminded friends that will impose limits (there's that again), it'll be a mess.

My question was pushed back pretty fast and I haven't seen any talk of this:

Ok, if I am reading this right then by saying "same faction" for your detachment and space marines are the same faction, then I can have a legal battle forged army with an iron hands chaptermaster on bike, troop assault marines, death company, sanguinary guard, marine bikes in the troop slot, grav centurions, and one of the dark angel's funky speeders? So to make a marine army with all available options you'd need all the marine codices? If this is not the case, why say "faction" instead of codex?

 azreal13 wrote:

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.

Honestly, the more I know of unbound the more I come to see it as a "sandbox" mode that will rarely if ever see any play outside friendly circles.

I could see it being exactly as successful as the community wants it to be.

I'm not a competitive player by any measure, but an Unbound format where there was a good emphasis on points for painting/converting/modelling and cool fluffy/thematic lists, rather than purely on recording the most wins with the most spammy, math hammered, finely honed list sounds really appealing to me.

I can see TO's quickly saying "Battle-Forged Only".

 bubber wrote:

Also just remembered that you can't get the Apoc templates any more - I wonder if GW will re-release them or I have use the cardboard ones I made.

They're all in stock on GWUK.com

You have to order them all separately.

They're £6 each.

But they are there.

 Brotherjanus wrote:
Ok, if I am reading this right then by saying "same faction" for your detachment and space marines are the same faction, then I can have a legal battle forged army with an iron hands chaptermaster on bike, troop assault marines, death company, sanguinary guard, marine bikes in the troop slot, grav centurions, and one of the dark angel's funky speeders? So to make a marine army with all available options you'd need all the marine codices? If this is not the case, why say "faction" instead of codex?

Look at your allies chart in the current 6th book. Each of those is a faction. The Blood Angels are a faction. The Iron Hands are a seperate faction within the Codex Space Marines.

Perhaps they are specifying further because they are making books like Codex: Space Marines where they have factions within the codex proper. An Imperial Fists and Ultramarines army are two different things with the 6th ed codex, after all.

But it specifies race. an iron hands marine is the same race as a dark angel marine. That is where I am having these thoughts. I wouldn't put it past them to do this, it would mean every marine player has to buy all the marine books.

Hmm, but then IG and Sisters would be able to mix freely as they are both human. That can't be right. Why say faction instead of codex though?

 puma713 wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.

Honestly, the more I know of unbound the more I come to see it as a "sandbox" mode that will rarely if ever see any play outside friendly circles.

I could see it being exactly as successful as the community wants it to be.

I'm not a competitive player by any measure, but an Unbound format where there was a good emphasis on points for painting/converting/modelling and cool fluffy/thematic lists, rather than purely on recording the most wins with the most spammy, math hammered, finely honed list sounds really appealing to me.

I can see TO's quickly saying "Battle-Forged Only".

Will that be enough???

One thing assured, no serious tournament will allow Unfun to be played.

 Brotherjanus wrote:
But it specifies race. an iron hands marine is the same race as a dark angel marine. That is where I am having these thoughts. I wouldn't put it past them to do this, it would mean every marine player has to buy all the marine books.

Hmm, but then IG and Sisters would be able to mix freely as they are both human. That can't be right. Why say faction instead of codex though?

They said faction, not race. This isn't Warcraft, where all Humans are in the Human/Alliance faction and all Orcs are in the Orc/Horde faction. The Ultramarines are a different faction from the Dark Angels.

You aren't going to be able to make a battleforged list using multiple codices to cherry pick your favorites from the Space Marine codices.

And they don't use 'codex' in the current rulebook, they use detachment, and specify somewhere that each detachment must be from the same codex. (this is also specified in each Codex, as well.)

 puma713 wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
As 7th ed rules get clarified, they only sound worse. The bound armies' bonus isn't nearly enough to justify them against unbound.

Good thing it doesn't look like the two are supposed to be cross compatible then!

What gives you that idea.

From the screen caps of WD.

It refers to "battle forged or unbound" as one of the things you decide on with your opponent, alongside points values etc, before you begin the game.

Of course, there's nothing stopping you choosing to mix and match, but the implication certainly seems to be that it is an either/or decision, game by game.

Actually, what was quoted just above seems to say pretty much the exact opposite. Otherwise, what is the point of the "Objective Secured" bonus, if you don't ever play against Unbound armies? What was quoted above seems to indicate that you would be at a distinct advantage if you played a Battle-Forged Army against an Unbound army, because all of your Troops would score above and beyond any others, so if the Unbound army had no troops (in the example), then you would have the upper hand.

I seriously doubt there will be a "you must play Battle-Forged vs Battle-Forged or Unbound vs. Unbound", especially with the move toward less structure that they seem to be going toward.

I draw your attention to the second paragraph, specifically "once you and your opponent have decided the points limit of your game...you need to decide whether your army is going to be Battle-forged or Unbound" Which seems to imply to me that it is part of the "start up process" of playing a game and something you discuss with your opponent, and don't simply flop your list out on the table and assume a "come at me bro" stance.

As for objective secured, that means that you cannot have an objective contested by any other unit but your opponents troops choices (assuming objective secured is exclusive to troops for the time being) which is universally useful in BF and UB lists.

I also seriously doubt that they will be as explicit as "you must not play UB vs BF" because that isn't their style, neither would it be game breaking if you didn't stick to that, but, to me, the intent seems clear.

I personally don't expect to play much UB in PUGs, but I'm not angry that it exists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
One thing assured, no serious tournament will allow Unfun to be played.

Yeah, I totes can't see any of the professional, serious tourneys adopting it, not with people's livelihoods on the line.

 Brotherjanus wrote:
Ok, if I am reading this right then by saying "same faction" for your detachment and space marines are the same faction, then I can have a legal battle forged army with an iron hands chaptermaster on bike, troop assault marines, death company, sanguinary guard, marine bikes in the troop slot, grav centurions, and one of the dark angel's funky speeders? So to make a marine army with all available options you'd need all the marine codices? If this is not the case, why say "faction" instead of codex?

I think it's because your faction can include things which aren't in your codex, like datasheets. The Baneblade isn't in the Astra Militarum codex, but it's still part of their faction. It's just clearing up the terminology so they aren't using the word 'codex' in a confusing way.

Why is everyone only mentioning unbound? It's blatantly broken of course, and I'm repeating myself in saying that anyone who doesn't see how unbound armies are stronger than battle forged armies can't be very experienced in tournament hammer, but one of the unaddressed real issues is that Reavers and Revenants are now a part of standard 40K. Everyone agreed to that they should be banned from 'standard 40K' when Escalation and the Lords of War PDF file hit, but now when they actually are are part of standard 40K, people choose to ignore the subject altogether and talk about snap fire.

Is anyone at any point going to address any of the large concerns in this game or are we just going to talk about snap fire and psychic powers?

a) Titans and other crazies in 1500 point standard games.
b) Are Forgeworld units finally legal without a tournament rules package or the opponent's permission or an endless debate on the internet about it?
c) Are data slates legal? Are data sheets legal? Are all the fortifications in Stronghold Assault legal in small points values?
d) Why is the tabletop size for the battle still the exact same size it was 15 years ago, considering now we have 5 times more models on the table?
e) Lastly the unbound vs. battle forged, which is a stupid debate altogether. Unbound means you pick and choose any models/units from any codex and match them together to make the ultimate army. If you're so new or completely unimaginative and only copy a tournament winner's list for yourself before you can assemble an army, you won't understand, but for the regulars, unbound is like 10 tiers above battle forged in overall strength. And how can you say it's not legal, if it's a part of the core rules?

Who the heck cares about snap fire when all of the above issues are going on? Can we actually talk about the game of 40K instead of one or two universal special rules? Thanks.

Quoted from wd16



You’ll need to take at least one HQ and one Troops choice, and use Detachments. There are
two types of Detachment – Combined Arms and Allied – and your Primary Detachment will
be the one with your Warlord in it. With us so far? You’ll also need to bear in mind Factions
(basically the race a particular unit belongs to – Space Marines, Necrons, Imperial Knights or
whatever) as units in a Detachment must be of the same Faction, and your Faction also
dictates your level of alliance of with other Factions. (More on this next issue!)

Here is where it gets confusing. Why are they saying faction (and then explaining it means race) instead of saying codex? It implies something like what I am concerned about but then goes on to talk about factions relating to allies. It seems like they added that new term plus explanation just to be confusing.

Perfect Organism's response makes sense, I forgot about data slates and such. All in all I do not enjoy so many things spread around outside the codex for your army that are options for your army. Makes it annoying to look at all your options imo.

 azreal13 wrote:




I draw your attention to the second paragraph, specifically "once you and your opponent have decided the points limit of your game...you need to decide whether your army is going to be Battle-forged or Unbound" Which seems to imply to me that it is part of the "start up process" of playing a game and something you discuss with your opponent, and don't simply flop your list out on the table and assume a "come at me bro" stance.

I think the words your army, says it all.

Thats a lexicographical ambiguity, could mean you the individual or you the players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Therion wrote:
Why is everyone only mentioning unbound? It's blatantly broken of course, and I'm repeating myself in saying that anyone who doesn't see how unbound armies are stronger than battle forged armies can't be very experienced in tournament hammer, but one of the unaddressed real issues is that Reavers and Revenants are now a part of standard 40K. Everyone agreed to that they should be banned from 'standard 40K' when Escalation and the Lords of War PDF file hit, but now when they actually are are part of standard 40K, people choose to ignore the subject altogether and talk about snap fire.

Is anyone at any point going to address any of the large concerns in this game or are we just going to talk about snap fire and psychic powers?

a) Titans and other crazies in 1500 point standard games.
b) Are Forgeworld units finally legal without a tournament rules package or the opponent's permission or an endless debate on the internet about it?
c) Are data slates legal? Are data sheets legal? Are all the fortifications in Stronghold Assault legal in small points values?
d) Why is the tabletop size for the battle still the exact same size it was 15 years ago, considering now we have 5 times more models on the table?
e) Lastly the unbound vs. battle forged, which is a stupid debate altogether. Unbound means you pick and choose any models/units from any codex and match them together to make the ultimate army. If you're so new or completely unimaginative and only copy a tournament winner's list for yourself before you can assemble an army, you won't understand, but for the regulars, unbound is like 10 tiers above battle forged in overall strength. And how can you say it's not legal, if it's a part of the core rules?

Who the heck cares about snap fire when all of the above issues are going on? Can we actually talk about the game of 40K instead of one or two universal special rules? Thanks.

Actually, Unbound still has to respect allies rules, and while that, in itself, seems to be slightly more relaxed, does remove the free for all element that still remains the pervue of Apoc.

There is a strong rumour that D weapons have been revised, although to what extent seems to be a little vague, so who's to say there won't be other factors to mitigate Superheavies in standard games?

Everything is legal, unless your opponent refuses to play you, at which point nothing is. Like Schrödinger's cat.

I'm not saying your concerns aren't valid, but they may, may be premature.

I remember lining up 'good' vs 'evil' massive 40k games when I was 12 years old, back in the tale end of first edition. Thousands of points a side, and just whatever we wanted plonked down on the table.



<------------------ Playing unbound/apocalypse before it was cool.

I thought unbound meant anything you want? In the example given in the White Dwarf they talk about a riptide, a tyranid exocrine, and various other things. Tyranids can't ally with anyone.

 Pacific wrote:
I remember lining up 'good' vs 'evil' massive 40k games when I was 12 years old, back in the tale end of first edition. Thousands of points a side, and just whatever we wanted plonked down on the table.



<------------------ Playing unbound/apocalypse before it was cool.

I had BA and my mate had SW we never NEVER played them against one another, if one of us wanted to play our Marines, the other would choose their alternate "evil" faction (Eldar for me, Chaos for him)

Was a bit of a jar when I came back in 5th and saw Marine on Marine action all over the place!

 loki old fart wrote:

I think the words your army, says it all.

I agree. I think when he says "your army" he means YOUR army, for the reasons I have mentioned. Otherwise, I believe the article would have said, "the armies" or the "type of armies". If it is only Battle-Forged versus Battle-Forged and Unbound versus Unbound, the "Objective Secured" bonus is nearly useless. Furthermore, why have a bonus at all if it is always one versus the other? There is no need to have a bonus if your opponent's army type will always mirror yours.

 Brotherjanus wrote:
I thought unbound meant anything you want? In the example given in the White Dwarf they talk about a riptide, a tyranid exocrine, and various other things. Tyranids can't ally with anyone.

Come The Apocalypse allies can now ally, with further restrictions over Desperate Allies (can't deploy within 12" of each other, perhaps even move within 12", not sure in that)

So, yes, technically you can put what you want on the table, but there are possible negatives to doing it, unlike with Apoc.

Could it be we are "exploring the time of ending".??

 puma713 wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

I think the words your army, says it all.

I agree. I think when he says "your army" he means YOUR army, for the reasons I have mentioned. If it is only Battle-Forged versus Battle-Forged and Unbound versus Unbound, the "Objective Secured" bonus is nearly useless. Furthermore, why have a bonus at all if it is always one versus the other? There is no need to have a bonus if your opponent's army structure will always mirror yours.

As I said, either interpretation is equally possible, so there's really no point in debating it further.

Objective Secured will mean a single Guardsman can capture and Objective from under the nose of 20 Assault Terminators and score full points, I really don't see how that's useless?

 puma713 wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

I think the words your army, says it all.

I agree. I think when he says "your army" he means YOUR army, for the reasons I have mentioned. Otherwise, I believe the article would have said, "the armies" or the "type of armies". If it is only Battle-Forged versus Battle-Forged and Unbound versus Unbound, the "Objective Secured" bonus is nearly useless. Furthermore, why have a bonus at all if it is always one versus the other? There is no need to have a bonus if your opponent's army type will always mirror yours.

Agreed

 loki old fart wrote:
Could it be we are "exploring the time of ending".??

We are exploring the time of 40k ending for alot of people I believe.

That's still the argument I don't understand for Unbound. - Sorry to tread on this again, but the BOW guys mentioned it in their Weekender today too.

"Many of us have basically been playing Unbound games for years and didn't need written rules to do it. 40k has this thing where many people think that if it's not written down, then you're Doing It Wrong. Unbound armies encourage people to bypass this and 'gives permission' for more people to play more cinematic games, working together to make a fun game."

Or the like, is generally how the argument goes.

My counter-argument would be. If someone came up to you and says, "you're doing it wrong" for playing a narrative game in 3rd to 6th edition in 40k, then they're probably a massive jerk and you wouldn't want to play with them in an Unbound Game in 7th edition anyway, even if the rules for it are printed."