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.

Well, we play 40k (and Fantasy) local tournaments on a bimonthly basis.

So far, superheavies and D-weapons were not allowed. Let's see what the 7th ed will bring.

Unbound will certainly be banned from our tourneys.

I do believe I shall be quitting this game and selling off the majority of my stuff. I haven't found this game enjoyable in years and don't see this changing.

Point of order - You technically have no right to tell an opponent to play a forged in battle list, unless unbound is listed as optional your only real recourse is refusal to play him/her. It angers me that people feel they can make demands of their opponents whom are following core rules, regardless of how. Ridiculous they may be.

Regarding house rules - The whole point of a ruleset is to provide a common framework for people to play games under. If a set of rules requires house rules or results in heavy houseruling, then the ruleset has failed,. I shouldn't have to learn a new way to play every time I want to get a game in, likewise after spending 100 USD on a new book I, nor anyone else, should have to feel like they need to implement custom house rules to make a game balanced or playable...

Warmahordes, Malifaux, Infinity, Flames of War, All Quiet on the Martian Front, Robotech, Dropzone Commander, and Arkham Miniatures here I come!

It's hard to give an answer since we don't know the rules, yet.

However, if it's as silly as it sounds from that WD article, then I'll simply stick to games that use FOC and refuse to play unbound, just like I refused to play Escalation.

I will QQ on the forums obviously, but I won't really care.

Switch to Zone Mortalis and Kill Team until the next edition maybe. Focus on my painting.

Well, if things go back to when Infantry unit types could score (Was that 4th?), an all terminator army or meganobs etc... would be nice. Yes to Rubric Terminator army!

I'm likely gonna go down the road I'm already on...when organizing games and campaigns, impose MORE restrictions than 6th edition had.

i.e. Friend: Wanna play some 40k Thursday
Me: Sure, do you wanna play a game with no named HQ? Or a game where you can only have 2 of the same units? Or a game where infantry has to be 50% of your army?

I'm finding these types of restrictions to be fun and more challenging, and make list building a problem solving exercise rather than Apoc-style, "What do I own?" (which is not to say there's anything inherently wrong with that)

Well im not gonna be too bothered by it as me and my brother generally play 3000 point games so maybe get the best of both worlds out of this with smaller games being battle forged and bigger games being unbound.

Not gonna lie its gonna suck at first but im pretty sure if we both get pissed off with it we shall do as we did at the start of 6th and go back to fantasy for a bit.

 Badablack wrote:

Forcing in a bunch of filler guys with bad guns whose only purpose is to stand on flags and try not to die is (imho) bad design. Especially when taking more filler guys with bad guns than your opponent means you win in certain random scenarios. Especially when your particular codex's troops are cheaper and more durable than your opponent's troops, or you get ranged troops and they have nothing but assault troops that have to choose between sitting on the flag or attacking.

That's actually a really good point. As an ork player I found the objectives missions which are 90% of 40k missions ultimately boring. Orks shouldnt be guarding a fort for 6 turns instead of running around trying to kill stuff. I never saw my troops as fillers other than in my skaven army, but 40k missions are all variations of sitting on a flag. I found Malifaux 1e and Hell Dorado missions to be way more engaging and allowing for more depth without being forced to take objectives scorers because its the only mission.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, regardless if unbound is true or not, more missions that are actually different will be more impactful on whether or not I keep playing. The ork codex will also play a big part.

mr_maxime wrote:

 Badablack wrote:

Forcing in a bunch of filler guys with bad guns whose only purpose is to stand on flags and try not to die is (imho) bad design. Especially when taking more filler guys with bad guns than your opponent means you win in certain random scenarios. Especially when your particular codex's troops are cheaper and more durable than your opponent's troops, or you get ranged troops and they have nothing but assault troops that have to choose between sitting on the flag or attacking.

That's actually a really good point. As an ork player I found the objectives missions which are 90% of 40k missions ultimately boring. Orks shouldnt be guarding a fort for 6 turns instead of running around trying to kill stuff. I never saw my troops as fillers other than in my skaven army, but 40k missions are all variations of sitting on a flag. I found Malifaux 1e and Hell Dorado missions to be way more engaging and allowing for more depth without being forced to take objectives scorers because its the only mission.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, regardless if unbound is true or not, more missions that are actually different will be more impactful on whether or not I keep playing. The ork codex will also play a big part.

BRB objective-based missions are boring. I tend to throw most that gak out the window and come up with my own objectives and victory conditions. This is one area that I'm pretty optimistic about the rumors for 7th edition. The current missions are stale and boring.

 jasper76 wrote:


BRB objective-based missions are boring. I tend to throw most that gak out the window and come up with my own objectives and victory conditions. This is one area that I'm pretty optimistic about the rumors for 7th edition. The current missions are stale and boring.

We've done our own, but good balanced missions require a bit more experience to create. Unbound is rather effortless and stupid addition to the game that will encourage spam lists as opposed good missions that will encourage more strategy. Necromunda missions really worked in that aspect since you were mostly "locked" in your list so that you had to adapt play style based on the mission and your list's strength. 40k's nearly identical missions encourage spamming as there is no incentive to created a strategically balanced list in case the mission requires it.

 jasper76 wrote:

mr_maxime wrote:

 Badablack wrote:

Forcing in a bunch of filler guys with bad guns whose only purpose is to stand on flags and try not to die is (imho) bad design. Especially when taking more filler guys with bad guns than your opponent means you win in certain random scenarios. Especially when your particular codex's troops are cheaper and more durable than your opponent's troops, or you get ranged troops and they have nothing but assault troops that have to choose between sitting on the flag or attacking.

That's actually a really good point. As an ork player I found the objectives missions which are 90% of 40k missions ultimately boring. Orks shouldnt be guarding a fort for 6 turns instead of running around trying to kill stuff. I never saw my troops as fillers other than in my skaven army, but 40k missions are all variations of sitting on a flag. I found Malifaux 1e and Hell Dorado missions to be way more engaging and allowing for more depth without being forced to take objectives scorers because its the only mission.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, regardless if unbound is true or not, more missions that are actually different will be more impactful on whether or not I keep playing. The ork codex will also play a big part.

BRB objective-based missions are boring. I tend to throw most that gak out the window and come up with my own objectives and victory conditions. This is one area that I'm pretty optimistic about the rumors for 7th edition. The current missions are stale and boring.

Unfortunately, there is a delicate balance between having a mission that's fair, and having a mission that's fun and interesting. Is it interesting to have a game where the entire goal is to sit on an objective? Not particularly. But it is reasonably balanced, since both players have the same amount of space to start on the board, they have the same amount of points, and they have the same objective to deal with (one in each deployment zone, or multiple objectives scattered around the board).

As I recall, GW tried at one point to make a book full of fluffy, interesting missions to get away from their usual group of missions (which, at the time, was limited to only three - 2 objectives, d3+2 objectives, or kill points). The missions were fun, but they also tended to be horribly unbalanced - one that I particularly remember is a Space Marines mission that has the opponent starting in the center of the board, and units can't be within 6" of each other. The Marines player then gets first turn and brings his forces in from every board edge.

I'm hopeful that the new mission/objective system will help in bridging the gap between the two extremes (boring but balanced vs. fluffy by one-sided), but I just want to point out that it is a challenging thing to do.

Move to Fantasy and play 6th with friends.

Buy all the SM chapter masters and have a CHAPTER MASTER PARTY OF MAYHEM!!!

Where is the "not play against unbound lists" option?

I am curious to know what "fluffy" lists people will make with unbound rules.

Zothos wrote:
Where is the "not play against unbound lists" option?

I am curious to know what "fluffy" lists people will make with unbound rules.

Same as they did before, but be harder crushed.

GW has a penchant for making fluffy lists ultra terrible.

I will acquire the rules. If they're any good I'll buy a copy.
If they are more random rubbish. I won't bother.
And if they're a mixed bag, I'll just take the rules i like, and absorb them into the pancake edition.

All tactical marines, all the time.

Nothing but Abaddons.

"May the fail be with you, armless one"

"Fail for the fail god, something for the... something-throne..."

I'll do a bit of everything. I've always wanted an all-daemon prince army.

All swooping hawks + baharroth

Could someone please tell me what unbound actually means please, im a little behind as it seems.

 tko75 wrote:
Could someone please tell me what unbound actually means please, im a little behind as it seems.

Unbound = No FoC

Battle Forged = with FoC, and gets a bonus vs an Unbound army.

 Selym wrote:

 tko75 wrote:
Could someone please tell me what unbound actually means please, im a little behind as it seems.

Unbound = No FoC

Battle Forged = with FoC, and gets a bonus vs an Unbound army.

Just want to post a source for this so people don't think that we're talking out of our posteriors: http://imgur.com/a/Kbyu1#1

Basically, the rules will allow you to run your army as "Unbound" or "Battle-Forged." If you choose to run Unbound, you don't have to follow the FOC at all; you only need to follow the usual rules of points and unit compositions as well as the new Allies Matrix. If you run Battle-Forged, you have to adhere to the FOC, which presumably will stay the same (but who knows, honestly?), but you will gain some sort of as-yet-unnamed advantage.

As you might imagine, it's a fairly bold move to make, and it can go in a lot of different ways depending on what the bonus is for being battle-forged and whether or not there's any penalty for running unbound (maybe there's still the issue of what units are allowed to score, for instance).

So if the doomsayers are all as butthurt as they appear to be on the interwebs, then ebay should be chock-full of armies going on the cheap, no? This could be a good time for me to pick up all those armies I wanted but couldn't afford!