Unbound will be fun

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.

**Njal Stormpuppy**

Of course the new rules haven't dropped yet, and nobody can say anything for sure. Its my prediction that people will inevitably enjoy unbound at some point.
You do realize that by completely taking a crap on balance, they might actually add an element of balance? I don't know for sure, but I doubt one list will ever dominate the competitive scene again. There will probably always be something to beat something else.

**Bishop F Gantry**

I dont see how Dividing up the player base is an improvment for anyone involved...

Njal Stormpuppy wrote:
Of course the new rules haven't dropped yet, and nobody can say anything for sure. Its my prediction that people will inevitably enjoy unbound at some point.
You do realize that by completely taking a crap on balance, they might actually add an element of balance? I don't know for sure, but I doubt one list will ever dominate the competitive scene again. There will probably always be something to beat something else.

By making most units utterly obsolete, somehow will create ballance...

**gardeth**

Again, I don't see unbound doing anything other than replacing Apocolypse. Some groups will experiment with it in serious settings, and after seeing the inevitable results, abandon it to niche players and narrative campaigns.

**Njal Stormpuppy**

Bishop F Gantry wrote:
I dont see how Dividing up the player base is an improvment for anyone involved...

I never said it was, I never even mentioned that it held any benefit

**Lobokai**

Njal Stormpuppy wrote:
Yes I'm ready for a storm here just hear me out

I was sitting down with a friend the other day, and we got on talking about the new rules coming out.
Specifically the unbound rules

He brought up a very good point
here it is

Unbound makes the game better for all types of players

Tournament players, rejoice! Now, you're gonna have tons more variety. Because now things are limitless! You guys are gonna come up with tons of crazy lists. Tournaments will undoubtedly be more interesting. I think people who say tournaments will ban unbound are silly, I think unbound will be in the tournament scene's benefit.

Casual players, rejoice! Now you can make all of your fluff lists and have them be legal! Now you can make crazy and fun lists, and play them against other crazy and fun lists, and have a great time.
The game will become more entertaining

I am looking forward to unbound and the new edition.

I think doom and gloom preachers about unbound, either love to hate, or don't realize what its gonna do to the game.
No I'm not saying unbound will fix all of the problems the game has, its gonna break it even further. But not maybe in such a bad way. It's gonna make the game far more, for lack of a better word, interesting, and more fun.

My opinion

What do you think?

Ready the popcorn

I'm guessing you're pretty new to 40k and its IP... otherwise I don't see how you could say this with a straight face.

**Accolade**

Njal Stormpuppy wrote:
Of course the new rules haven't dropped yet, and nobody can say anything for sure. Its my prediction that people will inevitably enjoy unbound at some point.
You do realize that by completely taking a crap on balance, they might actually add an element of balance? I don't know for sure, but I doubt one list will ever dominate the competitive scene again. There will probably always be something to beat something else.

How in the world does further imbalancing the game help solve the massive imbalance in the game? All it does it makes things worse.

I'm sorry, I know you're trying to be positive and I'm just raining crap on your parade, but there is little way to present Unbound as the panacea to what 40k needs. If deathstars and units with the best value per points were dominate before, then they will just be even more dominant with Unbound, in addition to being grouped up with other abuseable units that couldn't be combined before (i.e. no FoC restrictions).

I've seen this argument before and it seems to boil down to this idea: Unbound will "balance" the game because the combinations will be so crazy that people won't be able to adapt to all of the variations. This idea works in other games like Warmachine where synergies between units are taken into account and individual unit balance is highly considered, but in 40k point costs seem like they were obtained with a dartboard. It doesn't take that much review of the units available to come up with combinations that make a mockery of balance, and Unbound will just further reinforce that.

**Sigvatr**

Njal Stormpuppy wrote:

You do realize that by completely taking a crap on balance, they might actually add an element of balance?

*head explodes*

**Njal Stormpuppy**

Bishop F Gantry wrote:
I dont see how Dividing up the player base is an improvment for anyone involved...

By making most units utterly obsolete, somehow will create ballance...

people are gonna use several combinations of the best things,
Each of those combinations competing with each other.

Im saying that there will be more variety, im not saying everything will be good

**loki old fart**

slowthar wrote:There are two types of players:

1. Those who play regularly with a group of close friends, i.e. a "gaming group"

2. Those to look to play unknown/random people, usually in gaming stores or tournaments.

Unbound doesn't change much for #1. For #2, it makes the game even more difficult to enjoy for that player than they already were.

That's why I think Unbound will be the beginning of the end for GW: they're simply too focused on #1, and they NEED to support #2 as well to have a large enough market to stay viable.

Sigvatr wrote:3. Competitive players

4. Gaming Clubs

Clubs are different from smaller gaming groups and include both competitive and non-competitive players.

Bishop F Gantry wrote:I dont see how Dividing up the player base is an improvment for anyone involved...

Three good posts. Everything since 6th has just helped fragment the player base.

**Orkimedezz**

agreeing with lots of others. i dont like spam/i dont like apoc/i dont like super heavys
i will stick to the foc and not play other unbound players unless im willing to troll them myself.
tournaments will more than likely set a foc limit so its just dose not make the game dumb.
if anything the new edition will make top tier lists better and still keep the fluff players down at the bottom.
i don't think i will see alot of "professional" 40k players using such silly rules.

**gardeth**

If Mc Donalds adds a turd sandwich to their menu they have increased variety. A variety of crap choices is still crap, its just a different flavor of crap.

**MWHistorian**

Timmy's Blood Angels army still won't be much fun, only now he gets to face all Riptide armies!

**Orkimedezz**

gardeth wrote:
If Mc Donalds adds a turd sandwich to their menu they have increased variety. A variety of crap choices is still crap, its just a different flavor of crap.

^ made me laugh
but still makes a great point

**Davor**

Orkimedezz wrote:
gardeth wrote:
If Mc Donalds adds a turd sandwich to their menu they have increased variety. A variety of crap choices is still crap, its just a different flavor of crap.

^ made me laugh
but still makes a great point

And yet with all the complaints, people are still eating the crap. Or playing it.

40K is like the Toronto Maple Leafs. No matter how bad the Leafs do, they still sell out every game. So why change when you are still selling out every game? Same for GW. Why change when they are still happy with their profits. While a lot of players are leaving, they are still making profits and seem to be happy where they are, so why change?They are still making their millions.

**Zarynterk**

Allow me to preface this by saying he could be wrong... however the gentleman at my local game store who is usually dead on rumor wise said that tourneys will still follow the FOC type rule set. Unbound will be mainly for casual games; obviously we don't know 100% one way or the other... but I for one am excited about unbound for the casual aspect of the game.

**MWHistorian**

Davor wrote:
Orkimedezz wrote:
gardeth wrote:
If Mc Donalds adds a turd sandwich to their menu they have increased variety. A variety of crap choices is still crap, its just a different flavor of crap.

^ made me laugh
but still makes a great point

And yet with all the complaints, people are still eating the crap. Or playing it.

40K is like the Toronto Maple Leafs. No matter how bad the Leafs do, they still sell out every game. So why change when you are still selling out every game? Same for GW. Why change when they are still happy with their profits. While a lot of players are leaving, they are still making profits and seem to be happy where they are, so why change?They are still making their millions.

Except GW is stagnating and if the pattern continues they will continue to stagnate and lose players (like me recently) and soon they will have to change their practices. Might as well start now and get better before things get irreparable like TSR?

**Orkimedezz**

Zarynterk wrote:
Allow me to preface this by saying he could be wrong... however the gentleman at my local game store who is usually dead on rumor wise said that tourneys will still follow the FOC type rule set. Unbound will be mainly for casual games; obviously we don't know 100% one way or the other... but I for one am excited about unbound for the casual aspect of the game.

I have heard this a few times too. And you gotta remember a lot of tournaments are not related to gw at all other than the game they are playing. They can write there own rules and even stick with 6th edition all together if they really wanted. Having a foc keeps balance and restriction in the game.

**A GumyBear**

If everybody gets to play with queens then the game becomes more like checkers than chess.

**Zarynterk**

A GumyBear wrote:
If everybody gets to play with queens then the game becomes more like checkers than chess.

That is assuming everyone will use queens. Not everyone cheeses their list just because they can. I actually think the unbound change brings a fresh, fun, new perspective to the game. I also like the deck of cards, the table will no longer be static; with changing objectives each round potentially the game could turn at any moment.

**ashcroft**

Unbound makes me more concerned for the future of 40K than anything else GW have done.

Q: if only 1 in 10 of our customers play Tau how do we get the other 9 to buy Riptides?
A: Unbound.

(As for Daemonology just replace Tau with Daemons of Chaos and Riptides with Greater Daemons in the above sentence.)

It's the utter disregard for the fluff that concerns me. Sure it's been stretched in the past (why hello, Allies Matrix) but Daemonology and Unbound don't stretch the fluff - they break it outright,

If GW are so fixated on the idea of selling Everything to Everyone I dread to think what else they'll dream up, and how much more damage they'll do to the crumbling integrity of the 40K setting in the process.

**Blacksails**

Never thought I'd see the day a company is congratulated for the laziest possible rule I've ever seen implemented.

Its not game design, its the opposite.

Unbound is broken, only as fluffy as players make it (which was already the case prior to unbound), creates further compartmentalization in the player base, creates a larger balance gulf between players/armies, and is just an awful example of game design.

So no, Unbound will not be fun. We already had it, it was called Apoc. You could also just do the same thing with your friends; it didn't need a formal rule.

**Zarynterk**

Both of the prior posts seem to assume that unbound means "any army, everything goes" rule set. We've seen nothing that documents this 100% at all.

Allow me to say this, if they take the allies matrix and throw it out the window to say "hey you wanna run Riptides with carnifexes?" sure why the hell not... I wont play a single casual game because I agree, its GW taking a crap all over the fluff we have come to love playing the game. However, if unbound means I can run an IG armored column and just armor; then hell yes I'm all for it.

**Blacksails**

Zarynterk wrote:
Both of the prior posts seem to assume that unbound means "any army, everything goes" rule set. We've seen nothing that documents this 100% at all.

Allow me to say this, if they take the allies matrix and throw it out the window to say "hey you wanna run Riptides with carnifexes?" sure why the hell not... I wont play a single casual game. However, if unbound means I can run an IG armored column and just armor; then hell yes I'm all for it.

Not a great example to illustrate the benefits of unbound; you already can do an all Leman Russ army, legally, via FW. You can have up to 25 Russ chassis through that list, which will bring you to 3000pts+ using the new prices and only Eradicators.

The WD article hints that allies aren't a restriction (regardless, you can ally with CTA now), so that's where the assumption comes from. It could be wrong, I admit, but its still an awful aspect of the game now.

**MWHistorian**

Zarynterk wrote:
Both of the prior posts seem to assume that unbound means "any army, everything goes" rule set. We've seen nothing that documents this 100% at all.

Allow me to say this, if they take the allies matrix and throw it out the window to say "hey you wanna run Riptides with carnifexes?" sure why the hell not... I wont play a single casual game because I agree, its GW taking a crap all over the fluff we have come to love playing the game. However, if unbound means I can run an IG armored column and just armor; then hell yes I'm all for it.

That still doesn't sound fun because either you run into my list that's simply not prepared for so much armor and you steamroll me, or I tailor my list for you and steamroll you. Neither is fun.

**Blacksails**

MWHistorian wrote:

That still doesn't sound fun because either you run into my list that's simply not prepared for so much armor and you steamroll me, or I tailor my list for you and steamroll you. Neither is fun.

All Leman Russ lists are already in the game! They're in FW's Armoured Battlegroup list.

**MWHistorian**

Blacksails wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:

That still doesn't sound fun because either you run into my list that's simply not prepared for so much armor and you steamroll me, or I tailor my list for you and steamroll you. Neither is fun.

All Leman Russ lists are already in the game! They're in FW's Armoured Battlegroup list.

That's probably why most places don't allow FW either. And either way, it's still not fun unless you're with a close player group.

**Blacksails**

MWHistorian wrote:

That's probably why most places don't allow FW either. And either way, it's still not fun unless you're with a close player group.

Are you actually implying an all Leman Russ is terrifying? Or even on par with what's already in standard codices?

**Kain**

MWHistorian wrote:
Blacksails wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:

That still doesn't sound fun because either you run into my list that's simply not prepared for so much armor and you steamroll me, or I tailor my list for you and steamroll you. Neither is fun.

All Leman Russ lists are already in the game! They're in FW's Armoured Battlegroup list.

That's probably why most places don't allow FW either. And either way, it's still not fun unless you're with a close player group.

The ABG and Ork Dread mob are very non-competetive as primary detachments. Lists with such heavy mech emphasis don't score very well.

**Makumba**

ashcroft wrote:
Unbound makes me more concerned for the future of 40K than anything else GW have done.

Q: if only 1 in 10 of our customers play Tau how do we get the other 9 to buy Riptides?
A: Unbound.

(As for Daemonology just replace Tau with Daemons of Chaos and Riptides with Greater Daemons in the above sentence.)

It's the utter disregard for the fluff that concerns me. Sure it's been stretched in the past (why hello, Allies Matrix) but Daemonology and Unbound don't stretch the fluff - they break it outright,

If GW are so fixated on the idea of selling Everything to Everyone I dread to think what else they'll dream up, and how much more damage they'll do to the crumbling integrity of the 40K setting in the process.

I think they fixed the riptides and broadsides for all by adding that OP formation , that was also a huge money saver.

**Xerics**

I think Daemonology should be restricted to a few races. Eldar/Dark Eldar, CSM, Daemons and maybe even orks (which is stretching it) I put eldar and DE in there cause we did manage to create a daemon god...