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.

Unbound armies require opponent consent. In fact, any method of army list building requires opponent consent.

Bolded in the rulebook, p.116

 jasper76 wrote:
Unbound armies require opponent consent. In fact, any method of army list building requires opponent consent.

Bolded in the rulebook, p.166

Good to know, but why do we need the epic idiots in GW to give us permission for normal human interaction? I so pity the nerd culture (present company included), we've gone so far towards mainstream acceptance, but clearly are severely hobbled in our ability to function as balanced social creatures.

 Lobukia wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Unbound armies require opponent consent. In fact, any method of army list building requires opponent consent.

Bolded in the rulebook, p.166

Good to know, but why do we need the epic idiots in GW to give us permission for normal human interaction? I so pity the nerd culture (present company included), we've gone so far towards mainstream acceptance, but clearly are severely hobbled in our ability to function as balanced social creatures.

I honestly think this has more to do with the players than the game. Some players feel the need for this level of common-sense specificity to be spelled out in bold text, I guess.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Unbound armies require opponent consent. In fact, any method of army list building requires opponent consent.

Bolded in the rulebook, p.166

Good to know, but why do we need the epic idiots in GW to give us permission for normal human interaction? I so pity the nerd culture (present company included), we've gone so far towards mainstream acceptance, but clearly are severely hobbled in our ability to function as balanced social creatures.

I honestly think this has more to do with the players than the game. Some players feel the need for this level of common-sense specificity to be spelled out in bold text, I guess.

*cough* FW discussion *cough*

Yeah, that's more the players. Look around at threads here, and the fighting that goes on about whether things are allowed or should require opponent consent or not. We can SAY everything requires consent, but that doesn't mean people play it that way. Reinforcing it is not a bad thing.

Keeping bashing GW though Lobukia, saying "the epic idiots at GW" makes me almost think you've got some objectivity or thought to your post.

 jasper76 wrote:
Unbound armies require opponent consent. In fact, any method of army list building requires opponent consent.

Bolded in the rulebook, p.166

So that also ends all of the arguments that your opponent can use Forgeworld models without your opponent's explicit permission as long as it has the '40K Approved' stamp.

 jasper76 wrote:
Unbound armies require opponent consent. In fact, any method of army list building requires opponent consent.

Bolded in the rulebook, p.166

Sorry, I have to nitpick here. It's page 116, not 166. 166 has the rules for Independent Characters.

Carry on.

 jasper76 wrote:
I honestly think this has more to do with the players than the game. Some players feel the need for this level of common-sense specificity to be spelled out in bold text, I guess.

Unfortunately I have to agree with this. At least GW took its costumers into consideration this time and included that text.

Sorry that was just a typo. Corrected in OP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Darkseid wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I honestly think this has more to do with the players than the game. Some players feel the need for this level of common-sense specificity to be spelled out in bold text, I guess.

Unfortunately I have to agree with this. At least GW took its costumers into consideration this time and included that text.

Yup...glad they nipped that in the bud.

 Lobukia wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Unbound armies require opponent consent. In fact, any method of army list building requires opponent consent.

Bolded in the rulebook, p.166

Good to know, but why do we need the epic idiots in GW to give us permission for normal human interaction? I so pity the nerd culture (present company included), we've gone so far towards mainstream acceptance, but clearly are severely hobbled in our ability to function as balanced social creatures.

Because, judging by the attitudes of certain people on this forum, this way there won't be people going "feth YOU! IT'S PART OF THE GAME!!!"

 Lobukia wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Unbound armies require opponent consent. In fact, any method of army list building requires opponent consent.

Bolded in the rulebook, p.166

Good to know, but why do we need the epic idiots in GW to give us permission for normal human interaction? I so pity the nerd culture (present company included), we've gone so far towards mainstream acceptance, but clearly are severely hobbled in our ability to function as balanced social creatures.

Why even bother with a rulebook, right? We're intelligent human beings, we should be able to talk it out and make up the rules as we go along. Dice are also just a crutch. I can't see why we should leave decisions that we as mature adults should be able to make to inanimate objects, little more than plastic cubes!

In fact, let's not tie ourselves to an artificial need created by Games Workshop to have a table that we move around figures on. With just a little bit of social interaction I'm sure we can just imagine it in our mind's eye, and keep it synchronised between the two of us!

 jasper76 wrote:
Unbound armies require opponent consent. In fact, any method of army list building requires opponent consent.

Bolded in the rulebook, p.116

Playing any game of 40K, using any kind of army, model, codex or rulebook, has always required the consent of the other player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Purifier wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Unbound armies require opponent consent. In fact, any method of army list building requires opponent consent.

Bolded in the rulebook, p.166

Good to know, but why do we need the epic idiots in GW to give us permission for normal human interaction? I so pity the nerd culture (present company included), we've gone so far towards mainstream acceptance, but clearly are severely hobbled in our ability to function as balanced social creatures.

Why even bother with a rulebook, right? We're intelligent human beings, we should be able to talk it out and make up the rules as we go along. Dice are also just a crutch. I can't see why we should leave decisions that we as mature adults should be able to make to inanimate objects, little more than plastic cubes!

In fact, let's not tie ourselves to an artificial need created by Games Workshop to have a table that we move around figures on. With just a little bit of social interaction I'm sure we can just imagine it in our mind's eye, and keep it synchronised between the two of us!

This is how RPGs work. It's not as far-fetched as you're imagining it.

 Purifier wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Unbound armies require opponent consent. In fact, any method of army list building requires opponent consent.

Bolded in the rulebook, p.166

Good to know, but why do we need the epic idiots in GW to give us permission for normal human interaction? I so pity the nerd culture (present company included), we've gone so far towards mainstream acceptance, but clearly are severely hobbled in our ability to function as balanced social creatures.

Why even bother with a rulebook, right? We're intelligent human beings, we should be able to talk it out and make up the rules as we go along. Dice are also just a crutch. I can't see why we should leave decisions that we as mature adults should be able to make to inanimate objects, little more than plastic cubes!

In fact, let's not tie ourselves to an artificial need created by Games Workshop to have a table that we move around figures on. With just a little bit of social interaction I'm sure we can just imagine it in our mind's eye, and keep it synchronised between the two of us!

Bang bang! I gotcha!
No ya didn'!
Ya-huh!
Nu-uh!

 Psienesis wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Unbound armies require opponent consent. In fact, any method of army list building requires opponent consent.

Bolded in the rulebook, p.116

Playing any game of 40K, using any kind of army, model, codex or rulebook, has always required the consent of the other player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Purifier wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Unbound armies require opponent consent. In fact, any method of army list building requires opponent consent.

Bolded in the rulebook, p.166

Good to know, but why do we need the epic idiots in GW to give us permission for normal human interaction? I so pity the nerd culture (present company included), we've gone so far towards mainstream acceptance, but clearly are severely hobbled in our ability to function as balanced social creatures.

Why even bother with a rulebook, right? We're intelligent human beings, we should be able to talk it out and make up the rules as we go along. Dice are also just a crutch. I can't see why we should leave decisions that we as mature adults should be able to make to inanimate objects, little more than plastic cubes!

In fact, let's not tie ourselves to an artificial need created by Games Workshop to have a table that we move around figures on. With just a little bit of social interaction I'm sure we can just imagine it in our mind's eye, and keep it synchronised between the two of us!

This is how RPGs work. It's not as far-fetched as you're imagining it.

Right, and basejumping is usually done with a parachute, but I'm not gonna jump off the cliff without one because you tell me football has no parachutes. It's completely irrelevant how an entirely different type of game is played, woukdn't you say?

Excellent. I can remove the slogan from my sig as it's no longer an issue. The wider community will ignore unbound and continue with the battleforged army.

 Ghaz wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Unbound armies require opponent consent. In fact, any method of army list building requires opponent consent.

Bolded in the rulebook, p.166

So that also ends all of the arguments that your opponent can use Forgeworld models without your opponent's explicit permission as long as it has the '40K Approved' stamp.

Of course it doesn't.

Forgeworld models are models, units, not a method of army building.

If the FW book explicitly states '40k approved' then the unit is good to be used in the appropriate army, in games of 40k. And I have that direct from the FW writers. Oh and it's clearly stated in the front of the books. 40k approved means that the unit is, effectively, an extension of and addition to the standard codex.

Well this was completely expected by me in the first place, so good to see at least.

 Lobukia wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Unbound armies require opponent consent. In fact, any method of army list building requires opponent consent.

Bolded in the rulebook, p.166

Good to know, but why do we need the epic idiots in GW to give us permission for normal human interaction? I so pity the nerd culture (present company included), we've gone so far towards mainstream acceptance, but clearly are severely hobbled in our ability to function as balanced social creatures.

It's not a bad thing, it simply means people go in to games with some level of expectation. If they make an Unbound army and show up to their FLGS, they can expect to be turned down because they are doing something out of the ordinary.

It helps gamers to draw lines in the sand without being too arbitrary and/or argumentative about it.

IMO 40k SHOULD be a tiered rule system anyway, with a simple core set of rules that they build on with optional extras rather than an "anything goes!" attitude and leave it to gamers to sort it out.

"requires opponents permission" is, to me, the start of a tiered system, so I like it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 n0t_u wrote:
Well this was completely expected by me in the first place, so good to see at least.

It's what I wanted, but given GW haven't used the "requires opponents permission" thing for a long time, I wasn't expecting it, lol.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Excellent. I can remove the slogan from my sig as it's no longer an issue. The wider community will ignore unbound and continue with the battleforged army.

 Ghaz wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Unbound armies require opponent consent. In fact, any method of army list building requires opponent consent.

Bolded in the rulebook, p.166

So that also ends all of the arguments that your opponent can use Forgeworld models without your opponent's explicit permission as long as it has the '40K Approved' stamp.

Of course it doesn't.

Forgeworld models are models, units, not a method of army building.

If the FW book explicitly states '40k approved' then the unit is good to be used in the appropriate army, in games of 40k. And I have that direct from the FW writers. Oh and it's clearly stated in the front of the books. 40k approved means that the unit is, effectively, an extension of and addition to the standard codex.

Seriously? And what is an army made up of? Units consisting of models. And if you want to use those units and models to build your army then you need to discuss it with your opponent.

Forgeworld being acceptable isn't hard to prove as intended. You have a Lords of War slot...the models acceptable to fill that slot are listed in the escalation's book....Forge world models and their rules are explicitly laid out. So...Forgeworld is in, have fun

 jasper76 wrote:
Unbound armies require opponent consent. In fact, any method of army list building requires opponent consent.

Bolded in the rulebook, p.116

Everything requieres opponent consent.

That being said, I am glad they wrote it down, to avoid silly discussions.

It has always required consent because you are not literally forced to play any game with anyone. You could refuse to consent to a game for any reason, ranging from "You play Ultramarines" to "I don't like your shirt".

It doesn't matter if it's in the rules now. In 6th you could say that you required opponent consent to run double force organisation at 2000pts+, simply because they could refuse to play you. This changes absolutely nothing because the influence of GW's rules has yet to encompass free will.

In the only setting this rule matters, it will be ignored. You can't go to a tournament and just throw down your toys and refuse to play someone but still expect to continue competing, just like you can't go complain to your TO that your next opponent has a Riptide/Heldrake/whatever in their army and that makes you really sad and you refuse to play them.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
It has always required consent because you are not literally forced to play any game with anyone. You could refuse to consent to a game for any reason, ranging from "You play Ultramarines" to "I don't like your shirt".

It doesn't matter if it's in the rules now. In 6th you could say that you required opponent consent to run double force organisation at 2000pts+, simply because they could refuse to play you. This changes absolutely nothing because the influence of GW's rules has yet to encompass free will.

In the only setting this rule matters, it will be ignored. You can't go to a tournament and just throw down your toys and refuse to play someone but still expect to continue competing, just like you can't go complain to your TO that your next opponent has a Riptide/Heldrake/whatever in their army and that makes you really sad and you refuse to play them.

I never meant that opponent consent was not required for anything to proceed. What this bolded rule buys people like me, is avoiding a silly discussion.

This should also solve the forgeworld problem.

"I'm going to bring Paskisher as my HQ"

"No."

/thread



...so thats what permission has become?

 Sir Arun wrote:
"I'm going to bring Paskisher as my HQ"

"No."

/thread



...so thats what permission has become?

I'm sure someone could feel emboldened to take it to that level. In practive, I think this will just end up being:

"I want to play with my Unbound army"

"No thanks." (or "Sure!")

"OK, I'll play with my Battleforged Army"

It still means jack all to pickup games at local FLGS.

Thats why people prefer rules that do not allow you to field certain things than allowing anything and everything on a permission basis.

Lets see what the future brings - the only way 7th can be salvaged is if Unbound and multiple FoC armies become as much of a pariah as the chance of you encountering armies with Forgeworld units in pickup games.

 Sir Arun wrote:
It still means jack all to pickup games at local FLGS.

Not sure what you mean by this. The implication for pickup games seems obvious

In any case, here is the precise wording of the rule. Hope this is OK board-rules-wise:

players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use

How that's worded you can say no to Battleforged Armies if you wanted to and even then its not as bad as you think. Watched x2 Unbound Armies lose to Battleforged ones because of the troop scoring bonus, people need to chill.

 Ghaz wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Excellent. I can remove the slogan from my sig as it's no longer an issue. The wider community will ignore unbound and continue with the battleforged army.

 Ghaz wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Unbound armies require opponent consent. In fact, any method of army list building requires opponent consent.

Bolded in the rulebook, p.166

So that also ends all of the arguments that your opponent can use Forgeworld models without your opponent's explicit permission as long as it has the '40K Approved' stamp.

Of course it doesn't.

Forgeworld models are models, units, not a method of army building.

If the FW book explicitly states '40k approved' then the unit is good to be used in the appropriate army, in games of 40k. And I have that direct from the FW writers. Oh and it's clearly stated in the front of the books. 40k approved means that the unit is, effectively, an extension of and addition to the standard codex.

Seriously? And what is an army made up of? Units consisting of models. And if you want to use those units and models to build your army then you need to discuss it with your opponent.

Me: So, FW units with the stamp '40k approved', I can just take them in the appropriate army?

Forge World writer, previously GW codex writer, previously 40k rules writer: Yep, they are additional options for the appropriate slots in the appropriate army. If we've marked them '40k approved', they are just that, they are a part of the codex not included in the codex. Obviously, if they do something 'out of the ordinary' you should talk them over with your opponent a bit rather than be a dick and surprise them, but we did put the 40k approved stamp on them for a reason...

Some guy on the internet: NOOOOO!!!!! But you need consent to use them and *insert pedantic bs here*

Me: whatever... *refers to answer provided by writer of GW/FW gaming material, codices and rules for FW units*



Once and for all. If it's stamped 40k approved, it's legit to put it in your army.

 gmaleron wrote:
How that's worded you can say no to Battleforged Armies if you wanted to and even then its not as bad as you think. Watched x2 Unbound Armies lose to Battleforged ones because of the troop scoring bonus, people need to chill.

I honestly do not know why people think a troops unit has a snowball's chance in hell to deny an elites or fast attack unit from contesting unless said troops unit is a huge blob.

Troops just suck - they arent specialists. They will get wiped.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

In the only setting this rule matters, it will be ignored. You can't go to a tournament and just throw down your toys and refuse to play someone but still expect to continue competing, just like you can't go complain to your TO that your next opponent has a Riptide/Heldrake/whatever in their army and that makes you really sad and you refuse to play them.

Entirely.

However I suspect most tournaments won't allow unbound in the first place, eliminating that situation.

I think the unbound army, in the wider community, just died before it was born.


Just like 'by consent' special characters back in the olden days, I never fought one, I never played one, we all considered them a bit daft, they had no army-changing dynamic back then, so they were never used.