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.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 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.

To true, tired of the nit picking bull excuses people try to come up with.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 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.

Yup. When I got the book, I asked the flgs owner how he was going to handle tournaments. He said he'll have Battle-Forged torunaments like he did with 6th, then try an Unbound tournament out and see if there's any interest.

Seems like a problem that solves itself to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

To true, tired of the nit picking bull excuses people try to come up with.

I would have thought the opposite. Seems like 7th gave forgeworld-haters (I am not one of them) an explicit rule to turn down your an army with forgeworld unit (see "players must agree...if any restrictions apply to the...type of models they can use")....not that they ever needed one in the first place. It also gave TOs an explicit rule to restrict forgeworld models...again, not they ever needed one in the first place.

Unbound armies are as legal as Bound armies with 3 primary FOCs are as legal as armies with forgeworld are as legal as taking Lords of War. What you put in or take out is completely up to the players involved to decide.

How that will work in practice outside of clubs/friends, however, is another matter entirely...

The decision whether or not to bring certain units was always there, just people threw a total hissyfit if someone said they dont want to face FW units in a normal 40k game because to them "ITS LEGAL WHY YOU COMPLAIN ARE YOU NOOB AND CANT PLAY!?" - and sadly this new "rule" still wont shut people like that up lol. Actually now its going to be worse, since superheavies are clearly allowed in non-apoc games. Diabolical....just....ugh.

My thing about Unbound is it kinda feels like youre forced to table your opponent to win with them because Bound armies have the super troops rule. Some armies, like my Tau, it wont be a problem since my troops are never in your grill that far up the board but my orks are the opposite lol. Bound Ork army vs Unbound means i have all the objectives unless he manages to table me, or at least remove my troops and push my units off the objectives far enough so i cant contest with nontroops.
That and rerolling Warlord trait is stupendous lol. I read through the new BRB rules and actually started smiling while thinking of my Bikernob + Boss unit. Personal Traits 6 - Fearless and IWND....oh god YES GIVE ME THAT lol

 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.

The reason they have to leave it up to the players is due to the fact that gw (for over 25 years) has not/cannot make rules or balance a game to save their lives, or even a puppies life.

Don't fault the players for gw's massive short comings.

It has killed any sort of organized/tournament play at my lfgs in the last 12 months. It is easier to find a game of anima tactics or disk wars that it is to find a game of 40k. It's disappeared. Literally. Instead of it being mostly 40k and a mix of other games, it's literally just a mix of other games.

So, question, what is the point of Unbound anyway? it seems like you can do the same thing long as you bring enough HQs and Troops with battleforged lol.

It says you can include any number of detachments, the normal 2HQ 6Troop 3 Elite/FA/Heavy is a detachment, with only 1HQ 2Troop being required to bring it. I can effectively bring 2HQs, 4Troops, and claim the right to bring 6Elite/FA/Heavy now if im reading this right.
Kinda vague imo. But it also leaves out the double-foc rules, leaving me to believe theres no point restriction for it now.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 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*

FW discussions are dead, there was an entry in the rulebook stating that models and their rules can be taken from any GW publication , which FW books are.

and as to banning/shunning unbound... who cares. i can take 9 drakes with 3 sorecers and 6 units of cultists if the mood takes me in a legal BF list... i mean stupid as it is.... and people are going to bicker over unbound HAHAHAHAHAHAH, im thinking of running BA as allies with my CSM and mephy as the HQ there cos i can... just keep him 6" away.. and its legal as pie...

 Vineheart01 wrote:
So, question, what is the point of Unbound anyway? it seems like you can do the same thing long as you bring enough HQs and Troops with battleforged lol.

It says you can include any number of detachments, the normal 2HQ 6Troop 3 Elite/FA/Heavy is a detachment, with only 1HQ 2Troop being required to bring it. I can effectively bring 2HQs, 4Troops, and claim the right to bring 6Elite/FA/Heavy now if im reading this right.
Kinda vague imo. But it also leaves out the double-foc rules, leaving me to believe theres no point restriction for it now.

At this point, based on the need for your opponents approval for your army list/units you take, what's the point of having ANY rules regarding army composition?

discuss everything and forge a narative prior to writing lists.... discuss if you even want to use points.....

no in the end it will be, hey bro, game of 40k, sweet 2k points, and most people will just presume battleforged no further restrictions... same as it has been so far under 6th ed.. because as per my previous notional list.. the bloke that turns up with 9 drakes.... who even OWNS 9? and then youd just deny them at the table for being a gakker

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

Bolded in the rulebook, p.116

Was their any doubt? I mean did you ever try to get someone to pay dual FOC in 6th? Good luck.

The thing that folks haven't discovered to complain about is exactly what battle forged is, there is no restriction to how many detachments an army can take. So its "6th edition dual FOC" on steroids at any point level. So this becomes, the only game we can expect to see for walk on games and tournaments will be single detachment battle forged, gamers will limit the fun themselves.

Meh, this rule establishes nothing aside from a loophole for TO organizers to ban certain things and have the backing of GW to rely on for doing it.

As much as I like FW, someone outside a Tourney can say I wont play that. You dont want to play against an Unbound army then you now are officially allowed to do it. I refuse to play against Screamstars and multi-drake lists, now I have a rule that justifies this where before I simply stated I wouldnt do it. Other than that, this rule changes nothing in the world of friendly games.

 Byte 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

Was their any doubt? I mean did you ever try to get someone to pay dual FOC in 6th? Good luck.

The thing that folks haven't discovered to complain about is exactly what battle forged is, there is no restriction to how many detachments an army can take. So its "6th edition dual FOC" on steroids at any point level. So this becomes, the only game we can expect to see for walk on games and tournaments will be single detachment battle forged, gamers will limit the fun themselves.

Well said sir, exalt for you.


You hit it dead on, battle forged is incredibly stupid all on its own .

And this ties into what was happening at the end of 6th, with the bao and nova trying to grapple with "at what level does having x codex's in your army become too much" and apparently GW answered that with "just buy this gak". Knights being allowed in 40k in general is a terribly cynical occurence and I'm saying that fully in agreement that the knight is a cool model and I'm sure is fine.. in apoclypse..


I myself would have loved a return to 1 codex vs 1 codex, this whole turning 40k into apoc thing has reached a boiling point for me.

7th feels more like 6.5 with a double down on the race to the bottom. It desperately needs formatting. Jervis is just a hack.

7th edition rules are very clear that only Citadel Miniatures can be used in games for 40k. Until it is a FAQed, everything else is not legal. Anyone brings anything that does not say Citadel on the box it came in, I am walking away from the table.

There is no Forgeworld debate anymore. GW finally ended it with this new edition. Until Forgeworld starts putting Citadel logos on their packaging, they are not legal for 40k games.

For that matter, this box of Chaos Bikers I bought from GW doesn't have a Citadel logo on it. It says copyright Games Workshop, and it says Citadel, but anyone could say that to make their models legal for the game. Not legal, not using it, returning it immediately.

Seriously, this is now a YMTC thread.

 techsoldaten wrote:
7th edition rules are very clear that only Citadel Miniatures can be used in games for 40k. Until it is a FAQed, everything else is not legal. Anyone brings anything that does not say Citadel on the box it came in, I am walking away from the table.

There is no Forgeworld debate anymore. GW finally ended it with this new edition. Until Forgeworld starts putting Citadel logos on their packaging, they are not legal for 40k games.

For that matter, this box of Chaos Bikers I bought from GW doesn't have a Citadel logo on it. It says copyright Games Workshop, and it says Citadel, but anyone could say that to make their models legal for the game. Not legal, not using it, returning it immediately.

Seriously, this is now a YMTC thread.

It'll also be funny if someone brings an OOP Citadel mini, but nobody recognizes it and thinks its from another company.

Jesus I can't tell if he's joking or not

 jasper76 wrote:

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!")

And how is that different?

 jasper76 wrote:

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

Or they may say "I'll play someone else" since "agree with your opponent" does not mean "you may now veto your opponent's army choices".

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

Bolded in the rulebook, p.116

What page is that in the iPad version? Or if you can't give a page number what section or title of the section it's in called, please.

Choosing your army, second paragraph, bold.

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

Bolded in the rulebook, p.116

That is a said excuse to get you into an argument.

Sadly forgeworld is fully owned by games workshop and is therefore owned by citadel miniatures and so any arguement that they are excluded is null and void. Everything under the blanket is a citadel mini and therefore 40k legal.


Also, I still find it amusing how many people thing GW's gives a flying f*** regarding tourny play. The game isn't designed for it and isn't meant for it as they have stated many times. It's just a small slice of the customer pie that want tournaments and so they just try and accomodate them. They don't design the game around competitive play, they design it around casual play and narrative story games. If you believe otherwise your deluding yourself. Simply refer to page 6 I believe it is where they explain the rulebook is a framework and your free to houserule whatever ya damn well feel like.

Not unbound but a legit battle forged list.

It's based on some fluff I wrote on a napkin at a McDonald's one time. It's two brothers, who are also commanders, who broke away from the Tau Empire and live without Etherals and take turns leading their army of stolen Riptides piloted by their cousins. The theme of the list is brotherhood and loyalty but most of all narrative.

Riptides loosing most of their smash attacks does hamper them a bit but they are still quite hard to kill with T6 W5 2+, and possibly 3++ save. They also still have S6 AP2 on their normal attacks and big guns.
Oh yeah, and they score now.



This is not an unbound list. Anyone who thinks excluding unbound will fix things is being silly.

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

Bolded in the rulebook, p.116

Not in tournaments it wont

 LUTNIT wrote:
Not unbound but a legit battle forged list.

It's based on some fluff I wrote on a napkin at a McDonald's one time. It's two brothers, who are also commanders, who broke away from the Tau Empire and live without Etherals and take turns leading their army of stolen Riptides piloted by their cousins. The theme of the list is brotherhood and loyalty but most of all narrative.

Riptides loosing most of their smash attacks does hamper them a bit but they are still quite hard to kill with T6 W5 2+, and possibly 3++ save. They also still have S6 AP2 on their normal attacks and big guns.
Oh yeah, and they score now.

Spoiler:

--------------------------------------------------------------

Commander - 2x plasma guns (not TL'ed)
Commander - 2x plasma guns (not TL'ed)
(3) Crisis suits - bonded, TL'ed missile pods
(3) Crisis suits - bonded, TL'ed missile pods
(3) Crisis suits - bonded, TL'ed plasma guns
(3) Crisis suits - bonded, TL'ed plasma guns
Riptide - heavy burst cannon, TL'ed smart missile system
Riptide - heavy burst cannon, TL'ed smart missile system
Riptide - ion accelerator, TL'ed plasma guns
Riptide - ion accelerator, TL'ed plasma guns
Riptide - ion accelerator, TL'ed plasma guns
Riptide - ion accelerator, TL'ed plasma guns

Total: 1846pts

--------------------------------------------------------------

This is not an unbound list. Anyone who thinks excluding unbound will fix things is being silly.

I'm sure the list will do particularly well against Grav Centurion and sniper spam.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Choosing your army, second paragraph, bold.

Thank you very much.

So they put an end to the Forge World debate? Can someone quote the rule?

Orktavius wrote:
Sadly forgeworld is fully owned by games workshop and is therefore owned by citadel miniatures and so any arguement that they are excluded is null and void. Everything under the blanket is a citadel mini and therefore 40k legal.

And even if someone wanted to argue that the models aren't legal, the units are 100% included.

jasper76 wrote:

 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.

jasper76 wrote:

 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"

That's my point, though. The person in your example who said "No thanks." is as much entitled to decline as they were without the backing of this "rule", because literally nothing is forcing them to play with the other player anyway. With or without a specific ruling, you can decline anything you want. "It's in the rules" doesn't change any "silly discussion" that follows. Nothing changes if you remove this rule and replace "Unbound/Battleforged" with "Tau/Blood Angels", for example. Also, I don't think anyone who takes an army list will be so cool with you just deciding you don't want to play that list. What if they didn't bring their "Battleforged Army"? Do you wait around while you force them to come up with an army list using the models they brought with them that fits your arbitrary restrictions? You could just as easily refuse a game because someone brought Allies, a Knight, or too many transports for your liking.

Neither of these things have ever happened or will ever happen:

Players in 7th Edition wrote:
"Let's play Fortyhammers"
"Okay!"
"I'll use my Unbound Tau army!"
"No, I am allergic to Unbound Tau and you must go die in the corner."
"That's not really fair."
"It's in the rules! RAW says I have to like your army, and I don't like it because it's green and I don't like green Tau."
"Oh, that's totally fair and fine by me! Let me just teleport home and get my Tyranids!"

Players in 6th Edition wrote:
"Let's play Fortyhammers"
"Okay!"
"I'll use my Imperial Guard army!"
"No, I am allergic to Imperial Guard and you must go die in the corner."
"You're not allowed to refuse to play me. Once our eyes meet, we are contractually obliged to game together, like Pokémon Trainers."
"Oh, I completely forgot about the Wargamer's Code of Spiritual Honour. You cured me of my IG allergy, let's play!"

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 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 so as well, but it's still the only environment in which such a "rule" has any potential significance. Of course it would have to be ignored, because it breaks the whole concept of a tournament. "I'm in the tournament but I refuse to play everyone. This is fine because I'm allowed to decline by RAW without just not playing the game."

Choosing not to play 40k is now an action supported by the rules. Wow.

I was going to make a parody of the Pokémon battle screen to fit my above example, but I couldn't be bothered.

EDIT: While this isn't about Forge World, I'm disappointed that GW didn't finally put it in the BRB. Even though that wouldn't solve anything because people would still find some reason to reject FW stuff. However, if the "units are allowed, models are not" is true, then my in-progress Fire Raptor/Storm Eagle-from Storm Raven conversion is allowed, but using either of those actual models isn't. That's just silly!

^ I am exalting this. Well said, Frozen Ocean.

I never understood the Wargamer's Code of Spiritual Honour. I like background-friendly, narrative games, and if I meet someone with the last uber-list taken from the Internetes and a competitive mindset, I am sorry but I don´t see the point of wasting my time, let alone my time and money to get a 'good' list.

Now with unbound this has become a necesity. You want to play with a 2000 pts 10 Riptides unbound list? You can go play with the guy with the 2000 pts 500 Gretchin unbound list, or whatever insane monstrosity some players want to punish the world with.

Talking with the other player to see what is acceptable has become more important than ever in 7th. I think this is good.

Anyway, as silly as it sounds, I am actually glad GW has turned refusing to play 40k into an 'official' rule. It helps to avoid discussions with 'I play by the rules' players.

I'm confused. You're exalting my point (thanks!) about why this rule is completely unnecessary, but you disagree?

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
I'm confused. You're exalting my point (thanks!) about why this rule is completely unnecessary, but you disagree?

I agree about the rule being completely unnecessary, because it should be rather obvious for anyone, for the reasons you give.

At the same time, and finding it somehow embarrassing, I must admit I am sort of happy they wrote it down, because it was not obvious for some people. It may help to avoid discussions.

Something can be completely unnecessary, and still be good. Redundancy (in this case: basic common sense + written rules) has its perks.

mmmm... did I end your confussion or make it bigger?