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.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:
It's funny because taking 2HQ, 4 min sized Troops and 6 Heavy Support is now a fully legal army that nobody could refuse to play against because it isnt Unbound

Hm? You can surely refuse to play against such a list. Just because it's a Battle Forged list doesn't mean you're forced to play it. Personally, I'd limit the # of detachments to 2:

a) Go with 1 FoC.

b) Ally with yourself and thus get 2 FoC

c) Ally with another faction (bar Come the Apocalypse) and thus get 2 FoC

me and my mates have houseruled to have only 1 Detachment + either allied detachment or fortification all the way upto (and including) 2000 points. Games larger than that we allow for 1 allied detachment and 1 fortification. That way people actually tend to get limited by the FoC and fill it up rather than just fielding whatever they please with the amount of slots in a FoC not even being any real limitation.

Part of the "gray area" is that you can refuse anything, but if you refuse a legal army (Unbound or otherwise) it makes *you* the jerk/dbag/TFG for refusing to play an army that's allowed by the rules.

That's the issue here. The rules are lax enough to allow almost anything, but this enables bad behavior that is not excluded by the rules.

Battleforged multi detachment 1 HQ, 2 troops, 3 heavy is particularly brutal against necrons and in the same boat as unbound imo. 1 CCB Overlord, 2 Night Scythes, 3 Annihilation Barges. Repeated to fill your points value. Not a single wasted point, everything an efficient killer with AV13 or flyer which greatly restricts the effectiveness of your opponents list.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Part of the "gray area" is that you can refuse anything, but if you refuse a legal army (Unbound or otherwise) it makes *you* the jerk/dbag/TFG for refusing to play an army that's allowed by the rules.

Only if you're a jerk/dbag/TFG about it. There are a gazillion different ways to turn down a game politely.

 AesSedai wrote:
For you advocates of unbound lists, I'd like to know how you feel about dealing with the guy who rocks up with what he considers a "fluffy" unbound list that you consider to be a steaming pile of OP filth. Being TFG is relative.

What? People are not being TFG before Unbound happened? There is no OP Filth happening before 7th?

WayneTheGame wrote:
Part of the "gray area" is that you can refuse anything, but if you refuse a legal army (Unbound or otherwise) it makes *you* the jerk/dbag/TFG for refusing to play an army that's allowed by the rules.

That's the issue here. The rules are lax enough to allow almost anything, but this enables bad behavior that is not excluded by the rules.

"I'm sorry, I'm not playing Unbound lists because I think it's a fundamentally flawed system."

"OMG WHAT A JERK LOLOL"

 Sigvatr wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Part of the "gray area" is that you can refuse anything, but if you refuse a legal army (Unbound or otherwise) it makes *you* the jerk/dbag/TFG for refusing to play an army that's allowed by the rules.

That's the issue here. The rules are lax enough to allow almost anything, but this enables bad behavior that is not excluded by the rules.

"I'm sorry, I'm not playing Unbound lists because I think it's a fundamentally flawed system."

"OMG WHAT A JERK LOLOL"

I don't know about your meta but mine would consider someone a jerk if they refused any and all unbound forces based on the fact the rules suck. The reason you're refusing a game doesn't matter, even if polite, it's that refusing to play a legal army makes you a jerk, even if the army is "broken" - you might not be a super jerk that nobody wants to play with, but to the person you refused to play against their army that's allowed by the rules (versus trying to agree to ignore the rules for something), it makes you the bad guy.

You either paint all Unbound armies with the same brush, which for instance would screw me if I wanted to play an all-Termie army (like that new Strike Force Ultra they are coming out with...) because it has to be played Unbound, or you get extremely selective with just what crosses the threshold. All Termies = OK, but all Assault = No? How about a Biel-Tan "Swordwind" with all Aspect Warriors (pretty sure you can't do that anymore without Unbound really)? IG Armored Company (probably can do this without but still, pretend you can't)? Where do you draw the line? That's the problem. Unbound open the floodgates to where you can either say

A) No Unbound at all, no exceptions
or
B) Unbound depending on what it is

Option A can prevent fluffy, non-cheese armies from being fielded, while Option B just adds another thing you need to discuss with your opponent beforehand, and playing Unbound in general means you could subject yourself to the cheese lists since unless I'm mistaken you can't play Unbound vs. Battle-forged, it has to be one or the other. So I show up with my all Terminator Strike Force Omega army and I'm stuck playing Mr. 10 Riptides because his army is technically legal too, but way OP compared to mine, or I ask you if you're cool with me playing the all Terminator army even though its Unbound against your Battle-forged army (or, I suppose, ask you to play Unbound with your Battle-forged army? Not sure how it actually works), and hope that I don't run into someone who refuses me because it's Unbound, which means I get to spend my night watching others play 40k since I can't play my fluffy and not OP Unbound army; guilty by association.

That's a problem: It means I couldn't play my Unbound army in a tournament (not that I would, but I don't get the choice in the first place) because I'd be lumped in with the abusive cheesemongers, or else have completely subjective what is allowed and what isn't (and that alone opens up the "Why can Wayne play with an Unbound army, but I can't?" kind of responses from Mr. Colby Jack and friends), or have to as I said before beg and plead and swear on my mother's grave that an all-Termie army is fluffy and not abusive so please can I play it even though it's Unbound to every opponent that I ever meet while avoiding the people who look at Unbound and cackle insanely while they plan out some abomination to crush all before them.

 Fos Kenos wrote:
I dunno about you guys, but I have a game set for next week with a buddy who wants to play an entire army of just ogryns. So I saud, ok, how about I bring an army of just nobz and we have a clash of the titans!

There was much joy and anticipation.

Unbound is plenty fun, so long as you chase away TFG.

I don't understand why you couldn't do that anyway. You're both friends who clearly want to play that game. Balanced / fluffy rules have never been a problem for friends who are okay with negotiating something specific to their needs. However the inverse is not true - lack of balanced rules are a problem for people who don't fall into that category.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Part of the "gray area" is that you can refuse anything, but if you refuse a legal army (Unbound or otherwise) it makes *you* the jerk/dbag/TFG for refusing to play an army that's allowed by the rules.

That's the issue here. The rules are lax enough to allow almost anything, but this enables bad behavior that is not excluded by the rules.

"I'm sorry, I'm not playing Unbound lists because I think it's a fundamentally flawed system."

"OMG WHAT A JERK LOLOL"

Well, yes. Basically. Not everyone hangs out on Dakka Dakka. Many people just pick up the rule book and expect to play what's in there and if someone tells them they're not allowed to field something they like that's in the rules, they're going to react badly to that person. I don't get what is so hard to understand about the notion that published rules set expectations.

Not everyone spends a few months on Dakka Dakka first to learn that they're not supposed to treat the rulebooks as the standard, but to all define their own individual standards. (And yes, those last two words are not accidental).

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Part of the "gray area" is that you can refuse anything, but if you refuse a legal army (Unbound or otherwise) it makes *you* the jerk/dbag/TFG for refusing to play an army that's allowed by the rules.

That's the issue here. The rules are lax enough to allow almost anything, but this enables bad behavior that is not excluded by the rules.

"I'm sorry, I'm not playing Unbound lists because I think it's a fundamentally flawed system."

"OMG WHAT A JERK LOLOL"

I don't know about your meta but mine would consider someone a jerk if they refused any and all unbound forces based on the fact the rules suck. The reason you're refusing a game doesn't matter, even if polite, it's that refusing to play a legal army makes you a jerk, even if the army is "broken" - you might not be a super jerk that nobody wants to play with, but to the person you refused to play against their army that's allowed by the rules (versus trying to agree to ignore the rules for something), it makes you the bad guy.

Well if you would consider me a jerk for deciding how I want to spend my free time playing a game of toy soldiers - and I think playing unbound armies is no fun, then I don't want to play with you or your group anyway.

It's not me that is the jerk - it's you and your group. So I would jut be saving myself from wasting time with people I won't like anyway.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Part of the "gray area" is that you can refuse anything, but if you refuse a legal army (Unbound or otherwise) it makes *you* the jerk/dbag/TFG for refusing to play an army that's allowed by the rules.

That's the issue here. The rules are lax enough to allow almost anything, but this enables bad behavior that is not excluded by the rules.

"I'm sorry, I'm not playing Unbound lists because I think it's a fundamentally flawed system."

"OMG WHAT A JERK LOLOL"

I don't know about your meta but mine would consider someone a jerk if they refused any and all unbound forces based on the fact the rules suck. T

We're a meta of normal people who still think that doing anything with others is based on consent. If you boo someone for having his own standards...then you got a pretty not-so-nice group of people to play with.

This being said, we are a very competitive crowd, a lot of us often taking part in tournaments and some even in the biggest EU tournaments. Some of us are also refs on bigger tournaments or even the real big ones. We do care a ton about balance, as a consequence, and that is why we have Rule Councils every new edition or when there is a high demand for them where we have a look at the rules, check them for considerable problems, evaluate them, try to develop possible solutions, test them, re-evaluate them and then, if applicable, apply them to the game.

Tomorrow is the first meeting for 7th and so far, Unbound and Come the Apocalypse allies are, as far as I can tell, going to be voted out immediately right before we get into discussions. Other top points are Invisibility (that can and most likely will be easily fixed, though) and summoning, with the latter being a big and difficult problem. The new psychic phase as a whole is another matter, albeit not as bad as the internet might make it appear to be. The system isn't too bad, it's some powers that are way over the top.

So: in the end, you have to adapt to your meta. I come from a very competitive meta whereas you come from a very casual meta. Both are valid metas and if you feel happy with a more casual approach to the game, then good for you.

 Psienesis wrote:

Can I take my Eldar Dragon Highlander Deck and go play against a Legacy deck? Most of the rules are compatible, but should I and would it be any fun?

I don't know the specifics of how WotC determines what card from what deck belongs in what "game series" type...

... but if you're basically asking "Can I take this OP card type from another game classification and play it in Legacy, even though it's not a Legacy card" the answer is "not by the rules of the game, no."

The difference here is, while you can certainly get your fellow players' consent to bring it to a Legacy game, the rules that govern such game-types otherwise forbid it. In the case of 40K, though, that's not the situation. The rules (now) explicitly permit you to bring all kinds of crazy stuff with an Unbound list, and so the people who are pushing back against it are actually the ones being the jerk (though I would be that jerk), rather than the guy asking if he can bring 47 "Dudebros" to a game that "by the book" would permit no more than 3 "Dudebros".

Since his comparison is pretty accurate, I'll try to explain it to non-MTG.players:

Eldar Dragon Highlander (also called "Commander") is a casual format where you pick a legendary creature (think unique named character in 40k) as your commander. Your deck has to be larger than usually (making it worse) and you can only play each card once, rather than four times as usual, making your deck a lot less dependable and games a lot slower than usually. Many people just pick their favourite character from magic lore, or some card with interesting mechanics and build a deck around it. This format also has a banned list, banning some commanders and cards which turned out too powerful.

Legacy is a tournament format which allows every single card ever printed, barring some old cards with unusable rules (like having to flip the card onto the table, or permanently taking away opponents cards... permanently as in, you get to keep the card) and joke editions. Some cards deemed too powerful are restricted and can only be played once. Games in this format are usually very combo-heavy and tend to end pretty quickly by someone combo'ing out beating the other person to death with the most efficient beaters in the game.

So, unlike you guessed, the answer would be "yes, you can play an EDH deck against any legacy deck without limitiations". The commander "Griselband" is banned in Eldar Dragon Highlander for simply breaking the format in half. In legacy, people couldn't care less, because he's a very slow card and doesn't have much use outside of some weaker combos, so it would be perfectly legal to put four of him in in a legacy deck. However, an EDH deck would have no realistic chance of ever winning a game against the legacy deck, simply it gets completely murdered before playing its fourth card.

Of course, you could build a legacy deck that's on the same powerlevel as the EDH deck, after all you're allowed to play all the cards ever printed. In reality, however, you just build your own EDH deck. When you're picking up a game, it's simply a matter of format of what kind of decks you face. No one will call you a jerk or WAAC if your agreed to a legacy game and you murder them on turn four. That's what to be expected from a legacy deck.

Same goes for Warhammer 40k. if I just stick all named Chaptermasters I can find in a huge blob and try driving them into your face with a landraider, there is a good chance I'll lose to a battlebound army. If I put 15 farseers on the table and start spamming summonings, that's a whole different story.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
The more I read on through the rulebook, and the forums, and the more I keep looking into my unfinished model collection, the sound of making an Unbound force seems better and better. I can finally use those shelved raptors, those shelved bikers, and the countless shelved HQ choices I have uniquely converted, but never displayed. Without troops tax to even consider, I'm coming up with very fun and fluffy lists for small points.

As far as the Rulebook is concerned, I see no downside to an unbound army. The only mention of an Unbound force is on one page, 117.
A few people are convinced that an Battle-forged army trumps over all Unbound forces, but I do not see that listed anywhere. I understand the super scoring troops from Objective Secured. You get a plus for staying Battle Forged and still exploit the whole restrictions with multiples anyway... But with unbound there is no downside either.

Everything scoring has changed the game. And I actually like troops choices. I don't really see much differences between the two methods anymore.

Will people overcome the fear of unbound anytime soon? Can I expect to find a game with an unbound list?

Explain what you're wanting to do and you should be fine. I have some Terminator characters for Space Marines I'd converted from the new plastics for my dad's army (now mine), and with the normal HQ restrictions I can't use all three at once, so I did a 2000 point Unbound Terminator-based list, people were okay playing it. Yeah, there's people looking to make game-breaking builds, but they won't find many games.

And remember: Troops can't hold objectives if they're dead. So kill them all and that bonus evaporates.

 ErikSetzer wrote:
And remember: Troops can't hold objectives if they're dead. So kill them all and that bonus evaporates.

Suddenly, 300 boyz lead by two warbosses.

Personally I have no problem at all with Unbound. I'm going to be sticking with 6th for a while as it is. (Can't afford 7th ed rulebook right now) and my regular opponent (yes I only play against 1 person) is in the same boat. SO not a worry for me now. Unbound is useful for fluffy armies. i would never play against a 10 heldrake list. (Unless I took a dozen Flakka gun trukks). I'd be surprised at people who bought the models to make that even. I consider that rather disgusting

I intend on playing how GTs structure their events so that there's some semblance of balance in the games I play...

So far it sounds like unbound will never see tournament play outside of special events, there will be a cap on the number of force orgs, and a possible cap on warp charges.

It just seems like everyone always complains about their unit restrictions, and now there is no reason to sacrifice. Everything scores is the bigger picture here. Now I'm no tournament player, and I play Chaos Marines. The lists Ideas I've always wanted to play were All Havocs, Helbrutes, and a Forgefiend or an All Fast Unit list with Bikes, Raptors, Spawn, and Heldrakes. Hell, I've always wanted to actually field all those useless Terminator models in a Chaos-Deathwing type theme.

Now that I can legally do these things, I'm just worried no one will give it a chance.

Unbound has its place. I see it as the Go To setup if I'm forced to play a small point, or short scheduled game. Its also the best way to try out a new unit. Its a min/max wet dream. Can't we all just give it a chance?

Unbound is great for new players who just want to plop some models on the field and pewpew without worrying about much else. They can buy whatever they want without having to pay the hq+2troop tax, use any model as their hq, and don't have to worry about more confusing elements like objectives and scoring and just kill stuff.

Later when they get some experience under their belt, the rules reward them for organizing an army into a battle forged formation with a few perks, and they can delve into more strategic elements with objectives.

It's a completely open system that rewards instead of punishing. If you're going to just ban it reflexively because somebody might one day use a scary list against you (with no good examples given yet) then good luck with your insular clump of like minded gamers because this is the perfect tool to get new people into the game, and removing it just lowers the chance they'd want to join in.

The problem with ubound is that OPness is relative. For example, I'd love to put 2000 points of wraithlords on the table because they're such great looking models. But some armies would really struggle against it whilst others would whup my ass. So I'll never go out and buy all those extra wraithlords which is a shame from my point of view but entirely understandable from other people's point of view.

Sometimes GW promise so much fun with some of their ideas but wreck what they promise because they don't put enough thought into their ideas. I'll stick to the FOC stuff.

The only thought they put into unbound was how do we sell more models.

Allies in 6th took the pee but this goes way to far, I won't field an unbound force and I won't play against one.

Unbound will be the standard way to play Warhammer 40K in 7th Edition.

For the new player that has no concept of Force Organization and just wants to play with cool models to the old Neck Beard who has more GW Models then GW who wants to play an "All Grots List", it will become the default mode to play the game. The new players won't want to play with the restrictions of Battle Forged FOC, allies, detachments, etc. etc. and will instead love the idea of "Oh cool! That new IG Tank looks great! I'm going to add it to my collection and play with it". The old heads with huge collections will finally be able to realize what ever dream formation or army they wanted- "All Scouts with Shotguns! This is my Boomstick!".

Stuck somewhere in the middle will be the players that want to play some kind of competitive game, that will want to use Battle Forged and a structured environment. It's just so much of a crap shoot right now. Pick up games at the LGS or club house will be a thing of the past. People will have to negotiate with each other before they even decide to play the game. "OK, I'll only bring two Riptides and one Imperial Knight Titan if you will only bring three Psykers and don't spam Summoning..." Terrain will be another issue- "This is my dataslate for this piece of terrain. I call it "Give my Devastators 4+ Cover Save, reroll 1's in shooting, and LoS to the entire board".

This entire edition can be summed up with these four words: FORGE THE NARRATIVE HARDER.

Well, I think we, the players, have no idea how to effectively play an unbound army.

I think maybe reaching a compromise might sort out some problems.

Say, if someone wishes to keep a structure and someone wants to play unbound, finding a mix of both may allow both players to enjoy the game. If someone was using an all-Riptide list, a compromise could be made. Something like, "Okay, I'll give unbound a shot, but can you please go a little easier on the Riptides?"

Speaking as someone who rarely plays at an FLGS, I'm not sure how well this could work, but if people are going to be using Unbound more often, would at least trying to get the best of both worlds to avoid table steamrolling armies work?

I wont play unbound unless its a pre-arranged game. I only get in a game a month when I have military duty in a different city so I expect to play a normal fun game, not a broken unbound game that wastes my time. Its not usually a PUG either.

I don't like the idea of unbound armies at all. It will most likely be one sided and your better of raising a white flag or something rather than playing. Again, I doubt I will ever play unbound. EVER.

This is kind of what I was afraid of happening with Unbound; a fluffy army gets lumped into the same category as the uber, fluffbreaking WAAC army. I think Unbound has some merit but it has to be on a case by case basis.

 Jidmah wrote:

 ErikSetzer wrote:
And remember: Troops can't hold objectives if they're dead. So kill them all and that bonus evaporates.

Suddenly, 300 boyz lead by two warbosses.

That game would be so fun, regardless of which army you were playing!

I'm personally relishing the idea of my Alpha Legion rocking up with some corrupted Imperial Guard complete with Russes and big mutated Ogryns

 Jidmah wrote:

 ErikSetzer wrote:
And remember: Troops can't hold objectives if they're dead. So kill them all and that bonus evaporates.

Suddenly, 300 boyz lead by two warbosses.

As someone for whom Orks are the bestest, most favoritest army in all the games (and I put down money for the Warboss edition even, the only limited edition I'll buy), let me just say: Easy killin'. That's about 2000 points worth. I can think of a lot of builds that would blow chunks out of that. And now with the new Ork morale rules, you just have to target multiple units and do at least 25%+ to them. Some of them will run, the others will inflict additional wounds on themselves. The Ork player would just be scooping up models.

Less Boyz, toss in a Painboy or two, a Mek with a KFF, maybe a Morkanaut/Gorkanaut with KFF to add another while the HQ is filled up, and you now have resilient Boyz. The freaking morale rules will still hurt, though.

Unbound will probably be something highly conditional on what people are trying to run.

My first experience with a player running an Unbound army was someone trying to run 9 individual Canoptek Spyders (for 27 T6 3+sv wounds) in 500pts. Stuff like that is going to result in games getting turned down.

Mostly I've been Unbound lists used to do stuff like pack as many cheap-but-powerful units in as possible or run completely ridiculous things together just because they can. Neither really is conducive to a good gaming environment.

Did an unbound at the weekend 1200pts i had a lord of skulls and a grinder he had 2 hellbrute formations with cultists 2 marine melta squads and a lord plus chosen with melta, we played the cards and over 6 turns the result was a draw. I killed loads but couldnt get them all while claiming objectives. The LoS ended up on 3hp and the grinder died, it made for a really good game.