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.

Can I have an unbound army of all conscripts?

Sure, why not.

No unfortunately. Still need that platoon minimum. Which is really dumb.

Just ask your friends if you can ignore it.

Yeah, allowing you to ignore the FOC doesn't mean you can ignore other requirements. You still have to have a Space Marine Captain for each Command Squad you want to take, for example. Likewise, elements of an Infantry Platoon must be purchased by the rules, so each Conscript unit requires a PCS and two infantry squads.

 Bludbaff wrote:
Yeah, allowing you to ignore the FOC doesn't mean you can ignore other requirements. You still have to have a Space Marine Captain for each Command Squad you want to take, for example. Likewise, elements of an Infantry Platoon must be purchased by the rules, so each Conscript unit requires a PCS and two infantry squads.

Did I miss an FAQ stating that you have to meet the restrictions of units? Like the Captain for each Command squad, etc.?? Still trying to wrap my head around how people are applying this.

No FAQ needed, the rules say you can use whatever "units" you want. Which means you need to follow the rules for those units.

Command squads need a captain, conscripts need a platoon.

It also means the most you can put in a squad is 50. So for each 50 conscripts, you will need 1 command squad, and 2 infantry squads.

So no, they still haven't released anything saying that you still have unit restrictions on an Unbound army.

 Akar wrote:
So no, they still haven't released anything saying that you still have unit restrictions on an Unbound army.

Yet the rules don't say you can ignore them, either

Another example: you can't make an army of nothing but units that only come as dedicated transports because you can only purchase them for other units to ride in.

My question was answered, the fact that you can ignore unit restrictions/restrictions in an Unbound army hasn't changed. I'm not here to change your guys mind, because you're probably just going to tell the guy he can't do it and not play him anyways.

Here's the breakdown. Yes, I'm aware that it's one possible interpretation, and it's in the minority, but I'm not the only one who sees it this way.

1) Players agree to play a game, and decide how they're going to select their armies and any restrictions, etc. This is where players will usually agree to play bound/unbound. This is also where any additional restrictions will usually be stated, like 'Can you not spam XXX' or 'I challenge you to not use XXX'.

2) The next step is to determine the points limits. This will usually be the same, especially for P/U games where you're not a regular. In the rules, we receive our first instruction on HOW to use those points. 'Simply add up the points values of all the units in your army, and make sure the total does not exceed the limit agreed upon for the game.' I KNOW this is a derp statement because it's obvious. I only added it in since some Trolls like to extend the argument about unit sizes and or points. I just added this to make it clear that you DO have to use the unit sizes, and the points, even in an 'Unbound' army. You're more than welcome to break this, like if you only have an Old Exarch lying around but no unit to go with it. This will have already been agreed to at step 1.

3) Now we come to the Unbound/Battle-Forged part. We already have 2 restrictions, points and sizes that apply.

A) Unbound: We use whatever units from our collection we want. This is the next restriction placed if you choose this method. It doesn't say bring whatever models. It doesn't say bring whatever FOC slot, it doesn't say bring whatever detachments. With the restrictions from Step 2, we only have 3 questions to answer in an 'Unbound' army. Do we have the models? Do we have enough to make a unit? Do we have the points for it? If you can answer yes to all of these questions, then guess what!
WE HAVE ALL THE PERMISSION WE NEED TO FIELD IT.
If you're going to tell some guy that he can't take his Warlock units, Command Squads, Dedicated Transports, etc without bringing the the appropriate 'parent' unit first, then you're breaking the Unbound rule by denying a player from bringing 'whatever units from his collection'.

B) Battle-Forged adds 2 more restrictions. The first is the Detachments part, which no one has any complaint with until we get to dual CADs from different armies. (Not starting this fight here, just saying there is a disagreement). The Second one is the source of the debate.

'Detachments are made up of units that conform to various requirements.'

This is the first time we are actually instructed, by the rules, to even look at the requirements of the unit. This doesn't happen until after you have chosen to use a Battle-forged list in the first place. The definition is plain and clear. You don't apply the restrictions listed in their codex until you decide to make a Battle-forged list. This is the first time we actually get permission to even look at or apply them. In several other threads, the old debate about 'Codex > BRB' has popped up, but that is no longer the case anymore. Not going to have that debate here, look it up and see for yourself that this mentality is in decline.

So you think that the 'Unbound' rules don't have permission to get around unit restrictions? Then there isn't any ruling that's going to change your mind, you've already set to it. You're already not going to play people who do this, and that is your prerogative as a player. The question remains,why would they need permission to avoid something that it doesn't even interact with? Every time I read these debates, people are applying the unit restrictions without citing rules. I've seen the question asked 'Well, where does it say they have permission to ignore them?'. The answer has been given.
----------

So to the OP!!! If you WANT to build a Conscript army, then you are absolutely allowed to do so. Make up your own mind about the rule, since both arguments have weight. If it's not obvious, be aware that there are people who won't play you because of this, just don't take it personally.
I don't recommend anyone 'Buy and Build' an 'Unbound' army, but it's your right to do so. I think everyone should be building a 'Battle-Forged' Army, so if you're building an AM list, and starting with Conscripts then you're fine, and you can start playing. If you find that after a few games you're not a fan of Conscripts and that has changed your mind about playing AM, and switch to another army. You STILL have permission to use those Conscripts in your next army when you play Unbound. If you're buying Conscripts without any plans of buying the rest of the Platoon for a 'Battle-forged' list, then its my opinion that you're using the intent of the 'Unbound' rules exactly how people are afraid they're going to be used and don't recommend it.

The real problem is this the Unbound/Unglued Armies sub-sub-section of Army Selection Method sub-section which states:
...simply use whichever units from your collection you want...
As this is granting us Permission to use whatever Units we want from our collection, and the conflict is caused by a Restriction preventing us from including an Unit in our army unless X occurs....
So the question is which trumps which?

JinxDragon wrote:
This grants us Permission to use whatever Units we want from our collection, while the other is a Restriction preventing us from including an Unit in our army unless X occurs....
So the question is which trumps which....

I absolutely agree with you on this Jinx. Honestly, I don't care which way GW ends up ruling it down the road. If they rule that I am wrong, then makes no difference to me. My 'Unbound' Fabius Bile army has an even deeper issue, that even if I'm right, I could still have an illegal list. That's off-topic, so not going to say anymore on it.

The impression that I am getting is not that 'Unbound' is here, it's how to deal with it at events. Which is why the 40k Community wants a solid ruling on this. Event TO's are going to tell us what restrictions will be in place, if they even allow it in the first place. And NO one wants to fight an army that is a clear abuse of the 'Unbound' rules intent, even if we all draw the line about when a player abuses the rule differently. Can't prove this on here, but with the guys I've talked to about it face-to-face, there seems to be more adamant resistance from players who have top tier 'Battle-forged' armies. True, that there will be 'Unbound' lists that even 'Battle-forged' lists won't be able to deal with, but honestly that's what the community asked for, and now they're unhappy with the result.

The sad tragedy is that players are telling other players they can't use models they want to. In the case of the OP, he wants to play AM. Not sure about your area, but we would love to see more AM players around here. We'd love to see more players. We all know it's a huge $$ investment. Sure, he wants to start with Conscripts instead of the traditional recommendation of 'Buy your 2 Troop Choices' first. Telling him his 'Unbound' list is illegal until he meets the minimum Platoon requirement? What a way to kill a new players enthusiasm.

Akar,
As we have begun to discuss personal opinion over the Rules as Written, both sides have a good Rule supported argument so that is not going to go any were, allow me to take a moment to agree with you completely.

While we do not often discuss one Rule on this board, because it is a Rule which makes every other Rule in the book meaningless. I would like to take a moment to just admire that one little Rule, because it is something very vital to deciding what sort of list you are going to be using in any Game: The ability for both Players to talk to themselves and come up with an agreement on how they will play the game. If one makes a truly broken list, most likely Unglued levels of abuse, then it is this Rule which will prevent that Player from being able to do any 'damage' with such a List. After a quick glance, most broken lists become very apparent, so most opponents will simply refuse to play and the problem will 'self-correct' as the Player is forced to make a list which an opponent will accept.

This Rule also applies to Battle-Forged Armies, as a few lists are broken even with mandatory troop choices, as all it takes is one player to decline the game if the list is clearly broken.

I still don't see why it's illegal. It isn't eligible for a Troops selection in a Battle-forged army, but in a format where slots literally don't matter I can't see that restriction continuing on to an Unbound.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
I still don't see why it's illegal. It isn't eligible for a Troops selection in a Battle-forged army, but in a format where slots literally don't matter I can't see that restriction continuing on to an Unbound.

It's illegal if you think that the Unit Entry restrictions apply to 'Unbound' armies, which is one possible interpretation. Because it's ambiguous as to which rule trumps, opinions flare. This statement shows that you feel the same way about allowing an all Conscript army as an 'Unbound' list is legal. Read the other threads on this topic, and you'll see you're in the minority. (Welcome to the Group!)

There are a good number of people here who use the YMDC as a forums to hear all sides of the debate, then make up their own mind. There are also new players that come here because they don't understand a rule, or they still haven't gotten a rulebook, and ask questions that no one debates on how it resolves. There are quite a few posters here, that feel that their opinion is fact, and post/advise as if there isn't any debate, when there are rules to support contrary. This being one of them.

JinxDragon wrote:
... as all it takes is one player to decline the game if the list is clearly broken.

Agreed. As above though, it's easier to decline a 1-off game at an FLGS, than to show up to an event and decline to play a list. I think the 'events' part is why people want a solid resolution. When events start allowing Unbound lists, I expect there to be a TON of complaints/excuses of 'Oh well the event allowed 'Unbound' and THAT is why I lost. It's never what cheese you bring, it's always your opponents cheesy list that beats you.