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.

Disclaimer: This is NOT a YMDC thread, and I'm not here to debate the rule, otherwise I would've posted in YMDC. This is intended to be more of a discussion about how players address 'Unbound' armies. That and I'm bored and want to get my thoughts out there and see how others feel about the subject.

I've had and read several very passionate discussions on 'Unbound' Armies. Like it or hate it, it's here and the reaction has been mixed. Thanks to the marvels of the internet, the fear-mongering about what 'Unbound' could become with theoretical lists has caused the 40k Community to frown down on it, or leave 40k in general. It's borderline tragic, to an extent, at the lengths some players will go to, to prevent/stall the arrival of 'Unbound' armies. Myself Included. So I'm curious to know where other players draw the line, and/or their reactions when someone says they want to play 'Unbound'? Where do you draw the line when an 'Unbound' army goes from using the rules, to abusing the rules? Note: I'm not including those who collect models because they like to paint, they can fit in anywhere, since their motivation isn't what models are good/bad, but which models look great.

Here is a list, in varying degrees of 'severity' that I have seen discussed. It's starting with the very basic interpretation, of bring 'whatever units you want', then goes up from there. PLEASE DO NOT debate the interpretation of the rule with comments like 'Number X, because the rule doesn't allow us to do that'. It's clear that not everyone agrees on the various applications, so I'm just asking where 'You draw the line'. Whether I agree with them or not, all of these are valid interpretations/applications of 'Unbound'.

1) Take whatever you want, and figure out points for what you have even if you don't meet the units minimum sizes found in their Codex.
2) Take what units you want, having to meet the minimum sizes, but not limited to the unit maximums and an unrestricted amount of options. (ie. I want to take 6 Plasma Guns in my Tactical Squad, or choose a different Psychic table than one listed, or 15 Marines in a Tactical squad.)
3) Take what units you want, restricting yourself to the min/max available options/sizes, but not any 'parent' restrictions. (ie. I CAN take a Command Squad because it is a unit, with a points value, and I don't need the HQ to do it.)

4) Take what units you want, adhering to ALL the restrictions found in a Codex entry, including needing the 'parent' unit to even being able to field them. (ie, I CAN'T take a Command Squad because I don't have an HQ in order to field it.)

5) Take what units you want, but despite having the models to field a 'Battle-forged' list, I choose to not to use them. (Intent: I like my XX unit, but can't afford to take them if I have to take the other units)
6) Take the best of what models I own because running the other models is a waste of points, and I can't win any games if I take them. (Intent: I like XX unit, because they're OP so why should I take the other units)
7) Write a 'Battle-forged' list, then buy the units that I like first and play 'Unbound' while I save and build the rest of the army. (ie. I really like Crisis Suits, but don't want to have to buy the Fire Warriors before I can start to play)

8) Write a list with just the best units. Then just buy those models because winning at all costs is the only thing that matters.

Yes, I'm aware that any of these can be done with opponents consent, but within the confines of 'Unbound' is what I'm looking for. For me, #3 is where I draw the line. If someone were to present to me a list that was within these limits, he's well within the rules to do so, and there isn't anything game breaking about it. It's also very possible that he may not have gotten the 'parent' unit yet, and from where I stand, the rules don't prevent him from using the unit. I'm not opposed to #2, because the interpretation of what counts as a restriction, and what counts as a unit differs from mine. However, he has to own the models, and if he's taken the time to do so then whatever.

#4 is seems to be where the majority of players feel that 'Unbound' starts applying. They'll actually decline playing someone who has the models for the unit, but doesn't want to bring the 'parent' unit. Don't get me wrong, it's their right to decline playing, but the thing that I struggle with is that a simple 'No Thanks' isn't good enough. They'd rather go into how their army is illegal, and why they can't do something because their interpretation is different. (More on this in a bit)

#5 and 6 is where I start to feel that the intent of 'Unbound' rules comes in to play, but also quickly crosses into abuse. #5 is fairly straightforward, I love unit XX, and will always play with it. With the 'Unbound' rules, this is easier done and allows a player to have fun. #6 is more of the attitude than any practical purpose. "I bought XX units and I won't play them if I don't have to because I can't win, and if I can't win then I can't possibly be having fun right?"

#7 should be placed more parallel to #5 and 6 again, because of intent. The guy is working on a 'Battle-forged' list and really wants to play, he's not deliberately trying to skirt the rules to gain some unfair advantage, and it's unreasonable to prevent him from bringing what he has, regardless of requirements.

#8 is an obvious abuse of the 'Unbound' rule. I say 'abuse' because regardless, it's legal for any player to do so. I don't think many players will not see players who do this for something other than what it is. Only reason I mentioned it here, is because I think that the potential for this to happen, is enough reason for players to to shaft #4-7, or 'Unbound' altogether.

'Fuzzy' Armies.
There are armies in the game that also 'stretch' the 'Unbound' interpretation that could fit into any of the numbers above. These are armies that contain units/characters that alter existing units in the game. Typhus, is a prime example. He turns Cultists into Zombies. Some players who've taken the time to actually convert a unit of Plague Zombies for use in a Typhus list have another 'interpretation'. Are they a unit of 'Cultists'? Or are they a unit of 'Plague Zombies'? (To be clear, Im not ASKING for an interpretation here, that would put this in YMDC) It is a 'unit' and has a 'point value', and it has 'rules' for it so technically he has met all the criteria if his interpretation follows #3 above. It's an un-addressed issue of does the unit exist w/o the Character? If the character isn't required to be there, then can a Death Guard player choose to run them in an 'Unbound' army? It's my opinion that he should be allowed to, but he has to give up ObSec on his Plague Marines, which is a fair trade. What I disagree with in this debate, is one player telling another player that those models are 'Cultists' without Typhus present. Which is a fair point, if you're applying #4 above. The reasons to allow it outweigh the reasons to disallow it, especially if the player has taken the time to make them into a 'Plague Zombie' unit.

Other armies that come to mind that are 'fuzzy', are any 'Command Armies', like all Tyrant Guard/Honor Guard/Command Squad units. Or other character altering units like Necron 'Pyrrhian' Immortals. All of these should be allowed on the field (it's an opinion), as long as a player owns the models. I don't know why any Tyranid player would have any reason to own more than 2 Tyrant Guard units. Or why a Necron Player, would take the time to convert more than 1 unit of Immortals to represent the 'Pyrrhian' Immortals because in Normal games he could only ever have one unit of them. He might like the unit, and feel that they are his MVP's with their buff, dunno whatever the reason, but under the 'Unbound' rules, if he's taken the time, he should be allowed to field them.

Fabius Bile(Self promotion)
There is one unit, that a player WOULD have more than one unit of despite being able to only take one unit of them under the rules. And that is Fabius Bile. An earlier CSM Codex allowed Fabius to buff any number of Troops for X points. Not very many players every built a full army around it, because they had a tendency to kill a few of themselves off before even rolling for who got to go first. Still there were players like me, who built the list anyways. I went all out, and spent a pretty penny to make them look like they were doped up experiments that you would find in an army, that had hired Fabius to enhance. I shelled out for Skaven Globadier Backpacks, and Ork guns to give them a slightly larger presence on their bases. Had I learned about using plasticard shivs before building the army, I probably would've done that as well.

Well the codex got updated, and Fabius lost all of his flare, but because of the time and for lack of a better word 'Love' put into the army, I've never been able to part with it. I've tried running it as a normal CSM army, but it was just another MEQ foot slogging list. I did run it as Death Guard for a while, since they had the appearance, but the Death Guard didn't provide the challenge I was looking for, and it simply wasn't fun because it wasn't the army I built it for in the first place. I've waited for the codex to be updated to where I could play it as an Enhanced Army again, but that hasn't come. So imagine my excitement when the rules change and present me with the concept of 'Unbound'. I can finally play the army again with enhanced Marines!!! I'm aware that I will need my opponents permission, since I AM stretching the 'Unbound' limits to even field it. I didn't go out and build the army to deliberately take advantage of Fabius, and if I had, why would I pick Fabius to build a powerhouse list?

Back on Track
I've tried to play 3 Games with the Fabius Army. I've informed my opponent specifically what I was doing, that I was stretching the rules to their limits, and showed him the list before agreeing to play. I'm not knocking the guy, but I'm addressing the attitude. We proceeded to debate about the limitations of 'Unbound', how I had an Illegal 'Unbound' army (and the oxymoron just processing that statement brings up). It wasn't that he had valid points Needing Fabius to even have access to the unit in the first place, or that regardless he could only ever do one unit, that bothered me. It wasn't that he thought that getting +1S, and Fearless w/o paying for it was broken. (We agreed that I should pay for it like in the previous codex, but that even w/o paying for it, it wasn't OP). It was the fact that he was attempting to tell me what the units in MY collection were. It was the same argument presented by my attempts to play games 2-3. My potential opponents insisted that I did not own a unit of 'Enhanced Marines', but only normal Chaos Marines, despite having taken the time to convert them to look more than a normal CSM.

Unlike the 2nd and 3rd opponents, the first opponent actually played me since that's what he was there to do. I did win, but it had virtually nothing to do with the upgrades. After which he was able to see that playing the army was still pretty fun, and the impact of the free upgrade had virtually no impact on the outcome of the game. He did still think that the army should at least have Fabius Bile in it for future games, and I agreed because it wouldn't really be a 'Fabius Bile' army w/o it, not because I was required to. He did see my point on not requiring Typhus for Plague Zombies for a 500 pt game, so we agreed to look at it on a case by case basis. Because of the hassle of players 2-3, and having a debate instead of a 'No Thanks, I've shelved the army, at least until 'Unbound' becomes a bit more acceptable.

That said, what would you do if I were to show up to your FLGS with Fabius, or any other 'fuzzy' list? If a player shows up with an 'Unbound' list do you just say 'No Effin Way' or do you at least do him the courtesy of looking at his list first? Would you jump down his throat about how his army is illegal because that's how you would play it? Or would you take a moment to see that he has taken the time to build a list (hopefully with a theme), bought the models (for a reason other than I only like to win), and play him for the story?

I'm really curious not because that I would one day hope to be able to take the Fabius Army to an actual event, but would just like to bring it out and have my opponent say 'That looks awesome, lets go!' I'm having this experience that I want with my Ork army, because not many players get to see 18 Killa Kans, let alone play against them. I've even been distracted from painting them because of the hilarity that comes from just playing the army, we really don't know what's going to happen. Just want to get some insight as to why players accept the Ork army, just because it doesn't break their interpretation of the rules, when a far less threatening force breaks their interpretation.

-----
Yes there is a lot in here to read, and honestly, I don't expect many people to reply. I do know that there are other people who don't mind reading stuff like this, and like to have an enjoyable conversation, so if you reply, great. If not, then I appreciate you taking the time to read this.

On a scale from 1 to banana I draw the line at Within reason.

And by reason i mean follow what is written in the rules book.

take what you want within the restrictions for that unit (aka unique, Conscripts requiring a platoon command squad and infantry platoon squad n stuff) otherwise i could just bring out all my models and just make pew pew sounds till i got tired.

BUT exceptions can be made such as an awesome zombie list that actually makes sense or some crazy ad mech army that had a LOT of effort put into it. at minimum i ask that they bring all related codexes otherwise its a no go.

I will play any army that sticks with the unit guidelines of each codex. If it says 5-10 marines in a tac squad and only 2 special weapons, that's what you're restricted to. Anything else isn't playing 40k, you're just making up your own rules for the game. Unbound shouldn't really have different ways to be interpreted as it pretty clearly states it simply does away with the FOC. You still have to follow unit guidelines as outlined in the codex and your allies chart still applies. If someone wants to run 5 riptides against me, I will play them. If someone wants to run 30 marines with plasma guns and count them as 1 tac squad, I will not play them.

 Desubot wrote:
On a scale from 1 to banana I draw the line at Within reason.
... (aka unique, Conscripts requiring a platoon command squad and infantry platoon squad n stuff) ...

Thank you for replying. 'Within Reason' in an unreasonable environment is worth laughing and crying about all at the same time.

'Within Reason' to me is 'anything that could be within 2 FoC's'. So I'd find it perfectly acceptable for the above player to run 2 units of Conscripts without the Platoon, because he would probably own 2 units of conscripts for when he plays larger games where he would probably be able to meet that requirement. If he was just buying Conscripts with no intention of ever purchasing the rest of the platoon, then I would think that would be an intentional abuse of the rules, because all he's taking them for is to run the pew-pew all day, which really isn't all that great.

Toofast wrote:
I will play any army that sticks with the unit guidelines of each codex.

Is all you really needed to say.

Toofast wrote:
Unbound shouldn't really have different ways to be interpreted...

You're right it shouldn't. But it DOES.

Toofast wrote:
If someone wants to run 5 riptides against me, I will play them. If someone wants to run 30 marines with plasma guns and count them as 1 tac squad, I will not play them.

And this is where I'm having problems comprehending why you would play one and not the other (outside of one interpretation of the rules.) Neither of the games will be very fun in my mind, and both could have a great Fluff story written about them. I'd play either of these lists at least once. He'd have to own the models first of all, which is increasingly unlikely with the 2nd scenario. You'd have to be some kind of a fanatic to want to build that many Marines with Plasma guns. I don't see this as any different than buying 15 Annihilation Barges, or even 3 Wraithknights (let alone 6). In both cases, if these players refused to play anything BUT these lists, then I wouldn't play them after the first game, because they're not interested in anything but winning, irrespective of one being a less abuse of the the 'Unbound' rules than the other.

It would be unreasonable though to even see the 30 plasma Marines, since to me the only reason to even build Plasma Marines in the first place is to occupy squads in a 'Battle-forged' list anyways. Not everyone shares this point of view, and I'm okay with that. Most you'd ever need to build for an average 1500 point list would be 10-12 going off rough estimates in my head. So it would be reasonable for me to justify a unit of 10-12, to effectively representing each of the models from different squads banding together for a specific purpose. A unit of 10-12 30pt marines, is going to do what it's supposed to do, then take a TON of shooting. More Plasma Marines than that, and I'd have to questions why he built them in the first place, and he's probably crossed the line into abusing the 'Unbound' rules.

Would be worth playing 1 game just to see how many of them fry themselves in the process.

I'm not sure how you could possibly interpret unbound to mean you can ignore unit guidelines written in the codex. Whoever tries to argue that point should probably take a class in reading comprehension as I can't see any text in the 7th edition book whether RAW or RAI that says you can ignore codex entries. You can ignore FOC, that's it. Someone enlighten me please.

I'm not going to respond because what your saying isn't what this thread is about. It should be clear, that much has been established, but it's not because people are having different interpretations. I'm wanting to take the discussion further, and in order to do that, I've asked that we accept all interpretations in order to discuss people's thoughts on Unbound in normal games.

I posted this here, instead of the YMDC because I'm not here to debate the interpretation of the rule. You've already made your views clear with your first response, and then gave more than was asked for. All I've asked here is that you post about how you treat/respond when a player wants shows you an unbound list, since I'm trying to wrap my mind around why people would rather argue the rule, than actually play a game.

The impression that I'm getting is that 'Unbound' players are a disease in the 40k community and must be stamped out before their corruption spreads.

I'm currently playing an Unbound army with my Orks, and even though I am meeting all the restrictions imposed by #4, I still get nervous looks because I've said the 'U' word. I have learned to add in the statement 'because I haven't assembled Grot units 3 and 4 yet'. So even following the 'Unbound' rules that I don't agree with, but have limited myself to, the attitude toward me isn't any different.

Going back to the above discussion, I thought of something. I thought of a situation that is easier for me to compare than the Riptide/Plasmarine you mentioned.

I have 18 Killa Kans. The cost of them in my current setup comes to around 1000 pts. I don't know the cost of Wraithknights, but let's assume they're roughly 250pts, and a player takes 4 of them. Which would you rather face? Ignoring the fact that both of these armies are legal under your interpretation and the Plasmarine unit isn't. This is what I'm hoping to talk about here.

I talked with 2 people since thinking of this situation, and both of them said without hesitation, that they'd rather play the Kans and not the Wraithknights. I asked them why they thought the Kans were less of a threat. Both armies are immune to S4 weapons. The Kans shoot more, and have more HPs than the combined Wounds of the Wraithknights. One unit of Kans has roughly the same number of attacks as as 3 of the 4 Wraithknights.

Toofast wrote:
I'm not sure how you could possibly interpret unbound to mean you can ignore unit guidelines written in the codex. Whoever tries to argue that point should probably take a class in reading comprehension as I can't see any text in the 7th edition book whether RAW or RAI that says you can ignore codex entries. You can ignore FOC, that's it. Someone enlighten me please.

yeah this man has it, you CANT run 30 plasma toting marines... it just allows you to ignore FOC and Allies... thats it

I really don't understand what the point of this thread is. You seem to be asking how many rules you should be allowed to break to play the army that you want, and I don't really see anything in the giant wall of text that explains why the answer should be anything other than "none of them". Unbound is a very clear concept in the rulebook, and your bizarre ideas about army construction have nothing to do with it.

Personally I avoid unbound at all costs now. Not because it dosen't bring something to the game, but because everyone seems only interested in using it to break the game. Never for anything fluffy or interesting, its always something dumb, like 7 grey knight psyrhinos with inquisitor 3 man groups allied with demons for 30+ psychic dice, which the demons use to pump out more demons. Sure they have to be 12 inches away, but when most of your demons start in reserves, its not an issue.

Agreed with the above posters.

If someone wants to play an unbound game I expect them to play following the restrictions set in the rules with the exception of the Force Organisation chart.

Now if you want to throw out restrictions don't call it an unbound game. Call it a narrative game or whatever, since you are forging the narrative (tm).
Your example of a Fabius Bile army sounds like a fun and interesting army to play against, however if you were to come with a list based on a no longer in production codex I would also be a bit miffed when the agreement was an unbound game.

I'm happy with unbound only if it's because of one of these two reasons -
1. It's all they have to play with.
2. It's a fluffy list.

I would play 4 wraithknights or your khan army, I don't really prefer playing one over the other. Each offers a different challenge. I would have more fun against those armies than I have tabling some of the mediocre battleforged lists I go up against. I really don't have a preference and where I draw the line is following the rules. If you want to play unbound, go for it. I don't care if you run tide or knight spam, GK with daemons and a seer council, whatever. I just expect you to play by the rule book and be a good sport. If you table me, oh well, I'll learn something from it and tweak my list the next time I see an army like that. I think people who refuse to play against unbound armies are just being whiners. Refusing to play against unbound armies makes you just as big of a tool as the guy running 5 wraithknights IMO. We allowed unbound in the 8 week league I just finished and out of 20 people not one person cried about people running unbound armies. Serious tournaments aren't allowing it and last I checked you don't really have anything to lose by playing a guy that runs an unbound list in a friendly PUG. I wish more people saw it as a challenge to overcome instead of something else in the rulebook to cry about.

I am happy to play any army that comes my way. I have played an army made up solely of Chaos Lords (awesome game!), because he thought that thats how tough marines should be. I've played 2 C'tan Shards, Baneblades whatever. Everything has a weakness and some times you win some times you lose.

I personally play a battle forged army because I like the idea of a HQ, mostly Troops and then support elements. If thats not what you like then all the power to you and lets set up a game and see how you go.

Some of the best/entertaining games have come from playing lists that you would think will smash you until you see them rolling on the board. The main list I have problems is Serpent spam and its BATTLE FORGED!

Thats my 2c

 Peregrine wrote:
I really don't understand what the point of this thread is. You seem to be asking how many rules you should be allowed to break to play the army that you want, and I don't really see anything in the giant wall of text that explains why the answer should be anything other than "none of them". Unbound is a very clear concept in the rulebook, and your bizarre ideas about army construction have nothing to do with it.

This.

As was clear in the YMDC thread, the only actual rule you are allowed to break (as in you are told to ignore it) are detachment rules. You can bring whatever units you like, but nothing exempts them from following the codex rules and the restrictions / allowances within.

No 60 man tac marine squads.

Break the rules you are allowed to break, and no more, otherwise it isnt an "Unbound" list. Its a "whatever models you want" list, which is a different concept to whatever *units* you want.

Unbound, the way i read it is choosing things that fit into slots without slot limits. You still need it to obey all the upgrade rules, but you may take as many of them as possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ergo you need the prerequisites required to get the unit as it wont fill a slot without them.

No one plays unbound lists at my store. It's become the "U" word.

Personally I don't mind unbound armies as long as I feel I can play against it. I once used my Crimson Slaughter Battle-forged army against a friend's Ultramarines tank army (Land Raider, Land Speeders, Stalker, Predators) and we still managed to play even.

Playing a random game with a random person I'd prefer if he'd be using unbound as written in the codex: ie having Typhus in the army for using Plague Zombies, but I'm willing to discuss it with him and I might be open to play against.

I don't mind fluffy unbound armies, I've finally build my Prodigal Sons army consisting of Ahriman and seven other Sorcerers. I do understand if someone does not want to play against it though, and I'd ask him beforehand if he'd be okay with playing against this specific list.

I basically feel like Unbound is "sandbox mode", and the onus is on you and your opponent to come to an agreement on what sort of armies would be fun and interesting to play.

I have played only a few Unbound games. For most of them, we were using themed lists that wouldn't fit into the normal FOC - I got a kick out of those. I played one game against Riptide/Warknight spam... it was boring, but my opponent really wanted to try it, so why not. I played another game against 30 Lone Wolves with Storm Shields and Power Fists... that ended up being kind of interesting (it turned into a strange cat and mouse game, those bastards are hard to kill).

None of these were competitive games in any real sense, so the experience became something less like a "game" and more like collaborative storytelling. If you want to play narrative campaigns, or play interesting scenarios, then unbound gives you a framework you can work with. For the most part you want to stay within that framework, but sometimes you just want to see what happens when Abbadon and the Swarmlord team up to fight five Marneus Calgars. Not that you ever needed the unbound rules for that in the first place.

 Akar wrote:
1) Take whatever you want, and figure out points for what you have even if you don't meet the units minimum sizes found in their Codex.
2) Take what units you want, having to meet the minimum sizes, but not limited to the unit maximums and an unrestricted amount of options. (ie. I want to take 6 Plasma Guns in my Tactical Squad, or choose a different Psychic table than one listed, or 15 Marines in a Tactical squad.)
3) Take what units you want, restricting yourself to the min/max available options/sizes, but not any 'parent' restrictions. (ie. I CAN take a Command Squad because it is a unit, with a points value, and I don't need the HQ to do it.)
4) Take what units you want, adhering to ALL the restrictions found in a Codex entry, including needing the 'parent' unit to even being able to field them. (ie, I CAN'T take a Command Squad because I don't have an HQ in order to field it.)
5) Take what units you want, but despite having the models to field a 'Battle-forged' list, I choose to not to use them. (Intent: I like my XX unit, but can't afford to take them if I have to take the other units)
6) Take the best of what models I own because running the other models is a waste of points, and I can't win any games if I take them. (Intent: I like XX unit, because they're OP so why should I take the other units)
7) Write a 'Battle-forged' list, then buy the units that I like first and play 'Unbound' while I save and build the rest of the army. (ie. I really like Crisis Suits, but don't want to have to buy the Fire Warriors before I can start to play)

8) Write a list with just the best units. Then just buy those models because winning at all costs is the only thing that matters.

4/5/7 are definitely ok in my book.
2/6/8 are definitely not ok.

1 and 3 are definitely ok in small games, but may be problematic in larger games.

I'd add one to your list.
9) Write an hilariously stupid army list. Like an army only made of Gaunts. Or Shokk Attack Guns.

For me, it's a kind of case-by-case basis. I mean, any Unbound army still has to follow the rules in the unit's entry and all, that's obvious enough (at least to me). But with that understood, it becomes, "What kind of army do they want to play?" Folks will usually say, "Hey, I want to try an all-Terminator army" or something like that. Give a reason for it. I'm game for trying those out. Heck, they're pushing Unbound as the way to play the old legal Ork armies with Nobs, Bikers, or Deff Dreads as Troops. But if someone shows up with a bunch of Riptides or something just designed to beat face, I'm going to tell them not to bother rolling any dice, because I won't play that. That's not fluff, that's just wanting to win no matter what. Sure, you should always try to win, but not by being a jerk about it.

I honestly think this thread is highly pointless. You don't want to make it a YMDC, but thats what this really IS. You're telling us to make a call on what we think Unbound is, to us. What's acceptable and what isn't. And a vast majority of those 'options' for us to choose from, aren't even legal in the book. The Unbound rules are clear, and anyone who tries to twist them to make a WAAC list needs a slap in the balls.

Being said, Unbound is a thing I both find slightly annoying, and interesting at the same time. As an Ork player, there gives me a lot of temptation to make a fun, fluffy Walker list to befit my Big Mek, and the fluff I've been trying to gradually make for him. Me being me, I'd be reasonable with what I brought to the table. I wouldn't be bringing 3 Stompas with 3 KFF Morkanaughts, along with 5 Dreads and 20 Kanz. Why? Because I'm not a God damned donkey-cave. That wouldn't be FUN for me OR my opponent, and I KNOW it. That is going to be the problem with Unbound. A majority of the time...it won't be FUN for both parties. And thats what a game is supposed to be. FUN.

A lot of players don't understand moderation. You can do a lot of cool and interesting things with Unbound. It gives you the tools to do so. But no one wants to DEAL with it, because it's feared (And rightly so) that the people who bring Unbound, are going to be total asshats in the process. We all get the urge to have a reason to field ALL our coolest, most expensive models. But doing so on a whim and making the other players resent you...is it WORTH it? No. No it isn't.

Unbound is great for narrative campaigns or for two players who REALLY want to toss some dice, but give zero gaks about the outcome of the game. I believe the format shouldn't be shunned, and looked into. Players just need to be reasonable. And follow the RULES it requires. Not make up their own interpretation just because they think Unbound means "lol I can do anything".

I am happy to play any army that comes my way. I have played an army made up solely of Chaos Lords (awesome game!), because he thought that thats how tough marines should be. I've played 2 C'tan Shards, Baneblades whatever. Everything has a weakness and some times you win some times you lose.

I personally play a battle forged army because I like the idea of a HQ, mostly Troops and then support elements. If thats not what you like then all the power to you and lets set up a game and see how you go.

Some of the best/entertaining games have come from playing lists that you would think will smash you until you see them rolling on the board. The main list I have problems is Serpent spam and its BATTLE FORGED!

This guy gets it. I haven't had too many games of 7th yet (still deciding if I'm "buying in" or sitting this one out), but from the few I've ahd and from what my FLGS has seen, it's been the battleforged lists that have been more problematic. On the unbound side, what we've seen is that it has actually *slightly* lowered the cost barrier for entry. People can now just buy a few items from our bitz box and start small without worrying about FOC and all that.

Those of us (like myself) who have been around long enough to have collections that could be really nasty in an unbound sense typically just announce one week that we want to try something silly or odd and is anyone interested playing against it the next week.
Even in our tournaments so far (there have been two locals since 7th dropped) unbound hasn't been much of an issue.

First, a big thank you to everyone who has taken the time to read, and give the responses I'm looking for. A bigger thank you to those who didn't stoop to using this as a sounding board to restate their interpretation of the rule as if it's a fact. Its difficult, even for me, to have this discussion without the argument about what 'Unbound' is, rather than the impact is. Quite a few people have a hard time discussing one without the other.

I posted that list because all of those are potential interpretations of the rule, even the ones you or I don't agree with. Here, I ask you to respect those different interpretations, because what really saying is that you're refusing to play is because they interpret the rule differently. It could be a poll, but then the discussion would be about what 'Unbound' is, and would belong in the YMDC. Feel free to make a thread there and poll it. I'm fairly confident without the poll, that the majority would sit on #4. There would also be a fair number of votes on #3, with the usual odd vote in some of the other categories.

For those who don't understand the point of this thread is, then I truly apologize that I can't offer a better description. I guess I'm trying to understand the psychology behind playing\denying any game. Whether it's 'Unbound', 'Battle-forged' or 'Open-Format'. Most of you here have said that you will play unbound, if they follow the rules. To you, that's only ignoring the FOC, and that's all I needed to know, and I'm not here to change that opinion.

-----
It's clear that when you cross over from the PUG play into the EVENTS side of this hobby, that 'Unbound' has an entirely different role. Which I'm fine with, since the motivation for an event shifts from having fun to being the best. This is why we rarely see 'Unbound' events. I feel at this point, that this is a key factor in not playing 'Unbound' PUG games, because winning is more important. I have been guilty of this too.

This is something that I see changing down the road. As the dust is still settling, and Codex books are coming out faster, we're only now just starting to see certain repeats of 'Battle-forged' armies at events. A few players have voiced that there are 'Battle-forged' armies that they won't play, and I think we'll see events where 1/2+ of the top 8 or 16, will be similar. Until this happens, I don't think we'll even look at using 'Unbound' in events to shake it up.

It's going to have to start with PUG games, where we start finding the strengths and flaws of 'Unbound' and start to formulate what is 'Within Reason' and where 'Abuse' of the rule begins, as there is a broad line here from player to player. That's going to require us to allow/restrict ourselves to different interpretations of the 'Unbound' rule. The harder part is going to be sorting out who is playing within the spirit of 'Unbound' and who is trying to break it.

Getting some good input here and I'm impressed by those who have let go of what 'Unbound' gives permission to do, and voice their opinions. It's ranged from 'Why Not' to 'It's a U word'. I can support both oddly enough.

Litcheur wrote:
1 and 3 are definitely ok in small games, but may be problematic in larger games.

Thank you for a breakdown of the individual interpretations, it really showed a different light.

I had NEVER thought of the points limit of a game being a factor. 1 and 3 do make a lot more sense in really small games, with the points really limiting potential abuse, and allowing armies, like Necrons or Grey Knights to take Court members or Command units without being forced to spend points on models that don't do as well.

As the points go higher, then there really is no reason to not have the requisite 'parent' unit, satisfying that interpretation anyways, and readily agree with you.

The other side of the coin that I would ask is at what point would you stop allowing 'Unbound'? At the areas in between 'Unbound' and 'Battle-forged', where would you draw the 'abuse' line?

Measuring Example: (random numbers, just trying to illustrate what I'm curious about)
<750 pts = Always allow a 'Unbound'. <500 allow for #1 and #3
750-1500 = Either method. I'd probably limit 'Unbound' lists to 3 of any non Troop choice, but this is just a random thought I had and won't fully address any abuse issues.
1500+ = 'Battle-forged' only. Since it would be difficult to justify (not impossible), not owning models models to play within the Battle-forged limits.

My take on unbound is the same as battleforged. The point of playing a game is for both people to have fun. You CAN make a battleforged list that is virtually unbeatable unless someone else has the same style of play/competative edge in their list. Or you CAN make a battleforged list that will be fun to play with or against by anyone and still win. Or you can BOTH make the hardest battle forged lists you can think of and both have fun that way.

The same can be said for unbound. I really like unbound as it gives me the ability to take more than 6 troop choices as my Tyranids (I always used to run out of room in my FOC after putting in my "appropriate" level of hormagants and termaguants), and it let's me use Havok squads in place of CSM troop squads as that is how I picture my renegade marine warband. Why should anyone look at an all bike CSM army and think that it's "wrong", or an all crisis suit tau list and just say 'no', on the face of it. This comes down to what list building always comes down to. You need to decide what is the "appropriate" level of play for you and your opponant yourselves. If you show up for a random game, bring more than one list and gauge what kind of game you both want.

One last thing that unbound really let's you do is make certain factions feel appropriate, and as long as you play within the rules, not have to negotiate it all out beforehand. I full on intend to get a couple of Stormtalon Gunships for my Renegade Marines and have them painted and converted so that there's no question they're working for the ruinous powers. As long as I follow the rules for allying in those units in my unbound list as well as the rules for using them on the table top (since in spite of the paintjob, they're still listed as come the appocalypse allies), I'd expect to be able to use them. However, as much as I'd like to use a stormraven to transport in a bunch of frothing at the mouth MoK Marines, I have to wait until a valid supliments comes out to do so.

Personally, I'd much rather play against a fun, fluffy, challanging and well built unbound list than some of the battleforged internet lists I've seen.

Play the game you want to play with the people you want to play with.

If you don't like unbound, say so. If you don't like super heavies outside of an Apocalypse game, say so. It's your hobby time, so spend it wisely.

If you don't like Black Templars, go to hell!

If the units were balanced, Unbound would have had a much better reception. Many other games have the same thing, including very large units, but the players don't refuse games because everything is fairly well balanced and one unit type doesn't guarantee loss or victory.

I play bound at high point values with my mechanized tau and unbound with elite pathfinders supported by hammerheads or crisis teams at lower point values. I have yet to have problems with unbound armies. I do have a friend that runs chaos space marines who runs unbound from time to time to have a nice armored column, but my emp grenades counter that pretty hard. He's found he is actually better off running a bound list with two detachments of infantry and one or two heavy hitters. If somebody insists on running a riptide spam list I'm going to play a "count as Grav Centurion" unbound list. It seams that centurions are the anticheese of this edition, since anyone with dakka can kill them but riptide spam is going to have a lot of difficulties doing so.

 Akar wrote:
I posted that list because all of those are potential interpretations of the rule, even the ones you or I don't agree with. Here, I ask you to respect those different interpretations, because what really saying is that you're refusing to play is because they interpret the rule differently.

This is like asking to respect all of the different interpretations of what strength lasguns are. They could be STR 4, maybe STR 5, and some generous people might even allow STR 8, and of course these are all equally valid points of view. Or you could just follow the rules, accept that they're STR 3, and stop wasting time talking about bizarre "interpretations" of the rules that clearly contradict what the rulebook says.

And yes, this is a valid comparison. The rules on what is and isn't allowed in an unbound army are as clear as the rules for what stats lasguns have.

Seriously OP? THERE IS NO "INTEPRETATION" OF WHAT UNBOUND MEANS! I'm not trying to make this into a YMDC thread but you're spreading bull gak in here and I don't like it. There is a right and wrong way to interpret rules. The FACT is you can ignore FOC but must follow codex unit guidelines. I'm not sure why you think this part of the 40k rule set is so open to interpretation when it clearly isnt. That's like saying you could interpret grass to be purple. Only if you're color blind. From 7th page 117
Unbound Armies
"The Unbound method is the easiest way to organize an army: simply use whichever UNITS from your collection you want." UNITS

UNITS

U N I T S

Well let's see, what are units? Oh yea, those handy things called codexes define them quite well. Once I again I ask you to please show me which line of text in this permissive based ruleset allows you to ignore the unit guidelines set forth in the codex? I see why you don't want to have this conversation, because you're fully aware there's not a single line in this 208 page book to support your assertion about different interpretations of a black and white rule.

Im just going to ignore the bog fluster of feathers above in the thread and answer the OPs original question. I would draw to withon codex so of you need a mon of this then thats what it is or need this unit to unlock another need the parent. But if say they dont have the unit yet cause financial or other reasons then I could understand. Also if they are trying to do a fluffy fun list like zombie horde no typhs or something like that as long as its fluffy and they ask me about it sure. But just like a unit of tac marines all with plasma guns and its 10+ marines or trying to bend rules to run an op list then no. All situational really