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.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It's a poorly implemented system with poorly implemented rules. It may work in friendly games between close-knit friends, but if you're bros4lyfe with the guy you're playing with, why did you need Unbound in the first place? A real friend would probably have always let you ignore the FoC if it was for the sake of you having fun with your minis. That's what friends do.

Yeah, I never understood this either. For people supposedly heavily into the fluff and the narrative they must have exceptionally poor creativity.

I'm a competitive tournament player, and I played against "unbound" lists in 5th edition in friendly games. My opponent had a CSM army with an IG platoon, some Plague Bearers and a Great Unclean One. I even managed to break out a fluffy list too.

For two people who know each other, and know what the other person is looking for in a game of 40k, army composition is not, has never been, and never will be, an issue. For pick-up games, tournaments and games between people who approach the game differently, unbound is a farce.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
That's a player issue though, not a rules issue. The rules say Unbound is perfectly acceptable and legal. Players outlaw it. It's like in Pokémon games, some are banned because they are too powerful (usually some sort of Legendary or super-powerful rare one), but that's a metagame ruling, not a Nintendo official ruling. As far as GW is concerned, Unbound is a perfectly legitimate solution.

Also note, however, that the issue BA are having is not the same as the one Orks, Space Wolves, DE, Purifierwing or Draigowing had with their Codexes. The others had elites moving to troops via a character to make a themed army (a la Deathwing, Loganwing, Draigowing, Crowewing, Nipplewing, etc), with the option to not include that character and usae them as Elites as normal. BA have a troop unit moving permanently to Fast Attack. A better analogy would be Guardian Jetbikes (I think they are troops too?) becoming Fast Attack which makes Eldar Biker players have to buy footslogging troops to now play a CAD.

It's a rules issue because the reason behind Unbound being banned by many players is due to it being broken and dysfunctional. There is nothing sane about a situation like:

"o hi, can I run an unbound list so that I can use all these assault marines I now can't use in a standard game?"

"Sure. I'll use my Unbound Inquisitor list then. =-)

"Well... fair is fair I guess. =)"

*Unbound Inquisitor list" has 30 one-man psyker units in it for 300 points. 1200 points of daemons get summoned over the next three turns*

It's a poorly implemented system with poorly implemented rules. It may work in friendly games between close-knit friends, but if you're bros4lyfe with the guy you're playing with, why did you need Unbound in the first place? A real friend would probably have always let you ignore the FoC if it was for the sake of you having fun with your minis. That's what friends do.

Again, that is not a rules issue, that's a player issue with people choosing to play the game in the beardiest, cheesiest list against someone's fluffy 8th Company force. It is a system designed for friendly Forging of Narratives that GW wants, except that the players insist on doing the min-max Riptide/Sternguard Drop Pod lists or whatever is the FotM right now.
On the opposite side of that coin, if I brought a fluffy Scout company army to a tournament that allowed unbound and expected to win, that's my failing, no one else. If someone were to go to a pro-Unbound tournament, they should be likewise bringing the beardiest list possible if they want to play competitively. That could make for even better games, such as a Wave Serpent brigade vs a Daemon Factory and see what happens.

So what everyone is saying that if the list I play tonight is perfectly Legal, because "The Codex Has Officially Not Come Out Yet" and no one will have an issue with it.
Yet, tomorrow when the "New Codex Comes Out" The same exact List is Illegal because it is now Unbound.

Then Yes you have an issue with the other Players if you can't go "But you know this List and you know it is not over-Powered at all."
This is the part I find silly.

I guess everyone running an assault squad focused army better pray that the dataslate coming out tomorrow somehow aids them in running their lists. Not counting on it, but nevertheless, one can hope.

Nevermind, it is just the data cards from Deathstorm. Lame. Lame. Lame.

 Deadshot wrote:

That's a player issue though, not a rules issue. The rules say Unbound is perfectly acceptable and legal. Players outlaw it. It's like in Pokémon games, some are banned because they are too powerful (usually some sort of Legendary or super-powerful rare one), but that's a metagame ruling, not a Nintendo official ruling. As far as GW is concerned, Unbound is a perfectly legitimate solution.

I'll put this in larger letters as you missed it a few posts up.

GW THEMSELVES DOESN'T ALLOW UNBOUND IN THE FEW EVENTS THAT THEY STILL RUN.

http://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/2014/05/24/new-warhammer-40000-rules-and-our-events-in-2014/

It is not a "player" issue. The company itself doesn't want to deal with the ramifications of the blatant cash grab unbound rule in the events that they run. Saying "just play unbound" is the army building answer equivalent of posting "just d6 it" in every YMDC rules question thread. It is pointless and not helpful in any degree. Unbound isn't a solution to anything nor is it a yardstick to measure legality or anthing by other than the level of GW's greed and ignorance.

master of asgard wrote:

Cool thanks! So it's like all the units in Deathstorm are special characters (or a squad with a fixed load-out), which can be used all together to make a formation with certain benefits, or separately as you would any other special character? I'm a bit inexperienced with 7th ed and all this formation malarkey as you can see.

Exactly.

 warboss wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

That's a player issue though, not a rules issue. The rules say Unbound is perfectly acceptable and legal. Players outlaw it. It's like in Pokémon games, some are banned because they are too powerful (usually some sort of Legendary or super-powerful rare one), but that's a metagame ruling, not a Nintendo official ruling. As far as GW is concerned, Unbound is a perfectly legitimate solution.

I'll put this in larger letters as you missed it a few posts up.

GW THEMSELVES DOESN'T ALLOW UNBOUND IN THE FEW EVENTS THAT THEY STILL RUN.

http://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/2014/05/24/new-warhammer-40000-rules-and-our-events-in-2014/

It is not a "player" issue. The company itself doesn't want to deal with the ramifications of the blatant cash grab unbound rule in the events that they run. Saying "just play unbound" is the army building answer equivalent of posting "just d6 it" in every YMDC rules question thread. It is pointless and not helpful in any degree. Unbound isn't a solution to anything nor is it a yardstick to measure legality or anthing by other than the level of GW's greed and ignorance.

No, GW want business. IF they allowed Unbounded, no one would turn up, because of the perception of Unbound as cheesy. So they make an appeasement that gets people through the doors, take some deposits for events, pushes them towards the shops and keeps pockets full (not ours). Its the ramification of the playerbase denouncing it that they don't use it, because
a) Better success for events
b) No drama as people ragequit over having to face Daemon Factory or whatever.
c) allows they to control the Spirit of the Game by saying "This is how it should be played here."

Kinda makes one wonder why the hell they even made Unbound in the first place then, if they know people hate it and they themselves don't even think it fits their definition of "the Spirit of the Game"...

Well I guess they probably didn't know we were going to hate it beforehand, though there isn't really any excuse for that. A cursory glance at Dakka or any random forum would probably tell them that throwing the rules out the window would probably piss people off.

Serious question for everyone who is upset about how their 100% assault marine army is no longer 'viable.'

I'm sitting here like, shoot, drop two scout sniper squads for 120 points, and then you can take 30 assault marines and 4 elite choices worth of vangaurds / sang guards / death company, and then throw in a command squad if you have a spare HQ.

That's a lot of jump packs, and the troop tax of 120 pts seems pretty negligible considering they can hold two points on your side of the board.

So that's my question, in 6th and 7th edition up until now, did you use literally NO units to hold points on your side of the board, and if so, how the hell did you win?

Especially in 6th, where you would have needed a shooty troop choice to hold points on your side of the board, and sniper scouts were just slightly bad and tacticals were terrible.

I think the main reason most people are upset is because the Assault Marines had objective secured up until now.

 Walnuts wrote:
Serious question for everyone who is upset about how their 100% assault marine army is no longer 'viable.'

I'm sitting here like, shoot, drop two scout sniper squads for 120 points, and then you can take 30 assault marines and 4 elite choices worth of vangaurds / sang guards / death company, and then throw in a command squad if you have a spare HQ.

That's a lot of jump packs, and the troop tax of 120 pts seems pretty negligible considering they can hold two points on your side of the board.

So that's my question, in 6th and 7th edition up until now, did you use literally NO units to hold points on your side of the board, and if so, how the hell did you win?

Especially in 6th, where you would have needed a shooty troop choice to hold points on your side of the board, and sniper scouts were just slightly bad and tacticals were terrible.

It's the complete lack of choice that pisses people off.

You wanna run your 3 ASM squads? Well now you HAVE to run 2 other squads. All the bikes/speeders you used to support your ASM before? Now you CANNOT use them. Also, ASM wasn't even a spectacular army to begin with, and now you have to have a tax to get it back to a shadow of it's former glory....a completely unnecessary nerf.

As for "Well, 2 scout squads holding objectives...blah blah". There's cheaper/better things to hold objectives. Allies, good ranged units, speedy units that can jump from point to point (like the bikes we can't fit now). Paying a tax for an already mediocre army is just another nail in the coffin to it. Good armies don't have taxes, or are cheap/good enough it doesn't really matter. The fact it's called a tax at all should be some manner of signal people don't want this stuff.

GW has killed a whole army archetype, the Jump pack assault type. Nightlord jumper armies, BA ASM heavy lists, 8th company vanilla jumper lists...etc, could all use the BA codex to make a full jumper list, but they are all dead now. Not to mention the AV13 wall getting gutted without FA Baals, and the dread spam list going from 7 to 5 dreads at most.

It's like they systematically set out to break every single stereotypical Blood Angel list from the last 4 years. At this point, I'm not even sure why the BA codex exists, as you could roll it into the vanilla book and we might just be better off.

 Glorywarrior wrote:
I think the main reason most people are upset is because the Assault Marines had objective secured up until now.

Objective secured is almost 100% irrelevant for ASM in my opinion. This is the least significant portion of loss they've suffered from moving from the troop slot.

GW don't care............they want you to buy new stuff not just keep using your old stuff. Making AM FA rather than Troops may help this - so for them it was QED.

And whilst its not exactly the same loosing the ability say to make Wracks Troops through a generic (and previously pretty essential) HQ character it does exactly the same in practice - removes choice of how you play your army, same with Nobs and Orks.

Saying that the Blood Angels is now just C:SM is a bit of exaggeration, given that they still have all the special units that made them different from Codex compliant Chapters units (Death Company, Librarian Dreadnoguhts, Special Assault Dreadnought (that used to be just generic), how many Special Characters?),

How many other First Founding Chapters don't get their own Codex - Raven Guard, Salamanders, White Scars and who have never had the chance to have all that BA have been given.

Ask Black Templars who has the better deal - many were very upset about being rolled up in the main Codex - I wasn't but hey. Remember even the Wardex specifically stated that the Blood Angels had no more Assault marines than any other Codex Chapter. My Sisters army has jut one Troops choice and not even a printed codex - awesome.

Sooo nothing in the new Codex is any good? Looks like quite a few good things to me? We were Never (as lots of people said early in the thread) going to get a Codex like Eldar - and shouldn't either - the Eldar Codex (or a couple ofunits toned down) needs fixing - But GW can't be bothered

GW has killed a whole army archetype, the Jump pack assault type. Nightlord jumper armies, BA ASM heavy lists, 8th company vanilla jumper lists...etc, could all use the BA codex to make a full jumper list, but they are all dead now. Not to mention the AV13 wall getting gutted without FA Baals, and the dread spam list going from 7 to 5 dreads at most.

Really? So you have to run 2 squads of five men to have the same army - having had a army wide point drop for the units you actually want to play? 5 Dreadnoughts is not spamming?

And we have not even got the new formations yet that will likely allow Jump marine armies - sadly they will be in other books or DLC - but that's how GW works now and should have been expected given the previous codex releases. They don't care[i] if it invalidates old armies because they want to sell you new ones - its Not a good thing but it is reality in 40k now.

We went from 6 to 6 on Dreads using the old BA CAD (3 HS and 3 Elite) and the new BA formation (2 HQ and 4 Elite). just to throw that out there...

 Sidstyler wrote:
Kinda makes one wonder why the hell they even made Unbound in the first place then, if they know people hate it and they themselves don't even think it fits their definition of "the Spirit of the Game"...

Well I guess they probably didn't know we were going to hate it beforehand, though there isn't really any excuse for that. A cursory glance at Dakka or any random forum would probably tell them that throwing the rules out the window would probably piss people off.

Because they wanted People to be able to play Anything They Wanted.
This does Multiple things:
1] Stop People from Complaining about the "Restrictions Of The FOC" that people have whined about for Years now. [I do find it funny the People who hate the "Troop Tax" seem to be the ones who hate Unbound the Most]
2] Allow People to just buy whatever models they have/want. ["Well I only Play Marines, but that new Ork Staompa Looks to Cool to not Pick up and I can Use it too with my Unbound List."]
3] Push Impulse Buys. [See #2]

Unbound gave groups a ruleset that allowed them to just play with whatever. I doubt it was ever meant for pick-up/tournament games. That said I like the idea of unbound in friendly games. A buddy and I have been talking about having a silly set-to and I might have unbound make an appearance.

It's important to remember that unbound and WAAC are not the same thing. The internet just rages against unbound like they are the impossible to have one without the other.

Bikes as troops, ASM as troops, Mega Armored boyz as troops, etc... didn't break 6th edition when they were FOC. They don't break 7th edition by being played unbound.

For tournaments though, those things might not be the best 'balanced' things.

 Walnuts wrote:
Serious question for everyone who is upset about how their 100% assault marine army is no longer 'viable.'

I'm sitting here like, shoot, drop two scout sniper squads for 120 points, and then you can take 30 assault marines and 4 elite choices worth of vangaurds / sang guards / death company, and then throw in a command squad if you have a spare HQ.

That's a lot of jump packs, and the troop tax of 120 pts seems pretty negligible considering they can hold two points on your side of the board.

So that's my question, in 6th and 7th edition up until now, did you use literally NO units to hold points on your side of the board, and if so, how the hell did you win?

Especially in 6th, where you would have needed a shooty troop choice to hold points on your side of the board, and sniper scouts were just slightly bad and tacticals were terrible.

A lot of the pet peaves in here I suspect are not actually reflective of peoples armies. Literally every BA army I have seen has taken at least one squad of sniper scouts since 5th. With the point drop you get that second one for gratis really. People always want more while expecting to lose nothing. That book desperately needed some clean up and as you pointed out, its not difficult in the slightest to run as many jump troops as before. They just won't be Obsec, but give me a break, why are people so attached to assault squads if they are incapable of clearing objectives? Obsec doesn't really matter much in this instance.... Plus, DEATH COMPANY SCORES! lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Unbound gave groups a ruleset that allowed them to just play with whatever. I doubt it was ever meant for pick-up/tournament games. That said I like the idea of unbound in friendly games. A buddy and I have been talking about having a silly set-to and I might have unbound make an appearance.

They have allowed unbound at the last few local RTT here in Maine and I got the opportunity to pit my TAC rounded marines against 3 Baneblade variants! It was a blast! I blew him out on objectives and won handily. Unbound is always mentioned as abusive by people who are full of crap and haven't ACTUALLY played with it. Most gamers are nice fellas and won't take 15 annihilation barges, not to mention I don't know any moron that would buy that many in reality

Honestly I5 S5 scouts with CCW and a power sword on the Sgt will knock over enemy MEQ in CC if you can get the charge off. They would have been amazing if they'd had the mobility of the LSS, but...

Well, I think unbound is a try to tie the game closer to the stories and mythology of 40k.
However fun we can have at the "cinematic" approach, its a really nice element to a game that is rapidly evolving in to a wider cultural concept of epic stories and evocative art.

Anyway, I see unbound as one of many specific list you can build, much as you could have a list for city fight or apocalypse, or a mechanized or foot list, all in the same army.
I really dont get people that just play one list over and over. Unbound is a nice option to try out once in a while I bet, It dont need to be an all or nothing approach.
Its not like battle forged armies are automatically balanced and fair anyway.

Hulksmash wrote:We went from 6 to 6 on Dreads using the old BA CAD (3 HS and 3 Elite) and the new BA formation (2 HQ and 4 Elite). just to throw that out there...

7 in the old codex. 3 elite, 3 heavy and 1 DC dread in troops. You are correct about the new detachment though, 6 is still possible. Still, furioso dreads worked best in an AV13 spam list with Baals and pred....which is dead.

That said, I still haven't seen the point cost on the new libby dread, but I can't imagine GW has made them a sane amount of points.

Mr Morden wrote:GW don't care............they want you to buy new stuff not just keep using your old stuff. Making AM FA rather than Troops may help this - so for them it was QED.

I'd love to buy NEW stuff....all of their "new" stuff for the BA release is just old units with BA bling on them though. No Storm Talon/Raven, Centurions, stalker/hunter...like when Vanilla marines got new units, just old units with new iconography. We got tactical terminators and tactical marines. Not saying they are bad kits, or that new players won't love them, but I have something like 20 tactical terminators and 60+ tactical marines I don't use already. Nothing new for me.

Saying that the Blood Angels is now just C:SM is a bit of exaggeration, given that they still have all the special units that made them different from Codex compliant Chapters units (Death Company, Librarian Dreadnoguhts, Special Assault Dreadnought (that used to be just generic), how many Special Characters?),

How many other First Founding Chapters don't get their own Codex - Raven Guard, Salamanders, White Scars and who have never had the chance to have all that BA have been given.

I'll concede that the Blood Angels are better off than the non-codex first founding chapters in terms of kits. As for quality of rules, that's debatable especially with how good white scars and Iron Hands are ATM.

As for folding them into vanilla. It really wouldn't take much anymore.

Death company are vanguard vets + FnP + rage for X points.
Libby dreads really should be available to everyone anyways.
The special assault dreads are glorified Ironclads.
ASM special weapons, but quantity and types, should be available to vanilla marines.
Baal pred is a weapon swapped predator
Blood angels vehicle upgrade for fast = 10 points
3 special characters, Dante, Mephiston, Corbulo. Throw the rest in dataslates, as Asataroth/Tycho would work better with a DC formation, Sanguinor in a DoA style army...or something.

Done. 3 pages for characters and 1 for special rules. Would take as much room as the Black Templar take now.

Sooo nothing in the new Codex is any good? Looks like quite a few good things to me? We were Never (as lots of people said early in the thread) going to get a Codex like Eldar - and shouldn't either - the Eldar Codex (or a couple ofunits toned down) needs fixing - But GW can't be bothered

I didn't say there was nothing good. Dante is awesome. Corbulo looks decent. DC are finally solid.....that's about it. Everything else is done better by someone else or is worse than it used to be. Where the GK codex was broken down into 1-2 lists overnight, I still haven't seen a half way decent BA list yet.

GW has killed a whole army archetype, the Jump pack assault type. Nightlord jumper armies, BA ASM heavy lists, 8th company vanilla jumper lists...etc, could all use the BA codex to make a full jumper list, but they are all dead now. Not to mention the AV13 wall getting gutted without FA Baals, and the dread spam list going from 7 to 5 dreads at most.

Really? So you have to run 2 squads of five men to have the same army - having had a army wide point drop for the units you actually want to play? 5 Dreadnoughts is not spamming?

My last BA list was something like;

Mephiston
2 Sang priests with jump packs
3 x 10 ASM, double special weapons
2x2 attack bikes with multimeltas
2 Vindicators
Storm Raven

It was fast, aggressive, and fun. Now Meph can't fly along with his JP buddies, can't get FnP across everyone, can't fit the attack bikes in, and need to spend points on scouts/tacticals that I don't want and don't fit the speed of the list. I wouldn't be SO pissed off if the scout could at least take Land Speeder storms...but they didn't even get that.

My vanilla marine list is 3-4 biker squads, an attack bike squad and 2 storm talons. If they don't allow troop bikers in the next vanilla codex, I will have exactly the same problem I'm having with BA. No troops and like 6 FA choices.

And we have not even got the new formations yet that will likely allow Jump marine armies - sadly they will be in other books or DLC - but that's how GW works now and should have been expected given the previous codex releases. They don't care[i] if it invalidates old armies because they want to sell you new ones - its Not a good thing but it is reality in 40k now.

<sigh> who knows what formations are on the horizon. ATM though, I'm done with the BA codex and back to my vanilla biker grav spam list.

 Carnage43 wrote:


As for folding them into vanilla. It really wouldn't take much anymore.

Death company are vanguard vets + FnP + rage for X points.
Libby dreads really should be available to everyone anyways.
The special assault dreads are glorified Ironclads.
ASM special weapons, but quantity and types, should be available to vanilla marines.
Baal pred is a weapon swapped predator
Blood angels vehicle upgrade for fast = 10 points
3 special characters, Dante, Mephiston, Corbulo. Throw the rest in dataslates, as Asataroth/Tycho would work better with a DC formation, Sanguinor in a DoA style army...or something.

Done. 3 pages for characters and 1 for special rules.

This is hilarious, by the way. "Folding them into vanilla is easy, just give vanilla everything they've got and remove half the characters, add them back in as dataslates because everyone loves DLC". You also forgot Sanguinary Priests.

 Bull0 wrote:

 Carnage43 wrote:


As for folding them into vanilla. It really wouldn't take much anymore.

Death company are vanguard vets + FnP + rage for X points.
Libby dreads really should be available to everyone anyways.
The special assault dreads are glorified Ironclads.
ASM special weapons, but quantity and types, should be available to vanilla marines.
Baal pred is a weapon swapped predator
Blood angels vehicle upgrade for fast = 10 points
3 special characters, Dante, Mephiston, Corbulo. Throw the rest in dataslates, as Asataroth/Tycho would work better with a DC formation, Sanguinor in a DoA style army...or something.

Done. 3 pages for characters and 1 for special rules.

This is hilarious, by the way. "Folding them into vanilla is easy, just give vanilla everything they've got and remove half the characters, add them back in as dataslates because everyone loves DLC". You also forgot Sanguinary Priests.

Have a chaplain upgraded with a narthecanium for X points, bang, sang priest. Trade out the chappy rules for it as well.
Sang guard = honor guard + jump packs and MC 2 handers for ~7 points.

DLC is garbage, but having 3 more special special characters than other chapters isn't enough to warrant a codex of their own when dataslate could easily cover that.

Having different side armor and +1WS on their melee dread isn't enough to warrant a codex of their own.
Having a different turret and sponsons on a predator isn't enough.
Having an upgraded vanguard squad isn't enough.
Having melta-guns in their assault squads isn't enough.

Write is just like they wrote the black templar tactics. "When you select the BA chapter tactics these new upgrades are available: Fast to rhino/razors/preds for 10 points, lightning claws on ironclads for X points, vanguard can become DC for X points and get rage and FnP"...etc. Of course they have to boil is down a bit more, but we are already like 75% of the way there with the 7th edition codex anyways and the loss of troop DC, DC dreads and ASM, no more FA Baals and sang priests becoming HQ.

If you are going to make Blood Angels a stand alone army, they need to be different enough to warrant having a book at all. If all your differences are a few gear differences and a handful of special character then it's not worth the effort IMO. I mean, look at BA today and compare it to BT pre-sixth edition space marines. Thin.....

No, but all of that combined IS enough for a separate Codex.
So shut up now? This gak doesn't belong in a rumour thread about the Blood Angels getting a new codex.

In related news:
- 18 new datasheets for the Blood Angels 1st and 2nd Companies, Flesh Tearers, and the Necrons of the Mephrit Dynasty. That’s the equivalent of four Codex Supplements in one book!

Those new things are awesome, but it makes me wonder about a Supplement.
Aren't we getting one?
And I'm not really sure I want to spend 60 euro for 18 data-sheets, not even when my second army are Necrons.

Its not just datasheets, allegedly there are warlord traits and relics for the BA 1st Company, the Flesh Tearers and Necrons in the book. Plus the formations, plus the background, scenarios etc. though given that the BA 1st company rules are in this book it likely indicates no supplement in the immediate future.

 warboss wrote:


GW THEMSELVES DOESN'T ALLOW UNBOUND IN THE FEW EVENTS THAT THEY STILL RUN.

http://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/2014/05/24/new-warhammer-40000-rules-and-our-events-in-2014/

Not true. They just alternate between battle forged and unbound formats at different stages of the event.

From the very page you linked to.

The final game will follow the Unbound Rules set for army selection from page 117 of the rulebook with the following tweaks:

That Shield of Baal: Exterminatus looks awesome, I've pre-ordered. Anything with Seth on the cover gets my vote (he's on the cover of the softback). I'm vaguely excited about it, which is rare for me with GW these days.

I find it curious that they have not only sculpted BA iconography onto the shoulder pad, but sculpted the pad onto the upper arm. Seems like two opportunities to allow for non-BA players who don't fancy taking a scalpel to their £18(!) model to purchase it have been missed.

Curiously short-sighted, even for GW.

WOH WOH WOHhh

Is that a plastic psychic hood without any BA icons?

edit: Bloody hell nvm i see the damn drop on the belt buckle :(

Missed that.

Again, curious choices limiting the applications of the mini for those not wishing to convert. The buckle could just as easily have been an Aquila.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Christ, now I look at the painted version, there's iconography everywhere.

Totally baffled.

Wonderwolf wrote:
Not true. They just alternate between battle forged and unbound formats at different stages of the event.

From the very page you linked to.

The final game will follow the Unbound Rules set for army selection from page 117 of the rulebook with the following tweaks:

I did see that but the single exception doesn't negate the general rule. For ONE event out of THREE, you can use unbound for a SINGLE day out of TWO. You'll have to excuse me if I consider them specifically banning unbound (despite it being the "default" game according to Jervis) in all but one event on one day as simply disallowing unbound. You are of course free to consider allowing it in a single event type only on one day out of two it is offered as "alternating" but I don't consider that to be an accurate assessment of their practical application of the unbound rules.