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.

For instance, can I have a twenty-man Bloodletter squad, joined by four Heralds of Khorne and one Skulltaker?

Yes as many ICs as you want can join the same unit.

Cool. I'm thinking of putting them all in a Spartan Assault Tank with Dirge Casters.

Yup I even have a silly list based on this idea called the superfriends.

Astorath the Grim
Commander Dante
The Sanguinor, Exemplar of the Host
Saint Celestine
Sammael Corvex (Jetbike)
Shadow Captain Kayvaan Shrike

everyone joins The Sanguinor and move around with 12"

 calamarialldayerrday wrote:
Cool. I'm thinking of putting them all in a Spartan Assault Tank with Dirge Casters.

That would be some lulz

Skulltaker is a Herald though, so you'd need another detachment

What do you mean another detachment? Can't I take as much of whatever I like in 7th?

Yes, if you are unbound you can take whatever units you like, with no penalty (the loss of a bonus for following a detachments rules isnt really a penalty)

I cant recall any longer whether the daemons book lets you take 4 heralds for one slot any longer, that could be what theyre querying - that you may need another cmobined arms detachment, if youre looking to use detachments.

I don't get the dislike for Unbound. I know a few people who play that way and they often have fun. I think as long as you don't abuse it, it's fine. Every now and then I come up with a crazy list idea, like "what would happen if I put [all of the above mentioned goodies] in a Spartan Assault Tank?" and then I realise I won't have enough points to make it Bound because I want to take a couple of other things too, so I just say screw it, that's what Unbound is for, so you can take all sorts of different things that don't traditionally work together and see what happens.

I understand the dislike of it, I don't agree with it but I understand it.

People who demand their opponents bring Battle-forged lists believe there is better balance in the game using this type of Army. This is due to the fact you have a maximum number of slots more then the 'Detachment Tax,' as I have seen other people describe it. While the tax is a nice way to force someone to take roughly 200 points of standard infantry, making the army a little more squishy in places, it really is the inability to select multiple lords of war and nothing but that the Battle-Forged players like. That is why they don't like Unbound, they see the potential for abuse to far outweighing the benefits.

 calamarialldayerrday wrote:
. I think as long as you don't abuse it, it's fine. .

And that's the reason people dislike it.

A system that relies on the players not 'abusing it' in order to be playable is not a good system.

 insaniak wrote:

 calamarialldayerrday wrote:
. I think as long as you don't abuse it, it's fine. .

And that's the reason people dislike it.

A system that relies on the players not 'abusing it' in order to be playable is not a good system.

I don't get this attitude at all. I know GW reinforced it with their ludicrous decision to not allow unbound in their tournaments. But I don't get it. If you're playing a friendly game you're expecting your opponent to self police on army building anyway, in a Tournament setting unbound is not very effective with double Transcendent C'tan being the best build but that has some very hard counters as long as you play Maelstrom. Even if unbound was more effective than battleforged competitively I still don't get the problem. There have been power builds in every edition what is the problem if the power builds are unbound? Why is that a terrible state of affairs rather than say leaf blower, Purifier Rhino Spam or Cronair of recent editions? With Purifier Rhino Spam having literally no bad match ups outside of the GK codex at its time and a similar story with Cronair. Why would he such a bad thing to give the players total freedom?

For me a well built Battleforged army is likely to be far more effective and unbound armies really struggle with MSU ObSec spam as they have no way to stop you getting VPs. However even if that wasn't the case I don't get the attitude that power builds being unbound is so much worse than power builds all being 1 codex...

I like to play Chaos Marines and Daemons together, and hopefully soon I will be adding a Traitor Guard army to the mix. Unfortunately, in normal size games I won't be able to play legal detachments of them all, and take some of the more interesting units. So for me, it's better to pick and choose, and take things here and there, based on if I want to focus more on one type of gameplay than another. I also usually take my models that I have most recently built/painted, as I'm really slow at painting.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 calamarialldayerrday wrote:
. I think as long as you don't abuse it, it's fine. .

And that's the reason people dislike it.

A system that relies on the players not 'abusing it' in order to be playable is not a good system.

I don't get this attitude at all. I know GW reinforced it with their ludicrous decision to not allow unbound in their tournaments. But I don't get it. If you're playing a friendly game you're expecting your opponent to self police on army building anyway, in a Tournament setting unbound is not very effective with double Transcendent C'tan being the best build but that has some very hard counters as long as you play Maelstrom. Even if unbound was more effective than battleforged competitively I still don't get the problem. There have been power builds in every edition what is the problem if the power builds are unbound? Why is that a terrible state of affairs rather than say leaf blower, Purifier Rhino Spam or Cronair of recent editions? With Purifier Rhino Spam having literally no bad match ups outside of the GK codex at its time and a similar story with Cronair. Why would he such a bad thing to give the players total freedom?

For me a well built Battleforged army is likely to be far more effective and unbound armies really struggle with MSU ObSec spam as they have no way to stop you getting VPs. However even if that wasn't the case I don't get the attitude that power builds being unbound is so much worse than power builds all being 1 codex...

I don't care for Unbound because even when playing against friends with good intentions, it tends to be a mess.

For example, when 7th dropped I took my battle-forged CSM list against my friend and he wanted to play his new AM codex with lots of tanks because he likes fluffy tank battalions. His list was by no means WAAC, he was running Ogryns and such too.

But it wasn't really a fun game for either of us, I simply didn't have the AT to deal with a wall of tanks, and my infantry killing stuff (i.e., half my list) was pretty much useless. The problem is that when you stray away from force organization, it turns into a game of rock, paper, scissors unless both players make a sort of balanced all comers list, in which case . . . why not just play battle-forged? Except in very specific cases where a player wants to make a fluff list that is quite similar to a battle-forged list besides a few units, it's pointless.

 FlingitNow wrote:
. But I don't get it. If you're playing a friendly game you're expecting your opponent to self police on army building anyway, ...

But that's exactly the point: In a friendly game, you shouldn't need to 'self police on army building'. You should just be able to build the army you want, and use that... because not everyone is playing with people they know well.

But it wasn't really a fun game for either of us, I simply didn't have theAT to deal with a wall of tanks, and my infantry killing stuff (i.e., half my list) was pretty much useless. The problem is that when you stray away from force organization, it turns into a game of rock, paper, scissors unless both players make a sort of balanced all comers list, in which case . . . why not just play battle-forged? Except in very specific cases where a player wants to make a fluff list that is quite similar to a battle-forged list besides a few units, it's pointless. 

I don't know his exact list but for a 120 point vet tax you can field 15 Leman Russes in battleforged. I'm guessing you wouldn't have had enough AT to deal with that either? That's the point in battleforged I can take and all Knight army too which likewise all your AI weapons are useless against. So what is the big difference?

But that's exactly the point: In a friendly game, you shouldn't need to 'self police on army building'. You should just be able to build the army you want, and use that... because not everyone is playing with people they know well.

I don't understand your point? Given that without self policing in a friendly game I can bring a more effective Battleforged list than is possible to make in unbound what is the problem with unbound? Say I go unbound and bring double TC'Tan and you decide to go battleforged and bring 3 Autarchs and 18 units of jetbikes. You win that game, by a long way everytime. I just don't get it. If I'm not self policing with Battleforged I can bring the most powerful lists available, if I'm not self policing but bring unbound I can only bring the 2nd tier in power level of lists. Why is the later so much worse?