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.

Unbound is cool for fluff armies or whatever but in a competitive environment, I think its a bad thing.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Unbound is just monstrously stupid. I don't even care if its breaks the game or not, its just quite possibly the stupidest thing you can publish in a ruleset.

"Here's a bunch of pages explaining how to make an army. And here's a paragraph telling you to ignore all of that and just take whatever you want! Narrative! Forging! Fluff! Fun!"

You mean how the games was set up in the Old Rouge Trader Days before 2nd Edition?

You mean back in the day when it was suggested a GM wasn't a bad idea?

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Unbound is just monstrously stupid. I don't even care if its breaks the game or not, its just quite possibly the stupidest thing you can publish in a ruleset.

"Here's a bunch of pages explaining how to make an army. And here's a paragraph telling you to ignore all of that and just take whatever you want! Narrative! Forging! Fluff! Fun!"

You mean how the games was set up in the Old Rouge Trader Days before 2nd Edition?

And RT was an incoherent mess.

I could be, but it was about getting an army together and just blowing the snot out of each other. The group I played with had mixed armies of Terminators, Orks [By Fluff under Mind Control Devices] and Harlequins.
I had to build a half Dozen Commissars for my Imperial Beastman Army because it was random on how many Commissars.

Yes it was Mass Chaos, but it was fun Mass Chaos.

Now we can field those armies once more and not worry about feeling like we are breaking the Rules, which bugged us all of the time.

Unbound also lets you build those Fluffy List we always wanted like an All Thousand Sons Army, All Dreadnaught Army of for me an All TWC/Fenrisian Wolf Army.
For us Marine Players we can now play an a Captain Lysander Terminator Army or Teloin Scout Army.
Guard can now run their all Rough Rider Armies in places that do not allow Forge World.

Here what I love, For years everyone was Raging about how they hated the FOC System and being forced to pay a "Troop Tax". GW Decided to give everyone the Option to not have to and then "Reward" Players when they choose to take an FOC. Now the Complaint is that they gave you to much freedom to build what you want.

I also agree it is not the "Game" that is the issue it is some of the "Players" That are an issue. Our group has no issue with Unbound because we sit down before the game and talk about what we are going to play. We also do something I never see: "Ok this week we will bring out our most broken List we can, Looser Buys the Pizza, but next week we bring out the Fluffy List and this weeks winner Buys the Pizza."
Everyone of these thread has turned into "But you should not tell me what to bring!" and no one is willing to compromise, there is the Real Problem out there.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Unbound is just monstrously stupid. I don't even care if its breaks the game or not, its just quite possibly the stupidest thing you can publish in a ruleset.

"Here's a bunch of pages explaining how to make an army. And here's a paragraph telling you to ignore all of that and just take whatever you want! Narrative! Forging! Fluff! Fun!"

You mean how the games was set up in the Old Rouge Trader Days before 2nd Edition?

And RT was an incoherent mess.

I could be, but it was about getting an army together and just blowing the snot out of each other. The group I played with had mixed armies of Terminators, Orks [By Fluff under Mind Control Devices] and Harlequins.
I had to build a half Dozen Commissars for my Imperial Beastman Army because it was random on how many Commissars.

Yes it was Mass Chaos, but it was fun Mass Chaos.

Now we can field those armies once more and not worry about feeling like we are breaking the Rules, which bugged us all of the time.

Unbound also lets you build those Fluffy List we always wanted like an All Thousand Sons Army, All Dreadnaught Army of for me an All TWC/Fenrisian Wolf Army.
For us Marine Players we can now play an a Captain Lysander Terminator Army or Teloin Scout Army.
Guard can now run their all Rough Rider Armies in places that do not allow Forge World.

Here what I love, For years everyone was Raging about how they hated the FOC System and being forced to pay a "Troop Tax". GW Decided to give everyone the Option to not have to and then "Reward" Players when they choose to take an FOC. Now the Complaint is that they gave you to much freedom to build what you want.

I also agree it is not the "Game" that is the issue it is some of the "Players" That are an issue. Our group has no issue with Unbound because we sit down before the game and talk about what we are going to play. We also do something I never see: "Ok this week we will bring out our most broken List we can, Looser Buys the Pizza, but next week we bring out the Fluffy List and this weeks winner Buys the Pizza."
Everyone of these thread has turned into "But you should not tell me what to bring!" and no one is willing to compromise, there is the Real Problem out there.

So, you play in a group of like-minded people? Why couldn't you just ignore the FOC before? No one was stopping you?
But for people that don't play in close groups, we need rules that put us on an even playing field and give us some semblance of guidance. Again, clear rules and direction don't hold you back, but lack of them holds many players back.

The problem isn't being able to field a themed army, it's that when the rules aren't balanced, for everyone who looks at Unbound and says "Yes, I can finally do my Rough Riders army!" there's a bunch who say "Mwa ha ha I can field six Riptides and three Knights and a C'Tan at the same time!"

Put those two on the battlefield, and it's not going to be a pretty or enjoyable game. That's the problem.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Spoiler:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Unbound is just monstrously stupid. I don't even care if its breaks the game or not, its just quite possibly the stupidest thing you can publish in a ruleset.

"Here's a bunch of pages explaining how to make an army. And here's a paragraph telling you to ignore all of that and just take whatever you want! Narrative! Forging! Fluff! Fun!"

You mean how the games was set up in the Old Rouge Trader Days before 2nd Edition?

And RT was an incoherent mess.

I could be, but it was about getting an army together and just blowing the snot out of each other. The group I played with had mixed armies of Terminators, Orks [By Fluff under Mind Control Devices] and Harlequins.
I had to build a half Dozen Commissars for my Imperial Beastman Army because it was random on how many Commissars.

Yes it was Mass Chaos, but it was fun Mass Chaos.

Now we can field those armies once more and not worry about feeling like we are breaking the Rules, which bugged us all of the time.

Unbound also lets you build those Fluffy List we always wanted like an All Thousand Sons Army, All Dreadnaught Army of for me an All TWC/Fenrisian Wolf Army.
For us Marine Players we can now play an a Captain Lysander Terminator Army or Teloin Scout Army.
Guard can now run their all Rough Rider Armies in places that do not allow Forge World.

Here what I love, For years everyone was Raging about how they hated the FOC System and being forced to pay a "Troop Tax". GW Decided to give everyone the Option to not have to and then "Reward" Players when they choose to take an FOC. Now the Complaint is that they gave you to much freedom to build what you want.

I also agree it is not the "Game" that is the issue it is some of the "Players" That are an issue. Our group has no issue with Unbound because we sit down before the game and talk about what we are going to play. We also do something I never see: "Ok this week we will bring out our most broken List we can, Looser Buys the Pizza, but next week we bring out the Fluffy List and this weeks winner Buys the Pizza."
Everyone of these thread has turned into "But you should not tell me what to bring!" and no one is willing to compromise, there is the Real Problem out there.

So, you play in a group of like-minded people? Why couldn't you just ignore the FOC before? No one was stopping you?
But for people that don't play in close groups, we need rules that put us on an even playing field and give us some semblance of guidance. Again, clear rules and direction don't hold you back, but lack of them holds many players back.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Spoiler:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Unbound is just monstrously stupid. I don't even care if its breaks the game or not, its just quite possibly the stupidest thing you can publish in a ruleset.

"Here's a bunch of pages explaining how to make an army. And here's a paragraph telling you to ignore all of that and just take whatever you want! Narrative! Forging! Fluff! Fun!"

You mean how the games was set up in the Old Rouge Trader Days before 2nd Edition?

And RT was an incoherent mess.

I could be, but it was about getting an army together and just blowing the snot out of each other. The group I played with had mixed armies of Terminators, Orks [By Fluff under Mind Control Devices] and Harlequins.
I had to build a half Dozen Commissars for my Imperial Beastman Army because it was random on how many Commissars.

Yes it was Mass Chaos, but it was fun Mass Chaos.

Now we can field those armies once more and not worry about feeling like we are breaking the Rules, which bugged us all of the time.

Unbound also lets you build those Fluffy List we always wanted like an All Thousand Sons Army, All Dreadnaught Army of for me an All TWC/Fenrisian Wolf Army.
For us Marine Players we can now play an a Captain Lysander Terminator Army or Teloin Scout Army.
Guard can now run their all Rough Rider Armies in places that do not allow Forge World.

Here what I love, For years everyone was Raging about how they hated the FOC System and being forced to pay a "Troop Tax". GW Decided to give everyone the Option to not have to and then "Reward" Players when they choose to take an FOC. Now the Complaint is that they gave you to much freedom to build what you want.

I also agree it is not the "Game" that is the issue it is some of the "Players" That are an issue. Our group has no issue with Unbound because we sit down before the game and talk about what we are going to play. We also do something I never see: "Ok this week we will bring out our most broken List we can, Looser Buys the Pizza, but next week we bring out the Fluffy List and this weeks winner Buys the Pizza."
Everyone of these thread has turned into "But you should not tell me what to bring!" and no one is willing to compromise, there is the Real Problem out there.

So, you play in a group of like-minded people? Why couldn't you just ignore the FOC before? No one was stopping you?
But for people that don't play in close groups, we need rules that put us on an even playing field and give us some semblance of guidance. Again, clear rules and direction don't hold you back, but lack of them holds many players back.

1] So what is stopping you from spending and extra 10-15 min to work things out with your opponent?
2] What stops you from Bringing an Unbound List and a Battleforged List?
3] What is stopping your LFGS from having a Unbound Night and the next week a Battleforged Night?
4] What is stopping You and your opponent both making a Compromise for this game and then the next one even if it 6 months from now?

My Replies to this:
1] Nothing ever has for me unless the other guy is not willing to and then I question weather I play him or not.
2] Only my ability to bring multiple Armies, but I could have usually found the space to being an extra few units to make either list.
3] I don't deal with mine anymore because they are no longer my LFGS anymore, but they used to be very open to Ideas to improve "Game Night"
4] Nothing ever has stopped us when we decide to do this.

The worst part about the lack of balance is that it hurts the guy who wants to do an all Thousand Sons, Terminator or Rough Riders army most of all, because those armies would be insanely fluffy and likely always lose against anything that takes a better choice, fluff be damned.

That's the biggest issue here. Your person who wants a Thousand Sons army is going to get screwed for wanting to play that because there's no balance.

The problem is a moot point. If you don't want to play against an Unbound army you're perfectly within your rights to say "I'd rather not play against an Unbound army, sorry" and walk away.

Its tremendously lazy writing.

But it is on the players to use it the way they want to use it

I could make a pretty cool unbound first company pedro list which is both fluffy and not even remotely OP

OR i could take the list with double T'tans and call it a day.

is it GW fault? yes they put this junk in.

is it the players fault? absolutely when they take a donkeycave list like that.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Spoiler:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Unbound is just monstrously stupid. I don't even care if its breaks the game or not, its just quite possibly the stupidest thing you can publish in a ruleset.

"Here's a bunch of pages explaining how to make an army. And here's a paragraph telling you to ignore all of that and just take whatever you want! Narrative! Forging! Fluff! Fun!"

You mean how the games was set up in the Old Rouge Trader Days before 2nd Edition?

And RT was an incoherent mess.

I could be, but it was about getting an army together and just blowing the snot out of each other. The group I played with had mixed armies of Terminators, Orks [By Fluff under Mind Control Devices] and Harlequins.
I had to build a half Dozen Commissars for my Imperial Beastman Army because it was random on how many Commissars.

Yes it was Mass Chaos, but it was fun Mass Chaos.

Now we can field those armies once more and not worry about feeling like we are breaking the Rules, which bugged us all of the time.

Unbound also lets you build those Fluffy List we always wanted like an All Thousand Sons Army, All Dreadnaught Army of for me an All TWC/Fenrisian Wolf Army.
For us Marine Players we can now play an a Captain Lysander Terminator Army or Teloin Scout Army.
Guard can now run their all Rough Rider Armies in places that do not allow Forge World.

Here what I love, For years everyone was Raging about how they hated the FOC System and being forced to pay a "Troop Tax". GW Decided to give everyone the Option to not have to and then "Reward" Players when they choose to take an FOC. Now the Complaint is that they gave you to much freedom to build what you want.

I also agree it is not the "Game" that is the issue it is some of the "Players" That are an issue. Our group has no issue with Unbound because we sit down before the game and talk about what we are going to play. We also do something I never see: "Ok this week we will bring out our most broken List we can, Looser Buys the Pizza, but next week we bring out the Fluffy List and this weeks winner Buys the Pizza."
Everyone of these thread has turned into "But you should not tell me what to bring!" and no one is willing to compromise, there is the Real Problem out there.

So, you play in a group of like-minded people? Why couldn't you just ignore the FOC before? No one was stopping you?
But for people that don't play in close groups, we need rules that put us on an even playing field and give us some semblance of guidance. Again, clear rules and direction don't hold you back, but lack of them holds many players back.

1] So what is stopping you from spending and extra 10-15 min to work things out with your opponent?
2] What stops you from Bringing an Unbound List and a Battleforged List?
3] What is stopping your LFGS from having a Unbound Night and the next week a Battleforged Night?
4] What is stopping You and your opponent both making a Compromise for this game and then the next one even if it 6 months from now?

My Replies to this:
1] Nothing ever has for me unless the other guy is not willing to and then I question weather I play him or not.
2] Only my ability to bring multiple Armies, but I could have usually found the space to being an extra few units to make either list.
3] I don't deal with mine anymore because they are no longer my LFGS anymore, but they used to be very open to Ideas to improve "Game Night"
4] Nothing ever has stopped us when we decide to do this.

I think one of the biggest issues with that is this: Why would I do all that when I can play (insert virtually every other wargame here except maybe some oldschool Napoleonic games that have a ton of logistics and maps) and simply ask the points of the game and maybe if we're doing a scenario, and then start to set up to play? Why *should* I spend an extra 10-15 minutes working restrictions out with my opponent to make sure that we're going to have a fun game?

If I want to play Bolt Action for example, if it was a campaign or something I could see setting up conditions and particular forces (e.g. I would not bring a Tiger II if we were playing out Operation Typhoon), but I could just as easily play a 1,000 point whatever force and reasonably expect (in most cases) a balanced game no matter what my opponent fielded.

WayneTheGame wrote:
The problem isn't being able to field a themed army, it's that when the rules aren't balanced, for everyone who looks at Unbound and says "Yes, I can finally do my Rough Riders army!" there's a bunch who say "Mwa ha ha I can field six Riptides and three Knights and a C'Tan at the same time!"

Put those two on the battlefield, and it's not going to be a pretty or enjoyable game. That's the problem.

They you tell them this wont be fun for me up front, but we both agreed to the game, I hoe that you have as much fun as me when we exchange armies for the Rematch.
You will surprised at the number of times that gets them to think twice. If they don't want to ask him to explain why. Unless they have an issue with others touching their models it is fun to listen to them come up with excuses.
I have done this a few time and it quickly works on getting them to change how they play you.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Spoiler:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Unbound is just monstrously stupid. I don't even care if its breaks the game or not, its just quite possibly the stupidest thing you can publish in a ruleset.

"Here's a bunch of pages explaining how to make an army. And here's a paragraph telling you to ignore all of that and just take whatever you want! Narrative! Forging! Fluff! Fun!"

You mean how the games was set up in the Old Rouge Trader Days before 2nd Edition?

And RT was an incoherent mess.

I could be, but it was about getting an army together and just blowing the snot out of each other. The group I played with had mixed armies of Terminators, Orks [By Fluff under Mind Control Devices] and Harlequins.
I had to build a half Dozen Commissars for my Imperial Beastman Army because it was random on how many Commissars.

Yes it was Mass Chaos, but it was fun Mass Chaos.

Now we can field those armies once more and not worry about feeling like we are breaking the Rules, which bugged us all of the time.

Unbound also lets you build those Fluffy List we always wanted like an All Thousand Sons Army, All Dreadnaught Army of for me an All TWC/Fenrisian Wolf Army.
For us Marine Players we can now play an a Captain Lysander Terminator Army or Teloin Scout Army.
Guard can now run their all Rough Rider Armies in places that do not allow Forge World.

Here what I love, For years everyone was Raging about how they hated the FOC System and being forced to pay a "Troop Tax". GW Decided to give everyone the Option to not have to and then "Reward" Players when they choose to take an FOC. Now the Complaint is that they gave you to much freedom to build what you want.

I also agree it is not the "Game" that is the issue it is some of the "Players" That are an issue. Our group has no issue with Unbound because we sit down before the game and talk about what we are going to play. We also do something I never see: "Ok this week we will bring out our most broken List we can, Looser Buys the Pizza, but next week we bring out the Fluffy List and this weeks winner Buys the Pizza."
Everyone of these thread has turned into "But you should not tell me what to bring!" and no one is willing to compromise, there is the Real Problem out there.

So, you play in a group of like-minded people? Why couldn't you just ignore the FOC before? No one was stopping you?
But for people that don't play in close groups, we need rules that put us on an even playing field and give us some semblance of guidance. Again, clear rules and direction don't hold you back, but lack of them holds many players back.

1] So what is stopping you from spending and extra 10-15 min to work things out with your opponent?
2] What stops you from Bringing an Unbound List and a Battleforged List?
3] What is stopping your LFGS from having a Unbound Night and the next week a Battleforged Night?
4] What is stopping You and your opponent both making a Compromise for this game and then the next one even if it 6 months from now?

My Replies to this:
1] Nothing ever has for me unless the other guy is not willing to and then I question weather I play him or not.
2] Only my ability to bring multiple Armies, but I could have usually found the space to being an extra few units to make either list.
3] I don't deal with mine anymore because they are no longer my LFGS anymore, but they used to be very open to Ideas to improve "Game Night"
4] Nothing ever has stopped us when we decide to do this.

I think one of the biggest issues with that is this: Why would I do all that when I can play (insert virtually every other wargame here except maybe some oldschool Napoleonic games that have campaign maps) and simply ask the points of the game and maybe if we're doing a scenario, and then start to set up to play? Why *should* I spend an extra 10-15 minutes working restrictions out with my opponent to make sure that we're going to have a fun game?

Restrictions is not the key word here. You should never tell anyone You Can't Play That." You can ask, but never demand.
It is actually simple using the assumption when you look at each others armies and you see that he can stop you. Tell him that upfront, that you know you know you have a snowball's chance in . Ask if it is ok for you to set up the terrain, Choose the Table Side, Scenario, and/or who goes first. We have done that a lot and as long as you are not an hat about it by doing thing like making the roads to narrow for his Vehicles do down or things like that things could be real fun.
We do that kind of thing all of the time with no issues because we know next week it could be us on that receiving end.

I also no of no game where you should not have that opening 10-15 min discussion.

WayneTheGame wrote:

I think one of the biggest issues with that is this: Why would I do all that when I can play (insert virtually every other wargame here except maybe some oldschool Napoleonic games that have a ton of logistics and maps) and simply ask the points of the game and maybe if we're doing a scenario, and then start to set up to play? Why *should* I spend an extra 10-15 minutes working restrictions out with my opponent to make sure that we're going to have a fun game?

I say that 10 minutes of discussion while you unpack your stuff is worth it if it stops you spending the next 2 hours playing a game you're not going to enjoy. In same way it's worth finding out if a movie is something you'll like rather than just picking any screen in any cinema at any time, if a tiny investment of time makes sure you're not wasting more time later on, you're up on that deal. And it won't always be that long, as eventually you get to know the people and how/what they play, and can decide what to do based on that.

I know it's going back to the club vs pick-up thing, but I personally can't see ever going into a game only knowing the points and the army.

 Anpu42 wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
The problem isn't being able to field a themed army, it's that when the rules aren't balanced, for everyone who looks at Unbound and says "Yes, I can finally do my Rough Riders army!" there's a bunch who say "Mwa ha ha I can field six Riptides and three Knights and a C'Tan at the same time!"

Put those two on the battlefield, and it's not going to be a pretty or enjoyable game. That's the problem.

They you tell them this wont be fun for me up front, but we both agreed to the game, I hoe that you have as much fun as me when we exchange armies for the Rematch.
You will surprised at the number of times that gets them to think twice. If they don't want to ask him to explain why. Unless they have an issue with others touching their models it is fun to listen to them come up with excuses.
I have done this a few time and it quickly works on getting them to change how they play you.

While I can agree with you, I'd also argue that having to tell your opponent that a matchup wouldn't be fun for you kind of showcases bad rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

I think one of the biggest issues with that is this: Why would I do all that when I can play (insert virtually every other wargame here except maybe some oldschool Napoleonic games that have a ton of logistics and maps) and simply ask the points of the game and maybe if we're doing a scenario, and then start to set up to play? Why *should* I spend an extra 10-15 minutes working restrictions out with my opponent to make sure that we're going to have a fun game?

I say that 10 minutes of discussion while you unpack your stuff is worth it if it stops you spending the next 2 hours playing a game you're not going to enjoy. In same way it's worth finding out if a movie is something you'll like rather than just picking any screen in any cinema at any time, if a tiny investment of time makes sure you're not wasting more time later on, you're up on that deal. And it won't always be that long, as eventually you get to know the people and how/what they play, and can decide what to do based on that.

I know it's going back to the club vs pick-up thing, but I personally can't see ever going into a game only knowing the points and the army.

I actually do agree. I'd love an established club (they are generally rare in the US though), but the fact remains that GW games are the only games that require 10 minutes of discussion while you unpack your stuff to avoid a 2 hour unenjoyable game.

By Playing the game still and you already know about the "Rules Issues", you have Accepted the "Rules Issues" and it is your Responsibility to make the game Enjoyable for both your Opponent and You. The same is for your opponent, it is his Responsibility to make sure that you both enjoy the game.
If he is not willing to take on his Responsibility, then it time to find a new Opponent.

 Anpu42 wrote:
By Playing the game still and you already know about the "Rules Issues", you have Accepted the "Rules Issues" and it is your Responsibility to make the game Enjoyable for both your Opponent and You. The same is for your opponent, it is his Responsibility to make sure that you both enjoy the game.
If he is not willing to take on his Responsibility, then it time to find a new Opponent.

Uh... no. So in other words, if you play a broken game you accept that it's broken and therefore you should bear responsibility for fixing it, despite paying a premium for the broken rules?

 Paradigm wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

I think one of the biggest issues with that is this: Why would I do all that when I can play (insert virtually every other wargame here except maybe some oldschool Napoleonic games that have a ton of logistics and maps) and simply ask the points of the game and maybe if we're doing a scenario, and then start to set up to play? Why *should* I spend an extra 10-15 minutes working restrictions out with my opponent to make sure that we're going to have a fun game?

I say that 10 minutes of discussion while you unpack your stuff is worth it if it stops you spending the next 2 hours playing a game you're not going to enjoy. In same way it's worth finding out if a movie is something you'll like rather than just picking any screen in any cinema at any time, if a tiny investment of time makes sure you're not wasting more time later on, you're up on that deal. And it won't always be that long, as eventually you get to know the people and how/what they play, and can decide what to do based on that.

I know it's going back to the club vs pick-up thing, but I personally can't see ever going into a game only knowing the points and the army.

I do all the time, just not with 40k.

You can turn down a game of checkers because it wouldnt be fun. It must have bad rules too. Someone could offer me a game of chess or tic tac toe and i can also turn them down because it wouldnt be fun.
If someone plays the game, they are fully aware of any rules issues. You dont need to point them out because they already know about them. You can accept or tun down any game you like for any reason you like. If game has rules you dont like and you arent willing to accept them, the answer is simple. Dont play it and go play a different game that has rules you like. Dont look back.
if you dont like the rules but still like the game, the answer is, again, simple. Sit with your local players (the actual physical people you play with and work as a team to tweak them or m ake house rules till it suits you and just play in that setting.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

I think one of the biggest issues with that is this: Why would I do all that when I can play (insert virtually every other wargame here except maybe some oldschool Napoleonic games that have a ton of logistics and maps) and simply ask the points of the game and maybe if we're doing a scenario, and then start to set up to play? Why *should* I spend an extra 10-15 minutes working restrictions out with my opponent to make sure that we're going to have a fun game?

I say that 10 minutes of discussion while you unpack your stuff is worth it if it stops you spending the next 2 hours playing a game you're not going to enjoy. In same way it's worth finding out if a movie is something you'll like rather than just picking any screen in any cinema at any time, if a tiny investment of time makes sure you're not wasting more time later on, you're up on that deal. And it won't always be that long, as eventually you get to know the people and how/what they play, and can decide what to do based on that.

I know it's going back to the club vs pick-up thing, but I personally can't see ever going into a game only knowing the points and the army.

I do all the time, just not with 40k.

Exactly, I'm off to play X Wing in a minute. I messaged my friend last night and the conversation went

"X Wing?"
"Yep, 100 points?"
"No problem, or did you want to try out your Tantive IV?"
"Nah, not really got a handle on the rules yet."
"Ok, see you tomorrow."

Now, in the interests of full disclosure, we'd probably need a similarly brief conversation for a game of 40K, because we've known each other as gamers for 20 years, but I'm pretty sure I could have the same conversation about X Wing with a complete stranger and get a decent game, I'm not so sure that would apply to 40K.

Doesn't mean it any slower tbh.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Unbound is just monstrously stupid. I don't even care if its breaks the game or not, its just quite possibly the stupidest thing you can publish in a ruleset.

"Here's a bunch of pages explaining how to make an army. And here's a paragraph telling you to ignore all of that and just take whatever you want! Narrative! Forging! Fluff! Fun!"

You mean how the games was set up in the Old Rouge Trader Days before 2nd Edition?

Ah, yes, the old makeup traders!

Heil grammar und spelling!

But I like Unbound. The only downside is not being able to reroll Warlord traits, but if you really want a specific one you might as well not risk it and take a SC. Unbound should be reorganised into tank battalions, infantry regiments etc to give people more choice without being exploitative.

So unbound lets players be jerks and donkey caves because there playing with in the rules. wow just wow that's so wrong

zilka86 wrote:
So unbound lets players be jerks and donkey caves because there playing with in the rules. wow just wow that's so wrong

Yep, and just think if the rules were written with an eye towards balance, this would not be the case at all. So you can blame GW for that.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
By Playing the game still and you already know about the "Rules Issues", you have Accepted the "Rules Issues" and it is your Responsibility to make the game Enjoyable for both your Opponent and You. The same is for your opponent, it is his Responsibility to make sure that you both enjoy the game.
If he is not willing to take on his Responsibility, then it time to find a new Opponent.

Uh... no. So in other words, if you play a broken game you accept that it's broken and therefore you should bear responsibility for fixing it, despite paying a premium for the broken rules?

If you group wants to come up with house rules then yes it is your Groups Responsibility to make such changes.

As far as my statement let me try to explain what I mean from this point of view and how most of my RPG Players see it.

As the GM: It is my Responsibility as a good GM/Host to make sure everyone has a good time (Including Myself). If one person did not have a Good Time, I failed as the GM/Host for that game.
As a Player: It is my Responsibility as a good Player to make sure everyone has a good time (Including Myself). If one person did not have a Good Time, I failed being a good Player for that game.

Now this does not mean we yes men, this means we take my Job as the Host/GM/Player very seriously and most of my group does to.

As for 40k, I take my opponent in account when I am List Building (A luxury with a small group).
Recently I took out my Space Wolves with a Vindicare and a Knight vs his Guard loaded up with Tauroxs, he knew I was taking a "War Machine", but did not know what. Well my Knight Stomped one side of the table into mush (In one case literately) with the Battle Cannon (Pop the Trasport with the First Pie and then managed to get the Pie on the Survivors two turns in a row) and Stomping for Justice. I did not relies that he did not bring anything to deal with it other than a Pair of Punishers that My Grey Hunters dealt with quickly.
Well I had fun with my first time taking a Knight, but I could tell he was very frustrated by it. So I made the decision not to take it the next few games as my Responsibility as a good Player to make sure he had a good time the next few games.
This thought proses of our group along this line it taking a look at what the others enjoy taking and what they like facing. We have an Ork Player that loves having massive Melee Battle so when we play I take out lots of Blood Claws and Thunderwolves. Though when we decide on some Marine on Marine Action we both like to Play Gunline Marines and so that is how we build our Armies.

This what I mean my being a Responsible Player.

zilka86 wrote:
So unbound lets players be jerks and donkey caves because there playing with in the rules. wow just wow that's so wrong

The rules dont force them to act that way. they will act that way playing chess or call of duty or any other game regardless of any rules. of course, there will be those who use the rules as an excuse.

That's what i mean they all say its in the rules so can play that way

zilka86 wrote:
That's what i mean they all say its in the rules so can play that way

So, who decides which lists are good and which are bad? The players? Because there's often sharp disagreement in that department. If only there was a unifying source for rules that told people what they could and couldn't take.

zilka86 wrote:
That's what i mean they all say its in the rules so can play that way

We have exactly the same things without unbound anyway

TFG are going to TFG balance or no balance.

 MWHistorian wrote:

zilka86 wrote:
That's what i mean they all say its in the rules so can play that way

So, who decides which lists are good and which are bad? The players? Because there's often sharp disagreement in that department. If only there was a unifying source for rules that told people what they could and couldn't take.

That would inhibit selling jewel-like objects of magic and wonder though. Can't have that.

zilka86 wrote:
That's what i mean they all say its in the rules so can play that way

Exactly, even in games such as chess, players will cry that it is not balanced when one wins almost every game. despite both sides starting with exactly the same pieces with exactly the same abilities starting at exactly the same locations. Sounds rather bland and boring doesnt it?
ANY game that allows you to "build" an army will have balance issues.
"The game is broke, the rules are horrible, it allows you to use a tank against my 50 guys I armed with toothpicks".

Likewise, if someone is going to be a jerk, they will be a jerk regardless of the rules of the game they are playing. No one has ever contested the fact that the rules are not perfectly balancedor that some games are more or less balanced. It is what it is. If someone doesnt like it, they are free to go play something they enjoy more. It says more about the character of someone than the rules of the game if they spam the internet trying to convince others to hate the game as well instead of just moving on to a different game without looking back. A hobby is better off without them. Note that this is not to indicate anyone in this particuler forum.