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 the last couple of weeks I've read a lot of doom and gloom about Eldar. On numerous posts I've suggested Unbound as a 100% legal, Main Rule Book option for all armies. The vast majority of feedback has been negative and dimissive. Simply put, why not Unbound?

It's clearly intended to be a large part of 7th edition, the Ork codex (the first 7th Ed codex released) was written with Unbound in mind.

You wouldn't have to have blanket No LoW, -1 to D range weapon rules, and the worst: I'll just not play against Eldar.

Please explain to me like I'm 5 or an actually Ork Boy what is so bad about Unbound. "broken" examples of "codex abuse" would be greatly apprciated. Thanks, Pipes

pour

I'm fine with unbound. Tournaments don't tend to run it though.

Efficiency. If you have access to a free benefit, you dont need a good reason to take it, you need a good reason not to take it.

The Command Benefits of organizing your forces into FOCs are free benefits. Even if you don't use Formations or alternative FOCs like the Realspace Raider or Masque Detachment, then the Command Benefits of the two basic detachments are huge. There is very little reason to walk away from those.

Barring limitations on your collection of models, or an extremely limited field of options to field models (Harlequins), there is very little reason, tactically, to go Unbound.

The only time I've seen it done by someone who wasn't just trying to get a game in with a limited collection of minis, he was trying out a super-gimmicky list just for funzies. If you want to do something like, say, run 20 Solitaires it might be fun, but if you're trying to put together a list with any bite, I'd stick to Battle Forged.

Unbound mean it not real fight! Real fight mean ya git to slug back and furth and make real mess of fings.

-----------------

Unbound is fine, so long as everyone's communicating. Before the Harlequin and Eldar codexes came out, I told people I was making a Harlequin force. But to do so, I was going to have to play Unbound, as there was no way in the rules to take them in a Battle-Forged list. If players used Unbound competitively, then the game would become about finding the one perfect unit and just spamming it, because there'd be no reason not to. If you've ever played Magic, you'll know how important Lands are. They keep decks honest. If you can't play a land, then you can't cast your spells. If you have the wrong kinds of lands, then you can't cast your spells. If Magic didn't require lands and players could just cast spells in any way they wanted, the game might still be playable, but it wouldn't be the same game.

Unbound is best saved for thematic situations as a way for the game to make sense even when the players want to do something different. It should be saved and reserved distinctly for that reason.

Thank you for the responses. They are much more thought out and respectful. What I'm hearing is that unbound is less fun as opposed to being "broken".

My mates and I have been playing Unbound even before the rule existed

Seriously, at some point in 5th we had one guy using a joint GK/IG army, a Chaos guy playing them as Space Marines, and another Chaos player still using the old 3.5 codex. Only the few of us who still played outside or small circle bothered with FOCs or updated rules...

6th/7th changed things for good, adding a much more lenient playstyle that made some of the crazy combos viable and legal. Ironically, everyone plays battleforged now, if only because we scattered, and the gaming groups in our respective new locations aren't as forgiving as we used to be to each other.

My gripe with Unbound is the total disregard for anything close to what can be called game design. Its lazy rules writing paraded about as some sort of gift to gamers that they now have official sanction to do whatever they want.

Its a joke and should have never been published. Especially in what I'm sure GW believes is a high end gaming product with a large price tag attached to it.

 PipeAlley wrote:
Thank you for the responses. They are much more thought out and respectful. What I'm hearing is that unbound is less fun as opposed to being "broken".

I find them to be be even more fun. Tried an excution force style army once with 1 of each assasin, a moritat and some flyer to call in air support. Currently thinking of doing an all dread chaos army. They're great fun if you use them sparingly to shake things up a bit from time to time. Do some crazy gak. They're only bad if you start looking at them as a way to win games. Spamming Lords of war or taking the best of each codex kinda stuff. For fun and campaigns they're just awesome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Even full lords of war can be fun if you know whats coming and it's not a serious game.

My hate is very poor.

Unbound represents the lowest common denominator in rules writing. It shows that GW is now so completely clueless about their own game that they have completely given up and basically said, "Yeah, you know what? We don't know either, you guys figure it out and do what you want."

I've been playing unbound since 7th edition came out.

I hate every HQ choice I've been given, so I stopped taking them.

I have more fun. None of my opponents even notice except when I remind them their guys have Objective Secured and Mine don't, so they can take those objectives I'm standing on.

It's been win/win.

 Blacksails wrote:
My gripe with Unbound is the total disregard for anything close to what can be called game design. Its lazy rules writing paraded about as some sort of gift to gamers that they now have official sanction to do whatever they want.

Its a joke and should have never been published. Especially in what I'm sure GW believes is a high end gaming product with a large price tag attached to it.

I haven't heard this opinion before. It's interesting, thanks for sharing. I think you're correct in that GW doesn't care enough about rules. They specifically advertise themselves as making the best models in the world. I guess I'd prefer better rules than models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
I've been playing unbound since 7th edition came out.

I hate every HQ choice I've been given, so I stopped taking them.

I have more fun. None of my opponents even notice except when I remind them their guys have Objective Secured and Mine don't, so they can take those objectives I'm standing on.

It's been win/win.

Which army are you playing that you hate the HQ's? HQ's are some of the best units in the Ork Codex, can never get enough in normal CAD!

 PipeAlley wrote:


I haven't heard this opinion before. It's interesting, thanks for sharing. I think you're correct in that GW doesn't care enough about rules. They specifically advertise themselves as making the best models in the world. I guess I'd prefer better rules than models.

I mean, I'd rather have better everything, but I can't find too many technical faults in GW's models, just personal taste. Their rules though are something else.

I just can't imagine anyone taking any game seriously where a point of pride is saying you can just ignore the rules and do as you please. You always had that option, and have that option with every game in existence.

While GW's current super formations (Decurions and such) are poorly balanced, the general idea of having a dozen different formations to pick and choose from is a solid idea. If Unbound were to go away tomorrow and be replaced entirely with these super formation in every codex, I feel the game would be better off. Then all we'd have to do is balance the formations to be reasonable.

Honestly? I have only seen unbound twice.

Once it was used to tailor and table me. The opponent was a younger dude, but he took advantage of kindness to exploit and win. Not a good sport at all.

The other was at a tournament, unbound IG. I think all tanks and flyers. He won, but it was 100% legal, and there were big superheavies too, so I am fine with it.

I have never seen a day to day pick up game go unbound, and at many tournaments, I rarely see it (just the once).

That being said, I have considered doing it for some really fluffy armies, using a lot of count as models. When you are making your list for fluff reasons, objective secured and re-roll warlord trait just don't really matter!

The presence of unbound is merely an addition, officially sanctioned, which to some makes a difference.

An addition most people will happily ignore and there is a social contract of sorts to use battle forged armies if you want to be taken seriously. So it doesn't detract from the game at all.

As to why they put it in and how they think about it...well...sometimes ignorance is bliss. Especially with GW, as it will lead you down a dark path indeed lol. I try to cherish what I have with GW instead, and pray that GW Management sees the light eventually. Not much else to do if you enjoy the game despite of how they treat their customers.

Not a fan. In pick up games it's too opened to abuse or just plain imbalance which creates games that are unfun to play.
In informal games with your buddies, you could just do whatever anyway so there's no reason to actually have it in the rulebook.
"Sure, just take whatever. We don't care." - GW

Also one of the main issues is that unbound would allow someone to take only Wraithknights if he wants, or only Monoliths and Obelisks.

the FOC was meant to try to keep things balanced.

unbounds screws with this, it offers lots of "fun" options but as mentionned earlier, its not a sound game design option

 PipeAlley wrote:
It's clearly intended to be a large part of 7th edition, the Ork codex (the first 7th Ed codex released) was written with Unbound in mind.

I disagree. Orks were one of the first codecies written with MULTIPLE CADS and FORMATIONS in mind. They didn't fill the Heavy section with too many great options so no one could / would purchase the models...they gave us the ability to run Multiple Cads so we could play with all those great options. Formations allow us to shoehorn units into our lists without rocking the Force Org and give us extra abilities to boot... 7th is all about Formations and CADs.

Unbound is just a throw away paragraph or two that hasn't been supported by GW in any real way since (at least to my knowledge). Making an unbound list that adds my Ork Stompa to my Tyranid List may be a fun way to get it on the table as I paint the rest of the Orks, but no one should be taking that game seriously. It doesn't mean it can't be fun...it's just not something worth swimming upstream to champion.

I've got a buddy who plays a genestealer cult.
It's a mix of guard infantry and genestealers, without the bug HQ. It doesn't make sense to have tyrant or prime in a cult list, and the only way to do that is to go unbound.
It's a pretty army, and actually under-powered, but extremely well themed.

I've run an unbound cult of slaanesh, which was dark eldar, eldar and daemonettes. Now that eldar cannot summon more daemonettes, I'll have to swap out farseers for some other psyker for the summoning. Much like the genestealer cult, the cult of slaanesh isn't super powered, but more of a fluff build.

On the other hand, if I were a tool, I'd go unbound with harliquins and eldar. Make an entire force that can't be shot at range.

 Blacksails wrote:

 PipeAlley wrote:


I haven't heard this opinion before. It's interesting, thanks for sharing. I think you're correct in that GW doesn't care enough about rules. They specifically advertise themselves as making the best models in the world. I guess I'd prefer better rules than models.

I mean, I'd rather have better everything, but I can't find too many technical faults in GW's models, just personal taste. Their rules though are something else.

I just can't imagine anyone taking any game seriously where a point of pride is saying you can just ignore the rules and do as you please. You always had that option, and have that option with every game in existence.

While GW's current super formations (Decurions and such) are poorly balanced, the general idea of having a dozen different formations to pick and choose from is a solid idea. If Unbound were to go away tomorrow and be replaced entirely with these super formation in every codex, I feel the game would be better off. Then all we'd have to do is balance the formations to be reasonable.

Yeah I'm really bummed there's no Kult of Speed or Blood Axe or Bad Moons or Snakebite (wtf have the Squiggoths gone?) supplements.

I guess I've been thinking about this wrong. As opposed to min/maxing, unbound can be used to "make your own supplement" fluffy lists.

Unbound doesn't have to mean you're being a dink.

Exactly.

 fartherthanfar wrote:

the FOC was meant to try to keep things balanced.

But it doesn't, and never has.

It's the players that keep things balanced, and always has been. Unbound is no different.

You realize that the Eldar player would also be able to run an unbound list, right?

"Unbound" and "balancing the game" are anathema to one another. You mention that with unbound the game wouldn't have to be limited. I wonder how you will feel once you play against six Wraithknights, or 24 individual Nurgle Obliterators, or 22 units of 3 Scatterbikes.

Unbound can be fun, but the idea of it is as a fix for competitive play is a joke.

 JGrand wrote:
You realize that the Eldar player would also be able to run an unbound list, right?

"Unbound" and "balancing the game" are anathema to one another. You mention that with unbound the game wouldn't have to be limited. I wonder how you will feel once you play against six Wraithknights, or 24 individual Nurgle Obliterators, or 22 units of 3 Scatterbikes.

Unbound can be fun, but the idea of it is as a fix for competitive play is a joke.

Hmmm against any of those lists I'd say that's about 1850 so 100 Mek Gun Kannoz in cover?

 JGrand wrote:
You realize that the Eldar player would also be able to run an unbound list, right?

"Unbound" and "balancing the game" are anathema to one another. You mention that with unbound the game wouldn't have to be limited. I wonder how you will feel once you play against six Wraithknights, or 24 individual Nurgle Obliterators, or 22 units of 3 Scatterbikes.

Unbound can be fun, but the idea of it is as a fix for competitive play is a joke.

But nobody actually uses it to do those kind of things. At least, nobody who enjoys any kind of social life. I'll give you that it's not all that useful for competitive play, but that's a non issue anyway, since most TO's seem to forbid unbound.

Main problem with unbound is just spamming best gak from every army. For me that just feels awful.

As you mentioned in another thread, deffkoptas are a great ork harrassment unit. But what if everyone else said "you know what? I want deffkoptas too!". Its like allies but even worse!

If it was unbound within the same faction I'm not opposed as long as its not used to field max AVA riptides or whatever nonsense

Hmmm against any of those lists I'd say that's about 1850 so 100 Mek Gun Kannoz in cover?

Sure...but that suggestion speaks to the silliness of the format itself.

But nobody actually uses it to do those kind of things. At least, nobody who enjoys any kind of social life. I'll give you that it's not all that useful for competitive play, but that's a non issue anyway, since most TO's seem to forbid unbound.

I guess my point is that I don't think it all the useful for the casual crowd either. If one is having trouble with an Eldar player running a list that is "too good," what do they expect that player will do when unbound is around?

Sadly, the only answer is playing with people who have similar expectations of what "fun" and "balance" looks like.

 JGrand wrote:

Sadly, the only answer is playing with people who have similar expectations of what "fun" and "balance" looks like.

It's almost like that's how they intend the game to be played.

Maybe they should have printed that in the book as an actual rule... Oh wait, they did. It's even bolded right under Choosing Your Army.

If you didn't agree with your opponent one what army they were fielding, you failed to follow the first rule of Preparing For Battle.

Let's just throw all the rules out while you're picking some to ignore?

 JGrand wrote:

Hmmm against any of those lists I'd say that's about 1850 so 100 Mek Gun Kannoz in cover?

Sure...but that suggestion speaks to the silliness of the format itself.

But nobody actually uses it to do those kind of things. At least, nobody who enjoys any kind of social life. I'll give you that it's not all that useful for competitive play, but that's a non issue anyway, since most TO's seem to forbid unbound.

I guess my point is that I don't think it all the useful for the casual crowd either. If one is having trouble with an Eldar player running a list that is "too good," what do they expect that player will do when unbound is around?

Sadly, the only answer is playing with people who have similar expectations of what "fun" and "balance" looks like.

I'll give you that it would be silly.

The truely sad part is that in our league, we had a couple of WAAC players that actually scared away really fun players who had some beautifully painted armies. Not just OP units and lists but constant rules arguing even when they were clearly wrong. 100 of the same MSU unit would certainly cut down on rule arguing.

It's almost like that's how they intend the game to be played.

Maybe they should have printed that in the book as an actual rule... Oh wait, they did. It's even bolded right under Choosing Your Army.

Ok...

If you didn't agree with your opponent one what army they were fielding, you failed to follow the first rule of Preparing For Battle.

Let's just throw all the rules out while you're picking some to ignore?

There is no "standard" game on 40k. Players are always going to have to pick and choose with this edition. Pretending that you are playing "more correctly" because you let people take all their toys with no restrictions is a joke.

My point was responding to the OP's assertion that unbound can save players from the looming Eldar menace. The issue with the unbound fix is that it is ignoring the problem--namely, that if a player is in a group in which someone's lists are deemed "too competitive" or "too rough," then the only fix is either some players turning it up, some players turning it down, or everyone finding people with similar expectations to play with.

 JGrand wrote:
Pretending that you are playing "more correctly" because you let people take all their toys with no restrictions is a joke.

Your point is irrelevant if you don't understand your fundamental flaw in logic here.

No one said the thing you claim was said. In fact, what was said is not even congruent with what you claim was said.