<![CDATA[Latest posts for the thread "should unbound exist?"]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/69.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net should unbound exist? hp and 7 pathfindrs on the board.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378500.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378500.page GMT should unbound exist? bad kind of Eldar. If he wanted, he could get almost all of that in a regular list anyway.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378513.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378513.page GMT Re:should unbound exist?
There's a tone of awesomely themed forces that can only be done through Unbound. Within just the CSM codex alone, Unbound allows for;
- Termiewing w/Hellbrute, Daemon Engine & Land Raider support
- 'Hounds of Huron' all biker army, supported by Spawn, Helldrakes, Raptors, etc...
- Iron Warriors Siege lists
- Daemon Engine menagerie led by Warpsmiths & Sorcerers
- Armoured company
And many other themes.

The same is true for anyone who hasn't yet received the 7.5ed treatment and lacks the ability to field fluffy formations, such as a Blood Angels 8th 'assault' company.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378545.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378545.page GMT should unbound exist? SM codex and supplements (and adding Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Space Wolves), you can field a "Deathwatch" consisting of just HQ's. It is SUPER fun, but not very good. Plus it allows the most freedom to be able to customize several models just because you like the look of them. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378572.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378572.page GMT should unbound exist? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378588.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378588.page GMT should unbound exist?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Plus, with how many bloody options you get with the SM codex and supplements (and adding Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Space Wolves), you can field a "Deathwatch" consisting of just HQ's. It is SUPER fun, but not very good. Plus it allows the most freedom to be able to customize several models just because you like the look of them.


Easily the single best & most amazingly fun scenario in Fantasy was where one of the armies was entirely composed of Characters vs. a 'regular' army.
Unbound allows you to play out this scenario in 40k now, and it's amazingly good fun to watch such a band of heroes take on an entire army in a 'Movie Marines' style game!

Imagine for example, a game where a Daemon army consisting of a single Greater Daemon of each Chaos power faces off against a host of Grey Knights.
Each Greater Daemon's only 'objective' is to out do his rivals and take down more of their hated foes than any of the others can!

Or as Slayer-Fan pointed out, a 'true' Deathwatch Kill Team composed of various Marine specialists seeing how long they can hold out against an onrushing Tyranid swarm...

Or a re-enactment of the (in)famous battle during the 3rd War for Armageddon where an 'army' of Space Marine Dreadnoughts faced off against a tide of Orks & Kans/Dreads...


Unbound is easily great fun!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378599.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378599.page GMT Re:should unbound exist? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378601.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378601.page GMT should unbound exist? GW had actually managed to have some form of external balance (and if formations also didn't work in unbound) unbound wouldn't be a problem because then you trade off command benefits for free form army creation. But the game balance in its current state can't support unbound in a healthy way.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378608.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378608.page GMT should unbound exist?
If there weren't units objectively better at doing the same job as others then what would it matter? You pay your money and takes your choice.

Should a player make a selection that meant their army was hopelessly outclassed in a certain department (they take all anti infantry units and get mullered by an armour heavy force for instance) then that would be on the player. As it stands one could pitch your anti infantry focused footslogging force against against another anti infantry focused footslogging force but that force could be composed of more efficient choices in terms of damage, durability or even both and subsequently you'll still get creamed. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378609.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378609.page GMT should unbound exist?
Of course there are also some nice people who also go unbound, but mainly it's the other kind ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378698.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378698.page GMT Re:should unbound exist? CAD or what marines can do with various formations or Necrons in a decurion. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378702.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378702.page GMT should unbound exist? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378704.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378704.page GMT should unbound exist?
Unfortunately, a lot of units are either massively undercosted (Wraithknight), massively overcosted (Pyrovore), or is simply just good at too many things that there's no exploitable weakness unless your entire list is tailored specifically to take out this one model (Again, Wraithknight, but also the Riptide in earlier editions).

If GW does properly balance the game again and work hard at FAQs, then Unbound can work. But with the current state of the game it is in (especially when you look at the Raven Wing Strikeforce WITHOUT the Faq), it ain't gonna work in the slightest, especially when one guy shows up with 2000 points of nothing but wraithknights.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378708.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378708.page GMT should unbound exist? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378725.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378725.page GMT should unbound exist?
Experiment 626 wrote:

Easily the single best & most amazingly fun scenario in Fantasy was where one of the armies was entirely composed of Characters vs. a 'regular' army.
Unbound allows you to play out this scenario in 40k now, and it's amazingly good fun to watch such a band of heroes take on an entire army in a 'Movie Marines' style game!


Maybe I'm missing something here, but couldn't you do this anyway?

"Hey, fantasy has this great scenario where one army is comprised entirely of characters. Want to give that a go with 40k?"

I find it baffling how many people think they need GW's permission to play custom scenarios. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378738.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378738.page GMT should unbound exist? Apoc Allies were only allowed in Unbound lists.

Unbound should be used for small games in which players are trying out new units, or whacky combos. Unbound should never be used for any sort of "competitive" play.

The problem I have with Unbound isn't Unbound at all, it is that "unlimited" detachments pretty much plays like Unbound anyway. I'd prefer that Bound armies had to field 1 CAD (or codex CAD equivalent), then it could take 1 additional CAD -OR- Allied detachment, than any Formations you want. Formations are the only detachment that should be "unlimited".

Basically, I like the structure of 6th, with the Formations of 7th.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378750.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378750.page GMT should unbound exist? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378754.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378754.page GMT should unbound exist? op units. If your group doesn't spam them in bound they will not spam them in unbound. I have no idea if it is suited for tournament play at all since tournament play kinda is the strange twilight zone of ruling OP meta that banns other OP meta.

I strongly feel that your player group isn't healthy if it can't handle unbound play
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378757.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378757.page GMT should unbound exist?
(Also to the OP: Replace the Wraithblades and the Fire Prism in your mate's Eldar list with a half dozen Scatterbikes and suddenly his list is not only a single CAD but it's probably stronger for it.)]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378771.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378771.page GMT should unbound exist? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378847.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378847.page GMT should unbound exist? FoC was around since forever, but we always violated it for campaigns) so it's not like that freedom wasn't already there.

The only real perk to unbound is letting pickup games happen without being restricted to the FoC. Tournaments will always have their own internal balance rules and ban lists, so they won't give two gaks about Unbound (other than forcing them to do a bit more work). However, the balance issue comes in where either a kid can show up with a horde of wraithknights or a bunch of pyrovores, and he could do this completely by accident, without knowing they're either overpowered or underpowered.

I am always willing to talk it over and face anything, and I fully support discussing it over like gentlemen before playing, but sometimes you just want to show up with an army and play, nary a word said, and that's where unbound both shines and completely craps out. Again, if GW rebalanced their game correctly, unbound in it's theoretical form can work. But as it is right now unbound, for the purpose it was built for, is completely unusable.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378938.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378938.page GMT should unbound exist?
40k 6th and 7th have both been heavily geared toward the narrative and Unbound is a tool to achieve that.

An example for me is an army I'm preparing to use in my next game: an Arch-heretic psyker from IA13, plus a ton of cultists and spawn from Khorne Daemonkin for 500 points. The theme is a rogue psyker is attempting to summon a daemon horde, and he has dozens of lackeys who he will sacrifice to achieve his ends. The mission will be the Megalith mission from Path of Chaos, where the enemy's goal is to cast down the Chaos altar before the summoning ritual is complete.

Yes, this could have all been achieved using homebrew rules, but the best homebrew rules are those that change as little as possible. The above idea breaks no rules at all.

If you don't like it, you're more than welcome to simply not play against opponents who use unbound.

That said, it's not a perfect system. Ideally, every unit would have a points value that accurately reflects its abilities, which would make unbound perfectly balanced, however this is unfortunately not the case in 40k. But that is symptomatic of GW's point system far more than unbound armies. With or without unbound, you're going to face unbalanced enemy armies, no matter what!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378972.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8378972.page GMT should unbound exist?
One of the things with the old FoC was that units was not only balanced by points and by army interactions, but also by which slot it was in. Anything in the FA slot is not going to be anywhere near as hard hitting as the Heavy Support, but it's gonna hit a hell of a lot harder. And Troops were inherently worse than other units because you required them to fill out your manditories.

While obviously this means that in competitive play some units would be totally ignored (Tactical Marines are the most famous), this also means that the new kid who just likes the models are going to pick it up and try a game and probably get totally stomped, simply because he chose a weak unit and no one told him otherwise. Likewise, if he brought 6 Wraithknights because they're cool evangelion robots and not because they're so undercosted, he suddenly find that not only people refuse to play with him, but people start calling him a cheesemonger. That's definitely a turn off.

Like i said, campaigns and tournaments didn't need this since those things by their very nature required you to talk it out beforehand. But for a pickup game, this was a great idea in theory, but horribly in execution. I'd say they probably should have held off Unbound for another edition, where their numerous formation got people more accustomed to using non-traditional forces, then dropped it. I bet if people were already used to Canoptek Harvest-spamming lists, no one would really care about Unbound. Of course, game balance would help a lot more. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8379014.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8379014.page GMT should unbound exist?
 oldzoggy wrote:
Yes it should. It is perfect for casual play. It makes you play the army you would really want to play. You don't need unbound for crazy spamming op units. If your group doesn't spam them in bound they will not spam them in unbound. I have no idea if it is suited for tournament play at all since tournament play kinda is the strange twilight zone of ruling OP meta that banns other OP meta.

I strongly feel that your player group isn't healthy if it can't handle unbound play


Exalted.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8379138.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8379138.page GMT Re:should unbound exist? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8379371.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8379371.page GMT Re:should unbound exist? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8379388.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8379388.page GMT should unbound exist?
Infact, I think I nearly have enough nurglings now to play a 1,500 point game with them alone.
While its a useless army, its highly amusing and good fun against a green tide army.

Also means I can run my Deffwing Orks.
Thraka leading a ton of meganobz.
Again, looks amazing on the table, although this one is actually playable.



Wouldn't like to see an unbound tournament though.
That would just be a case of who can spam the most destructive units possible, without restriction. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8379406.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8379406.page GMT should unbound exist? ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8379426.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8379426.page GMT should unbound exist?
 Wulfmar wrote:
Unbound is an excuse for pay-to-win people to play hate-lists to curbstomp people. Each time they do, they feed off the sorrow.

Of course there are also some nice people who also go unbound, but mainly it's the other kind

Can you prove this statement using tournament results?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vipoid wrote:
Experiment 626 wrote:

Easily the single best & most amazingly fun scenario in Fantasy was where one of the armies was entirely composed of Characters vs. a 'regular' army.
Unbound allows you to play out this scenario in 40k now, and it's amazingly good fun to watch such a band of heroes take on an entire army in a 'Movie Marines' style game!


Maybe I'm missing something here, but couldn't you do this anyway?

"Hey, fantasy has this great scenario where one army is comprised entirely of characters. Want to give that a go with 40k?"

I find it baffling how many people think they need GW's permission to play custom scenarios.

Discussion for pickup games isn't supposed to exist outside point values and rolling for missions. Now I can just bring my Deathwatch list if I feel like it. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8379456.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8379456.page GMT Re:should unbound exist?
Experiment 626 wrote:
Unbound is fine. Just stop playing against try-hard donkeycaves who use it as an excuse to steamroll with the best cherry picked units from wherever.


IOW, "unbound is fine, just as long as you use TFG-level social pressure to shun anyone who dares to use it in a way that you don't like". If you need to kick people out of the group over how you think they're "exploiting" the rules then no, unbound is not fine. It's a broken mess that needs major changes to even have a chance of working.

 Cheexsta wrote:
40k 6th and 7th have both been heavily geared toward the narrative and Unbound is a tool to achieve that.


Screaming "FORGE THE NARRATIVE" over and over again doesn't make the game about narrative play, nor does making the game terrible for competitive play. GW has removed all the stuff on "how to create your own scenarios" from the core rulebook, replaced player choices about their characters with random tables, and created a formations system where you either play the story that GW created or have no chance of winning against people who do. What 7th edition is really about is buying more stuff. GW doesn't care what you do with your toys, as long as you spend lots of money on them.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8379680.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8379680.page GMT should unbound exist? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8379685.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8379685.page GMT should unbound exist? To allow someone without a valid army of models a way to play.
At one point it was horribly unbalanced however formations and detachments and especially detachments consisting of multiple formations adds so many special rules to an army that whatever power builds came from unbound is inconsequential.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8379714.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8379714.page GMT should unbound exist?
gungo wrote:
Unbound exists for one reason.
To allow someone without a valid army of models a way to play.


No, it exists so that "but I don't play that army" is no longer an excuse to refrain from buying the latest new releases. Now the GW store employee can tell you about how awesome the new release would be in your army and pressure you to buy it no matter what army you play.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8379727.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8379727.page GMT should unbound exist?
 Peregrine wrote:
gungo wrote:
Unbound exists for one reason.
To allow someone without a valid army of models a way to play.


No, it exists so that "but I don't play that army" is no longer an excuse to refrain from buying the latest new releases. Now the GW store employee can tell you about how awesome the new release would be in your army and pressure you to buy it no matter what army you play.


Yup. Basically that. That and "oh why don't you spam this 150 dollar kit that you have no restrictions on spamming?" AoS's abolishment of Points was the next step.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8379729.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8379729.page GMT should unbound exist?
 Peregrine wrote:
gungo wrote:
Unbound exists for one reason.
To allow someone without a valid army of models a way to play.


No, it exists so that "but I don't play that army" is no longer an excuse to refrain from buying the latest new releases. Now the GW store employee can tell you about how awesome the new release would be in your army and pressure you to buy it no matter what army you play.


Peregrine, is it hard typing with that chip on your shoulder?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8380622.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8380622.page GMT Re:should unbound exist?
 casvalremdeikun wrote:
It isn't like Unbound is any less balanced than the current game is in the first place. If anything, Unbound armies have way fewer advantages compared to the broken gak CADs and super formations.


Indeed. As a battle forged list, I can field an Imperial Knight formation (and get bonuses) coupled with multiple Aspect Host Warp Spider formations (and get bonuses).
Any objections to unbound on the basis of balance have long gone out the window.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8380678.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8380678.page GMT Re:should unbound exist?
Bartali wrote:
 casvalremdeikun wrote:
It isn't like Unbound is any less balanced than the current game is in the first place. If anything, Unbound armies have way fewer advantages compared to the broken gak CADs and super formations.


Indeed. As a battle forged list, I can field an Imperial Knight formation (and get bonuses) coupled with multiple Aspect Host Warp Spider formations (and get bonuses).
Any objections to unbound on the basis of balance have long gone out the window.


Seriously. The new Tau formations have proven that Unbound is not what you should be afraid of.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8380774.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8380774.page GMT should unbound exist?
xana666 wrote:
So one of the biggest changes in 7thed coming from 5th is the way army's are formed. I like the formations as they are heavily restrictive but I'm really not liking the new unbound. I think it promotes spam and makes the game even more unbalanced. My mate plays eldar and while his list isn't cheese it's certainly not friendly, like the rest of us play. This is is partly because of unbound. In our last game he took 2 wraithlord, 1 wraithknight, 11 d flamers, a fire prism, wave serpent partly, 6 wraithblade, eldrad and spirtseer. Turn 2 I have a hammerhead with 1 hp and 7 pathfindrs on the board.
It seems to me the real power lists at the moment are battleforged using formations, rather than unbound.

Unbound lets armies like chaos (which lacks formations) and orks (which struggle with the standard FoC) build armies that match the flexibility of more modern books. Furthermore, unbound doesn't just unlock 'cheese spam' (much of which was already possible), it also allows for more options for all types of players, which in my mind can only be a good thing.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8380875.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8380875.page GMT Re:should unbound exist? Lets say you want to build a Nid list where Deathleaper and OOO land on the same planet. But realistically you need some synapse control, so with unbound you can take a tyrant or prime or two to do that (yes I know you can run cad + forms to unlock extra HQs but bleugh, why complicate things).

Or you want to run several pheoinix lords together etc etc.

I think unbound simply allows more flexibility and themed lists rather than falling back on OP formations or a standard CAD.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8380891.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8380891.page GMT Re:should unbound exist?
Why? Because it's stupidly easy to just ask your opponent before the game if you want to follow "traditional" army-building methods or just take whatever you want. It doesn't really need to be built into the game rules, you can ignore any and every rule you want to anyway. And it's not like being built into the rules has convinced many tournament organizers to allow it, either. It's pointless, stupid, and a blatant attempt to try and get people to buy more stuff than they would have otherwise; "No, of course you needn't limit yourself to just three riptides, play 'Unbound' and field a literal army of them if you want! It's all about fun, the fact that I make stupid amounts of money from you doing so is just an enjoyable side benefit!"]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8381223.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8381223.page GMT Re:should unbound exist?
 Sidstyler wrote:
Regardless of whether or not it's "balanced", "Unbound" simply doesn't need to exist at all.

Why? Because it's stupidly easy to just ask your opponent before the game if you want to follow "traditional" army-building methods or just take whatever you want. It doesn't really need to be built into the game rules, you can ignore any and every rule you want to anyway. And it's not like being built into the rules has convinced many tournament organizers to allow it, either. It's pointless, stupid, and a blatant attempt to try and get people to buy more stuff than they would have otherwise; "No, of course you needn't limit yourself to just three riptides, play 'Unbound' and field a literal army of them if you want! It's all about fun, the fact that I make stupid amounts of money from you doing so is just an enjoyable side benefit!"


Damn, just when I wanted to field 6 devastator squads.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8381227.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8381227.page GMT Re:should unbound exist?
 Sidstyler wrote:
Regardless of whether or not it's "balanced", "Unbound" simply doesn't need to exist at all.

Why? Because it's stupidly easy to just ask your opponent before the game if you want to follow "traditional" army-building methods or just take whatever you want. It doesn't really need to be built into the game rules, you can ignore any and every rule you want to anyway. And it's not like being built into the rules has convinced many tournament organizers to allow it, either. It's pointless, stupid, and a blatant attempt to try and get people to buy more stuff than they would have otherwise; "No, of course you needn't limit yourself to just three riptides, play 'Unbound' and field a literal army of them if you want! It's all about fun, the fact that I make stupid amounts of money from you doing so is just an enjoyable side benefit!"


Yes, let the hate flow through you. Direct your hate at Unbound and not the ridiculous formations.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8381291.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8381291.page GMT should unbound exist? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8381292.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8381292.page GMT Re:should unbound exist?
 jreilly89 wrote:

Yes, let the hate flow through you. Direct your hate at Unbound and not the ridiculous formations.


Possibly he's directing his hate at Unbound because that's the topic of the thread?

Speaking personally, I could quite easily hate both. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8381297.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8381297.page GMT Re:should unbound exist? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8381303.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8381303.page GMT Re:should unbound exist?
 Tactical_Spam wrote:
 Sidstyler wrote:
Regardless of whether or not it's "balanced", "Unbound" simply doesn't need to exist at all.

Why? Because it's stupidly easy to just ask your opponent before the game if you want to follow "traditional" army-building methods or just take whatever you want. It doesn't really need to be built into the game rules, you can ignore any and every rule you want to anyway. And it's not like being built into the rules has convinced many tournament organizers to allow it, either. It's pointless, stupid, and a blatant attempt to try and get people to buy more stuff than they would have otherwise; "No, of course you needn't limit yourself to just three riptides, play 'Unbound' and field a literal army of them if you want! It's all about fun, the fact that I make stupid amounts of money from you doing so is just an enjoyable side benefit!"


Damn, just when I wanted to field 6 devastator squads.


So do I need to rethink that 8-Stormraven army?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8381317.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8381317.page GMT should unbound exist?
 Peregrine wrote:
gungo wrote:
Unbound exists for one reason.
To allow someone without a valid army of models a way to play.


No, it exists so that "but I don't play that army" is no longer an excuse to refrain from buying the latest new releases. Now the GW store employee can tell you about how awesome the new release would be in your army and pressure you to buy it no matter what army you play.


Unbound doesn't exist to add pressure to sales, if anything it takes the pressure off. If a customer likes a model, they can have it in their army. It removes obstacles from the buying process. It was undoubtedly done to generate sales, I'm not going to even try and say there was any higher nobility in the decision, but it was a good decision. People like me have bought fluffy armies just because we could do it without worrying about 'permission' for a game with it. Others have used it to try and make horrendous armies that win every game. I think the benefits to all easily outweigh the negatives, especially when you can say "no" to an army you don't want to play.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8381319.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8381319.page GMT Re:should unbound exist?
 jer155 wrote:
There's this thing called non-competitive play. Maybe you've heard of it. That's what unbound is made for.


There's this thing called 'thinking for yourself'. Maybe you've heard of it?

I don't want to blow your mind, but you didn't actually need GW's permission to agree on a non-FoC game between friends.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8381368.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8381368.page GMT Re:should unbound exist?
 jer155 wrote:
There's this thing called non-competitive play. Maybe you've heard of it. That's what unbound is made for.


Unbound is also bad for non-competitive play.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8381373.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8381373.page GMT Re:should unbound exist?
 jreilly89 wrote:
Yes, let the hate flow through you. Direct your hate at Unbound and not the ridiculous formations.


Just for the record, I fething hate formations.

Some of them seem kinda neat; I like the idea of basically fielding a hammerhead squadron and getting a bonus for doing something that would otherwise be really stupid and a waste of points. But as they work currently, which is basically yet another thinly-veiled GW money-making scam, "forcing" sales of certain models because they're an arbitrary requirement for a really overpowered set of rules and you want to crush everyone? Hate it.

As for taking the pressure off, GW could also do that just by not making gakky rules for some models while making others so hideously overpowered that you'd be stupid to take anything but them. GW doesn't care to fix what's actually wrong with the game, they just see that certain kits aren't selling and think "Hmm, how do we make people buy these again?", then surprise! They're a required part of a new Decurion-style build despite them not really making any damn sense as a requirement for it.

 vipoid wrote:
I don't want to blow your mind, but you didn't actually need GW's permission to agree on a non-FoC game between friends.


Exactly, which was kinda my point. Technically "Unbound" has always been a thing, you could have been playing "Unbound" this whole fething time if you really wanted to. You didn't need GW to tell you to throw the rules out the window and just put your entire collection on the table if that's what you and your friends always wanted to do anyway.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8381374.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8381374.page GMT should unbound exist?
GW put unbound out there because they (incorrectly) thought that the reason no one was buying their miniatures en-masse was because the FoC restricted us (while the real reason we don't buy em is for an entirely different reason, one they will only acknowledge when slaanesh swears an oath of abstinence). All of the new formations, and especially the Decurion Detachment and associated formations, are likely because even though they made unbound, very few people actively used it to buy the models they wanted; everyone who just bought models for the sake of having them probably didn't give two rat's asses about being not able to use them in a game and everyone else who bought for competitiveness were either saddled with tournament restrictions OR was already buying everything GW put out to have options.

I have a Iron Warriors army made up of only Havocs, Oblits and Vindicators, but I owned all of that from 5th edition. Whenever I fielded it I just asked my opponent if he'd permit it and, if not, I just take out 3 heavy weapons per squad and use the oblits as DS terminators.

Now, since unbound failed at generating the sales they wanted, they started making the Decurions a thing, which were basically "unbound in battleforge". They also started making formations with less and less restrictive rules. Before you had a set amount of specific units and (sometimes) a point cost. Now you get a choice of what kind of units you want, the formation is so small that you might as well just be taking that one type of unit, and the detachment rules effectively mean that even in a CAD, you're still able to grab them without hampering your army at all. Hell fielding the Canoptek Harvest formation is basically fielding that "Unbound bundle" that spammed Wraiths. That bundle touted Unbound as being the freedom to field something like that, and a few months later they completely invalidate that claim with the formations.

Again, Unbound wasn't needed. Not only did it do absolutely nothing for the company and player base (we've been basically doing the same thing before) but it also opened the flood gates for the huge amount of OP stuff and even more crappy rule-interactions that followed. 6th ed wasn't balanced, but at least it didn't have triple-gargantuan spam as a common occurance. Also, the natural progression was AoS's abandonment of the points system entirely, and we all know how that turned out. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8381381.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8381381.page GMT should unbound exist? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8381387.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8381387.page GMT Re:should unbound exist?
 Tactical_Spam wrote:
 Sidstyler wrote:
Regardless of whether or not it's "balanced", "Unbound" simply doesn't need to exist at all.

Why? Because it's stupidly easy to just ask your opponent before the game if you want to follow "traditional" army-building methods or just take whatever you want. It doesn't really need to be built into the game rules, you can ignore any and every rule you want to anyway. And it's not like being built into the rules has convinced many tournament organizers to allow it, either. It's pointless, stupid, and a blatant attempt to try and get people to buy more stuff than they would have otherwise; "No, of course you needn't limit yourself to just three riptides, play 'Unbound' and field a literal army of them if you want! It's all about fun, the fact that I make stupid amounts of money from you doing so is just an enjoyable side benefit!"


Damn, just when I wanted to field 6 devastator squads.

WELL, Androcles from the Star Phantoms can let you do that...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8381426.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8381426.page GMT Re:should unbound exist?
 jer155 wrote:
There's this thing called non-competitive play. Maybe you've heard of it. That's what unbound is made for.


I'd imagine 99.9% of so called non-competitive games still feature a winner and looser. Loosing to an unbalanced list (either battle forged or unbound) isn't fun, doesn't matter if it's 'competitive' or 'non-competitive'.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8382557.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8382557.page GMT should unbound exist? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8382565.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8382565.page GMT should unbound exist?
 wuestenfux wrote:
Unbound allows to play a collection of formations as one army. The result could be a very strong army to play with or against. I guess it can be fun to play with such an army but maybe not against.

You can actually just take a bunch of formations on their own and still be bound. Formations are their own detachments.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8382787.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8382787.page GMT should unbound exist?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Wulfmar wrote:
Of course there are also some nice people who also go unbound, but mainly it's the other kind

Can you prove this statement using tournament results?


would you please consider what you said here?

 jer155 wrote:
There's this thing called non-competitive play. Maybe you've heard of it. That's what unbound is made for.


2 (I suppose) equal viewpoints for unbound. I saw it as a sales gimmick actually - it works for an edition (or 2 I suppose), then goes away. That way people have all these models that can be made complete armies for just a few more dollars.

Anyone consider removing formation benefits and make everything Allies of Convenience to fix unbound? Or would that just break it worse? ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8382836.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/676314/8382836.page GMT