PDA

View Full Version : Dan's Weekly Poll #12: Unbound in Fantasy



Lord Dan
15-05-2014, 06:58
The end times are nigh, and unbound rules have been confirmed for 40K. For those who don't know what unbound is, essentially it's a way to take an army without composition restrictions. This will likely come with some kind of limitation in-game, as in 40K's case it's been rumored that objective scoring will be more difficult for unbound armies than those which follow the force organization chart (whatever that looks like these days).

I've seen several discussion threads pop up regarding whether or not players thought such a concept could be viable in fantasy, and as your resident pollsmith felt it was my duty to see the question put to a semi-formal poll.

Please take a moment to answer the poll, above.

Spiney Norman
15-05-2014, 07:27
It would be almost as bad for fantasy as it would for 40k, warhammer as it stands is fairly well balanced, but that is mainly because all of the really broken stuff is strictly limited by the percentage system. Do you really want 'flight of the chimeras' armies, or 'March of the nurgle-princes'?

moonlapse
15-05-2014, 07:33
I think unbound has got to be just about the dumbest and most obviously-money-grabbing move I've heard of from GW in a long time. Not dumbest from a financial perspective - it means they'll likely sell a lot more kits which they wouldn't have otherwise - but spectacularly bad for the game.

Doommasters
15-05-2014, 07:37
Terrible idea, nuff said.

theJ
15-05-2014, 07:42
Terrible idea.
I can more or less get behind the concept over in 40k* - that it allows for all the various themes(such as tank battalions, first company, etc.) present in the background but not in the actual game.
In fantasy, we've got no such problems however. An army concept consisting of all-elite or all-special just ain't a thing... except possibly all-slayers. The fantasy percentage system already allows for ~90% of the themes, and ensures they are all both balanced and most important of all enjoyable.
Unbound puts that at risk - nobody actually wants to face an all-prince army, and I can all but guarantee that it won't be as fun to play with, long term, as it may seem at first.

*Note: Getting behind a concept != supporting an idea, much less the execution of said idea.

Odin
15-05-2014, 07:50
I think unbound has got to be just about the dumbest and most obviously-money-grabbing move I've heard of from GW in a long time. Not dumbest from a financial perspective - it means they'll likely sell a lot more kits which they wouldn't have otherwise - but spectacularly bad for the game.

Which in the long term would be bad financially as well.

I'm keeping an open mind on 7th edition 40k at the moment. If the advantages of battle forged armies are sufficient, it could be fine.

In Warhammer, I'd certainly jump at the chance to use my Gors and Bloodthirster in the Chaos *mostly WoC) army again.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

dalezzz
15-05-2014, 07:51
Daft idea , all the people who like the idea seem to play in small groups of close friends..... Wich don't need a rule like this anyway

StygianBeach
15-05-2014, 08:26
I think it could work if done correctly.

If an Unbound Fantasy Army still had to follow the percentage system but could choose Units from any book.

The Unbound Army also being restricted to only using the BRB Magic items and not get BSB and General abilities.

I think it could work.... throw in some extra Victory Points conditions which makes it harder for Unbound armies to score wins and I think it may be good enough to put up with in the next edition.

Odin
15-05-2014, 10:22
Daft idea , all the people who like the idea seem to play in small groups of close friends..... Wich don't need a rule like this anyway

Well, that is true... I am able to mix my Chaos army back together anyway.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Disposable Hero
15-05-2014, 12:12
I voted Very Good Idea.

Mostly because GW seems to be able to sell us anything, no matter how hard the whining and resistance is.

ewar
15-05-2014, 13:14
It would be almost as bad for fantasy as it would for 40k

I think it would be even worse for us as there is no current mechanism, like objectives to even try to offset the insane benefits.

I really, really, really hope that 7th edition 40k implodes so horribly that it makes GW reconsider their entire plan with regard to letting people just chuck any old model on the table.

By 10th edition there will be no points system or dice needed or even a gaming table - you just wave your pre-painted 3' tall plastic figurine with light up laser eyes around the garden chasing your opponent shouting 'pew, pew, you're dead!'.

Fear Ghoul
15-05-2014, 13:17
I'd much rather have a well-written Allies system than any of this Unbound rubbish.

CountUlrich
15-05-2014, 13:39
By 10th edition there will be no points system or dice needed or even a gaming table - you just wave your pre-painted 3' tall plastic figurine with light up laser eyes around the garden chasing your opponent shouting 'pew, pew, you're dead!'.
Lol, brilliant!


Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Quetzalcoatl
15-05-2014, 13:52
I think an ally system that is thought through would add a lot to the game, and also to GW's sales.
As pointed out Unbound will only do anything for those who already are bending the rules for creative games, and wish to play like that.
It will completely obliterate all that is list-building, and effectively the game, for us who likes competitive play within the ruleset.

I must admit I would like more freedom when writing lists (Lizardmen player, too little core choices, too much in special and YADDA YADDA YADDA)
But this is too much..
Comp-players would find "the build over all builds" and there goes the sales for all miniatures that isnt a part of that.
One could argue that Tournaments will find a way around this, but it seems stupid that arrangers needs to fill the gap between GW and common sense.

I vote NAY good sirs.

Ramius4
15-05-2014, 14:04
I vote NAY good sirs.

Too bad it's not a vote :p

Daniel36
15-05-2014, 14:17
Alternatively, you could just play the game in a more light manner. Honestly, not every battle is a tournament, not every battle needs to be min-maxed the crap out of without any sense of theme to your army. Not every battle has to adhere to the rules which actually state that they are merely a framework, ergo you can change them.

The most enjoyable battles I've played were all "illegal lists" or Storm of Magic battles. So... I don't need GW's permission to do unbound lists, I can already do that. I get why GW is adding Unbound lists to the game, because they think they are doing "fluff players" a service, but fluff players don't need them just as much as tournament players don't need them.

Avian
15-05-2014, 16:38
Given that 9th edition seems to be quite a while away currently, anyone who's interested in playing Unbound should 1) go out and do so now, and 2) report back with the results.



(I voted "Neither good or bad" - you can ALREADY play Unbound, so it won't change anything.)

Gustav Kohn
15-05-2014, 16:39
I disagree with the idea that "fluff" players like unbound type of armies. I actually find such unrestricted formats lead to weaker fluff armies. Instead, nobody bothers with why things are together, only that they can be and are strong.

I agree with Daniel36 that if GW thinks this will help fluff players, they are wrong. It will help no one but the power gamers and Privateer Press

Drachen_Jager
15-05-2014, 17:26
Mmm, High Elf elite infantry with the BotWD flanked by skullcrushers, Doomfire Warlocks, some Chaos Furies to hunt warmachines, Chaos Dwarf artillery, a Hellblaster Volley gun, a steam tank and an unkillable Demon Prince to lead them into battle.

Yeah, that wouldn't be silly at all.

Snake1311
15-05-2014, 17:35
Unbound doesn't mean mixing between army books, thats "allies", which has had a thread and poll of its own AFAIK.

I don't think its that bad, provided the penalty for not following the % restrictions are sufficient. I can't think of many army books where for example 2000 pts normal army would be at a massive disadvantage vs 1500 pts "unbound".

Voted "neither good nor bad" - let it be included in the book like the current Allies rule are; then you can choose to use them, or not use them as you will. Tournaments can ignore them if they're bent, but they can provide a decent framework for thematic battles.

Avian
15-05-2014, 18:13
Unbound doesn't mean mixing between army books, thats "allies", which has had a thread and poll of its own AFAIK.
On the contrary, in 40K it means exactly that. Only constraint is the total amount of points.

kylek2235
15-05-2014, 18:20
I can play unbound right now with my gaming group without GW's bungling. As an official ruleset, it's a bad idea. I could write more about why, but it would take an untold amount of time to complete.

Daniel36
16-05-2014, 09:49
Mmm, High Elf elite infantry with the BotWD flanked by skullcrushers, Doomfire Warlocks, some Chaos Furies to hunt warmachines, Chaos Dwarf artillery, a Hellblaster Volley gun, a steam tank and an unkillable Demon Prince to lead them into battle.

Yeah, that wouldn't be silly at all.
That's the whole issue. People automatically assume that those who want to be unrestricted by army book composition want to do so because of unkillable combos. But if I want to do something that is not covered by the official army book, like for example add a unit of Imperial Dwarfs to my Empire army, it's not because it is a combination that is impossible to beat, it's because I enjoy theme over lame power gaming.

The same, if I want to throw in something cool for my Nurgle army and use the rules for Bloodcrushers but give them the Mark of Nurgle and deduct 2 inches on their Movement to balance this, it's most probably because I have some really cool conversion for my fluffy Army of Nurgle, and not because I think that Bloodcrushers with the Mark of Nurgle are going to win me the game at all costs.

So, if GW thinks they are going to do those players that want to add something not covered by the books for thematic reasons a service by "allowing" them to do so... They're indeed only going to add fuel to the powergaming scene and they are going to add nothing to the game. Fortunately, that's not all GW is doing, because they gave us Storm of Magic, Triumph and Treachery, the VC versus Empire campaign book, all those things that I personally enjoy over cutthroat gaming.

The problem is this whole attitude of having to adhere to the rules at all costs seems to have permeated into the more casual scene, because I find myself feeling guitly for not playing "by the book", which of course is absolutely silly because it is just a game and if it is an enjoable game then who cares if I went 5% over my allowance? It's not like I ever win a game anyways, legal or not.

I personally hope that instead, the rumours of 9th edition marking a return to smaller units being more viable is true. That would make the game more enjoyable for me personally.

Artinam
16-05-2014, 10:31
I'd need to see the rules first, if this is more an alliance type thing with some restriction (Allied contigent from Kislev where you need a seperate general lead the contingent).
If its pure unbound my group will restrict it for most games, if people have a fluffy reason to take certain units then go nuts (Empire Knights helping Bretonnians, Beastmen with Warriors of Chaos).
If this is indeed a flight of the chimera backed by Chaos Dwarfs infernal cannons manned by a Dwarven Master Engineer special characters with 100 slave units to provide a tarpit. Then no...

Daniel36
16-05-2014, 10:55
Honestly though, who would buy such an army anyways. All this talk of extreme death stars may seem to imply that half the wargamer community plays that way, but it's probably just a couple of hardcore tournament players anyways.

shelfunit.
16-05-2014, 11:51
That's the whole issue. People automatically assume that those who want to be unrestricted by army book composition want to do so because of unkillable combos. But if I want to do something that is not covered by the official army book, like for example add a unit of Imperial Dwarfs to my Empire army, it's not because it is a combination that is impossible to beat, it's because I enjoy theme over lame power gaming.

The same, if I want to throw in something cool for my Nurgle army and use the rules for Bloodcrushers but give them the Mark of Nurgle and deduct 2 inches on their Movement to balance this, it's most probably because I have some really cool conversion for my fluffy Army of Nurgle, and not because I think that Bloodcrushers with the Mark of Nurgle are going to win me the game at all costs.

That is a problem with the army books though, not the rules. Way back when the army books either had all these options in anyway, or allowed various allied/mercenary contingents. As the armies have gone their own individual ways they have lost these options in an apparent effort to have "pure" lists - either by purging the things like imperial dwarfs, or just splitting off chaos into separate armies.


So, if GW thinks they are going to do those players that want to add something not covered by the books for thematic reasons a service by "allowing" them to do so... They're indeed only going to add fuel to the powergaming scene and they are going to add nothing to the game. Fortunately, that's not all GW is doing, because they gave us Storm of Magic, Triumph and Treachery, the VC versus Empire campaign book, all those things that I personally enjoy over cutthroat gaming.

Exactly - this is what supplements are for - especially ones that are entirely optional, or for a specific campaign.

Spiney Norman
16-05-2014, 12:17
Honestly though, who would buy such an army anyways. All this talk of extreme death stars may seem to imply that half the wargamer community plays that way, but it's probably just a couple of hardcore tournament players anyways.

Its not like everyone goes out of their way to buy an overpowered army, though some obviously do, but if you're an ogre player and you read online that combining your two sensible sized units of Ironguts into one massive unit with the right magic banner and some killer character builds in there makes your army unstoppable all you have to do is re-write your list to give it a go.

Most 'over powered' armies are not necessarily even 'unthemed', although that is something unbound would tear down pretty quickly.

InquisitorBoreal
16-05-2014, 12:33
I hate the thought even in 40K. What separates Warhammer from the competition? Its rules are certainly not more streamlined, not more competitive. The models, although excellent, do not have the lead they once had. To me, what separates the Warhammers is the fluff. The worlds (WFB and 40K) are simply so fantastic that I can't help but love it.

The rules were always just a "this is what happens in the fluff so that's why these dudes have this rule" to me. Now, using unbound to use a unit of Dwarfs in an otherwise Empire heavy list is fine, but that could have been handled with tweaks to allies. Instead you could end up with the Warhammer Online treatment where Skaven and Dwarf fight together. It's just ... wrong..

biccat
16-05-2014, 14:48
It would be almost as bad for fantasy as it would for 40k, warhammer as it stands is fairly well balanced, but that is mainly because all of the really broken stuff is strictly limited by the percentage system. Do you really want 'flight of the chimeras' armies, or 'March of the nurgle-princes'?

You're welcome to your 6 Nurgle Princes

I'll bring 35 Mangler Squigs.

Petey
16-05-2014, 15:18
Unbound would be great for fantasy, IF and only if, they make taking an army from just one book gave you an advantage. In the next 40k the armies that aren't unbound get extra scoring privileges. If a similar thing were done in fantasy, like say if your army is not unbound you get half vp for reducing a unit below half, but if you're unbound you only score vp if you wipe out a unit, then I think we could have a balance between the two.

Phazael
16-05-2014, 16:19
Allies has turned 40k into a giant crapfest. GW literally killed the golden goose with this edition, with even vanilla space marines selling below par. A major part of the balance of fantasy is how the armies are structured and what they are limited to. Take that away (along with all moral restraint) and you get what 40k currently is; an exercise in combat calculus and army building rules manipulation, with zero regard for making a force that even vaguely resembles an army. That's not to say some of that does not already occur in fantasy, but it would open the floodgates.

Gustav Kohn
16-05-2014, 18:05
Allies has turned 40k into a giant crapfest. GW literally killed the golden goose with this edition, with even vanilla space marines selling below par. A major part of the balance of fantasy is how the armies are structured and what they are limited to. Take that away (along with all moral restraint) and you get what 40k currently is; an exercise in combat calculus and army building rules manipulation, with zero regard for making a force that even vaguely resembles an army. That's not to say some of that does not already occur in fantasy, but it would open the floodgates.

This is my sentiment EXACTLY!!!!!!

Fear Ghoul
16-05-2014, 18:08
Allies has turned 40k into a giant crapfest. GW literally killed the golden goose with this edition, with even vanilla space marines selling below par. A major part of the balance of fantasy is how the armies are structured and what they are limited to. Take that away (along with all moral restraint) and you get what 40k currently is; an exercise in combat calculus and army building rules manipulation, with zero regard for making a force that even vaguely resembles an army. That's not to say some of that does not already occur in fantasy, but it would open the floodgates.

The problem with Allies in 40k has more to do with poor implementation rather than being inherently flawed.

Alltaken
16-05-2014, 18:17
Honestly though, who would buy such an army anyways. All this talk of extreme death stars may seem to imply that half the wargamer community plays that way, but it's probably just a couple of hardcore tournament players anyways.

There are a huge amount of people that play mostly competitive just by reading here. I read a lot of you state that you play comp lists to practice a lot, so I would believe people would go for skullcrusher stars and 3 deamon princes

From my servoskull

Daniel36
16-05-2014, 21:56
The rules were always just a "this is what happens in the fluff so that's why these dudes have this rule" to me.
Well, that's not true though... Because if that was true, we wouldn't need unbound lists...

Example:
Empire has several provinces each with their own "styles" - doesn't exist anymore.
Knightly Orders are as vanilla as can be, and you can use them whichever way you like. You can add your Empire General in them, he doesn't have to be an Inner Circle Knight. Nobody uses the Knightly Order general.
Warrior Priests are very often depicted to be walking amongst fanatical Flaggelants. You can't add him in the one place where I would personally expect him to be, in a unit of Flaggelants.
At the same time, nothing prohibits you from placing your Witch Hunter in the same unit as a wizard, even though at best they have an extreme dislike towards one another.
Not every special character is alive in the current timeline, and you can just mix and match them whichever way you like.
Magic items are almost exclusively one of a kind pieces of items that apparently are given to every general that feels like heading into the field with 50 men.


Instead you could end up with the Warhammer Online treatment where Skaven and Dwarf fight together. It's just ... wrong..
Well... that's the whole thing, I guess. I like Phazael's comment on "moral restraint". If people would actually play Warhammer, instead of some form of build your own chess set type of board game with no sense or appreciation of the background, we wouldn't really have this discussion. It's actually the reason I do not play MMORPG's. I bloody HATE running into people with no imagination or appreciation of the fact you are... role playing... and run around as Sephiroth666 screaming N00b at everyone trying to casually enjoy the story.

So I don't really need GW to tell me I can add units that are interesting from a background perspective, and fortunately they're not really trying that as much as we may think, because they constantly did just what I do in their battle reports in the past WD's, which is having casual fun with the game AND the background of said game.

NagashLover
16-05-2014, 22:57
I voted it being a bad idea. The system, works rather well right now. Not perfect but well enough. People want structure because it helps give a foundation for the game. Both in competitive and casual play. You can play unbound right now. Yes at this very moment. All you have to do is talk to your opponent. I know human conversation?! What craziness is this?

Don't know them or not friends with them? So what. Why not talk to them about it before hand. If they say no then find someone else. Oh wait, you say nobody else is playing? Ok then why not talk with them about doing a second game sometime where you can play it "unbound"?

Really I don't understand why people are against Fantasy, or even 40K, having some sort of structure while keeping something like this as "ask first". It does not take long to talk to people and this way everyone wins. Yes all sides win.

If they make it as standard as what we have now then it creates issues for the competitive environment as well as those who like to play with restrictions which helps to balance out all players by having them work within the confines of a set of rules.

That's my thought on it. I honestly play unbound now with little to no trouble even for pickup games. I also go to play with multiple lists to if I get told "no thanks" or "not today" I have something to get a game in.

Doommasters
16-05-2014, 23:14
If this was to be implemented how could you make it work without destroying the game?

venus_redscar
17-05-2014, 00:01
Wouldn't this rule just lead to people making their own Percentage rules? If you Unbound the army, couldn't a group or tourney rewrite it themselves? GW wants Unbound, so players make their own limits.

It's not a bad idea to mess with it as a home brew...

Panzer MkIV
17-05-2014, 01:08
I've already played 2,5 years in an almost Unbound environment called Warhammer 5th edition.

It virtually killed Warhammer in my FLGS for several years.

I vividly remember getting crushed by a Daemon army consisting of 2 Daemon Princes of Tzeentch and pure Flamer of Tzeentch as troops.

My warhammer career may have started during the 5th edition Herohammer days but most of it are bad memories: 6th edition introduced the concept of Core, Special and Rare entries, abolished allies and the game was a lot better of.

Unbound in Fantasy?

Never again!

forseer of fates
17-05-2014, 01:43
Right armies of steam tanks and frost phoenix's...cos that's how it would go down. Stupid gw.

Greyshadow
17-05-2014, 01:56
I'd much rather have a well-written Allies system than any of this Unbound rubbish.

Spot On. I was looking over the results for Dark Shadows from an old White Dwarf Magazine yesterday and noticed that there were nearly 4,000+ games including Vampire Counts but only around 650 involving Tomb Kings. With the current rules, only the few Tomb Kings players are potential customers for the beautiful Sepulchral Stalkers models. Now the idea that of having an army selection system that accommodates a Vampire Counts player who wishes to add a unit of Sepulchral Stalkers that were granted to him through an alliance with a malevolent Barrow King - that would be great for the game. It would also be fantastic for Tomb King players as it makes making Tomb King models financially viable for Games Workshop.

The idea of someone presenting an army with Tyrion and Teclis fighting alongside Scylla and his daemonic army of Khorne for a pick up game - not so good. About as far as I'd like to see unbound go would be limited to destruction-neautral army and order-neutral army alliances.

At least in 40K they have kept the army books and force organisation charts so that tournament organisers can disallow unbound armies for their events.

Doommasters
17-05-2014, 06:29
Spot On. I was looking over the results for Dark Shadows from an old White Dwarf Magazine yesterday and noticed that there were nearly 4,000+ games including Vampire Counts but only around 650 involving Tomb Kings. With the current rules, only the few Tomb Kings players are potential customers for the beautiful Sepulchral Stalkers models. Now the idea that of having an army selection system that accommodates a Vampire Counts player who wishes to add a unit of Sepulchral Stalkers that were granted to him through an alliance with a malevolent Barrow King - that would be great for the game. It would also be fantastic for Tomb King players as it makes making Tomb King models financially viable for Games Workshop.

The idea of someone presenting an army with Tyrion and Teclis fighting alongside Scylla and his daemonic army of Khorne for a pick up game - not so good. About as far as I'd like to see unbound go would be limited to destruction-neautral army and order-neutral army alliances.

At least in 40K they have kept the army books and force organisation charts so that tournament organisers can disallow unbound armies for their events.

Warriors, Demons and Beastmen

Vampires and Tomb Kings

Beyond that it starts to get a little complicated

Darnok
17-05-2014, 06:59
It would be a horrible idea, even more so as with 40K.

You can do things like "unbound armies" with houserules, or whacky scenarios, and there is nothing wrong with that. There are also things like "Monstrous Arcanum", "Tamurkhan" and "Storm of Magic" loosening restrictions for certain things - all of them can make for great games... once in a while.

Neither of those options is fit for the "regular game" though, in my opinion. As a gamer, I expect a mostly balanced set of rules and factions for everydays gaming. If showing up for a random game with an (almost) random stranger with preselected forces, I expect a standardised force and a (more or less) equal chance to win based on player skills. And in my opinion both WHF and 40K provide that just fine, taking the respective BRB and armybooks/codices - leaving out expansions and allies.

"Unbound" as an element of the standard rules is just a silly concept. To all the people saying "just don't play it" I only have this response: it should not be a part of the regular rulebook in the first place.

That said: without a doubt GW will introduce it to 9th edition. Whenever that will be.

TL/DR: horrible idea, GW will do it!

Ultimate Life Form
17-05-2014, 07:28
That said: without a doubt GW will introduce it to 9th edition. Whenever that will be.

TL/DR: horrible idea, GW will do it!

Gotcha Mr. tight-lipped rumorperson! :D

Time to prepare my Dino stampede... :shifty: