PDA

View Full Version : Why are people so worried about Unbound?



PrivateLucky
20-05-2014, 18:17
I know we should really wait until we see the rules, but even if you take the current rumors as fact, Unbound does not seem to be something to really worry about. I keep seeing how everyone is worried about 8 Riptides and 11 Heldrakes, but why could you simply not play against that person? For ever 1 of the people that spams Riptides and Heldrakes, there's going to be 20 people (like me) running an Astra Militarium tank company, a Pedro Kantor Sternguard list, or something of the sort. A traditional force org army will have distinct advantages over an Unbound army, such as troops cannot be contested except by other troops, which is huge.

I would be disappointed if people felt like banning something like Unbound in their groups or in tournaments. I feel like this is the same thing that happened when Allies were first introduced, or double force org over 2000pts. Sure, there will always be people that will try to play with 8 Riptides in a pick up game. Simply don't play them. And for tournaments, have either a comp score or allow the TO's to filter out which lists are acceptable or not.

Simply put, I am excited for the 24th and I don't see Unbound being as big of an issue as people think it will be.

Fox Of 9
20-05-2014, 18:20
Cause we like to be prepared for the worse.. Then say told you so when It happens*



*stolen from some other thread from like 2 years ago.



IMO it should be fine... I say should.. because GW always has the talent or luck to ruin things that should be near impossible to mess up.


David.

Sir Didymus
20-05-2014, 18:23
'cuz 40K players are really bad at taking responsibility for their own enjoyment :)

duffybear1988
20-05-2014, 18:25
It's a knee jerk reaction. Give it a couple of weeks and watch as everyone goes back to moaning about battle forged lists which are still as broken as last edition. GW dropped the ball with allies AGAIN!

So much for listening to player complaints...

Ssilmath
20-05-2014, 18:27
It's a knee jerk reaction. Give it a couple of weeks and watch as everyone goes back to moaning about battle forged lists which are still as broken as last edition. GW dropped the ball with allies AGAIN!

So much for listening to player complaints...

Yes, because by getting rid of the worst/most abusable allies combinations, they've dropped the ball.

Fox Of 9
20-05-2014, 18:29
It's a knee jerk reaction. Give it a couple of weeks and watch as everyone goes back to moaning about battle forged lists which are still as broken as last edition. GW dropped the ball with allies AGAIN!

So much for listening to player complaints...

The only problem is we have not much of a idea of what goes through head offices mind.. So saying this is a bad decision might not be so wrong form there.
I doubt they're all too stupid to think at least once what we think..

David.

Formerly Wu
20-05-2014, 18:30
Because fear of the unknown is one of the defining characteristics of the human condition.


'cuz 40K players are really bad at taking responsibility for their own enjoyment
And also this.

Kung Fu Hamster
20-05-2014, 19:21
Unbound OS the new TauDar. Which is the new Riptide. Which is the new Screamerstar. Which is the new Baledrake. Which is the new 6th edition.

Seeing a pattern?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

HelloKitty
20-05-2014, 19:31
It thinks it is because if it walks into the store with its army case and locks eyes with it, that it is bound by the laws of 40k honour to play it a game with its army, and if unbound is in the rulebook then that is legal and it must acquiesce.

Kung Fu Hamster
20-05-2014, 19:34
It thinks it is because if it walks into the store with its army case and locks eyes with it, that it is bound by the laws of 40k honour to play it a game with its army, and if unbound is in the rulebook then that is legal and it must acquiesce.

Don't forget about the traditional destruction of the loser's army, followed by ritual suicide.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

don_mondo
20-05-2014, 19:37
Not worried about it, just have no desire to play using it. Don't (didn't?) care for Apoc, see no reason to use what are basically Apoc rules in 'regular' 40K.

Asura Varuna
20-05-2014, 19:40
I was reading through rumours on the internet earlier today and came across this


Before we hyperventilate (and we haven't even discussed Unbound Armies yet!), I want to point to a very specific line in the new rule book: "Before any game, players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use." The bold letters are their own! The game is really emphasizing that players need to agree to what kinds of games they want to play together

Agreeing what you play before a game has always seemed like a sensible staple of any pick-up or club game, but now, for anyone who's mad for rules lawyering, it's actually written in black and white in the rulebook. At the end of the day, if someone is playing a list you don't like, don't play against them. I think people are overlooking the fact that Unbound rules can allow players to really go for very fluffy and interesting lists. Not everyone is going to be going for a WAAC approach.

HelloKitty
20-05-2014, 19:41
Don't forget about the traditional destruction of the loser's army, followed by ritual suicide.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It thought this was implied, but it is correct. It bought a new hammer from B&Q for this very purpose and it keeps a sam-oo-rye sword for losses.

HelloKitty
20-05-2014, 19:42
I was reading through rumours on the internet earlier today and came across this



Agreeing what you play before a game has always seemed like a sensible staple of any pick-up or club game, but now, for anyone who's mad for rules lawyering, it's actually written in black and white in the rulebook. At the end of the day, if someone is playing a list you don't like, don't play against them. I think people are overlooking the fact that Unbound rules can allow players to really go for very fluffy and interesting lists. Not everyone is going to be going for a WAAC approach.

Did it miss the part where if it locks eyes with it that an unspoken challenge has occurred and it must fight it with whatever rules are legal?

Drakkisath
20-05-2014, 19:44
Because I like my 40k to be 40k and Apocalypse to be Apocalypse. Unbound dumbs the game down and breaks the narrative as much as adds to it. If an army of Hellhammers, Riptides and Heldrakes is against the spirit of the game and such a terrible thing to do, then why legitimize it? Instead of creating Unbound, GW and FW should focus on publishing alternative, army-specific FOCs so that way players can create fluff armies that don't follow 1Hq + 2 Troop with completely removing one of the fundamental balancing mechanics of the game.

Asura Varuna
20-05-2014, 19:44
Did it miss the part where if it locks eyes with it that an unspoken challenge has occurred and it must fight it with whatever rules are legal?

This is WARHAMMER not POKEMON!

hobojebus
20-05-2014, 19:46
I was reading through rumours on the internet earlier today and came across this



Agreeing what you play before a game has always seemed like a sensible staple of any pick-up or club game, but now, for anyone who's mad for rules lawyering, it's actually written in black and white in the rulebook. At the end of the day, if someone is playing a list you don't like, don't play against them. I think people are overlooking the fact that Unbound rules can allow players to really go for very fluffy and interesting lists. Not everyone is going to be going for a WAAC approach.

Giving you the choice to not play at all isn't a solution to a problem that never had to exist in the first place.

They want more people to play not less, they are already bleeding customers to numerous other game systems and this isnt going to help bandage the gaping wound.

HelloKitty
20-05-2014, 19:46
This is WARHAMMER not POKEMON!

It plays on an island and has many adventures but its warhammer is played exactly like pokemon.

Killgore
20-05-2014, 19:50
Because I like my 40k to be 40k and Apocalypse to be Apocalypse. Unbound dumbs the game down and breaks the narrative as much as adds to it. If an army of Hellhammers, Riptides and Heldrakes is against the spirit of the game and such a terrible thing to do, then why legitimize it? Instead of creating Unbound, GW and FW should focus on publishing alternative, army-specific FOCs so that way players can create fluff armies that don't follow 1Hq + 2 Troop with completely removing one of the fundamental balancing mechanics of the game.


How is the 1 HQ, 2 Troops a balancing factor?

Have a look at some of these net armies, cheap HQ and two minimum sized troops (one mans the quad gun at the back).


These are forced restrictions at best and have little influence in overall army composition.


The real test will be how Unbound armies cope with the new scenarios, especially with random objectives and against a force using the FOC with their objective secured rule.

Drakkisath
20-05-2014, 19:55
How is the 1 HQ, 2 Troops a balancing factor?

Have a look at some of these net armies, cheap HQ and two minimum sized troops (one mans the quad gun at the back).


These are forced restrictions at best and have little influence in overall army composition.


The real test will be how Unbound armies cope with the new scenarios, especially with random objectives and against a force using the FOC with their objective secured rule.

The balancing factor is the limit on number of other units you can take and the fact that those units have to be restricted to the same army unless you use Allies, which has its own restrictions. Some of those restrictions aren't severe enough to balance out certain combinations, and that sucks. But if net lists now are unbalanced, just wait until unbound netlists hit.

Random Objectives only work in Maelstrom of War missions, which you might not even play depending on a die roll. I predict it will work the same as it does now - cheap troops that can hold objectives will be good, expensive troops will still be too expensive because they will die just as easily in shooting. Only now there will be even more shooting!

Asura Varuna
20-05-2014, 19:56
Giving you the choice to not play at all isn't a solution to a problem that never had to exist in the first place.

They want more people to play not less, they are already bleeding customers to numerous other game systems and this isnt going to help bandage the gaping wound.

If people want to have an army of 8 Riptides, they can enjoy playing with that against armies of 10 Heldrakes. I don't really see the appeal behind such an army anyway - it's expensive, monotonous to build and paint, difficult to transport, boring to play and probably not appreciated by whatever opponents you find to play against. It will win games, but if winning at toy soldiers is really what you want, why not just stomp all over the noobies down at the GW stores? I wonder how much satisfaction people actually get from winning with completely unbalanced lists against opponents who aren't trying to compete at the same level.

As for losing custom, I heard that was more due to leaky rules and price increases combined with vets losing interest and too few new players starting. Broken lists don't matter to new players (unless they spend money to buy something that will guarantee them a win, which is sales in GW's eyes), current players will grumble, threaten to quit and then realise that this is just yet another issue in a long history of grievances they have against GW and get on with playing the game anyway.

Sephillion
20-05-2014, 19:56
I think it’s a stupid approach. It can create many completely out of whack lists, it further unbalances the game, it removes a part of structure from the game which is required for simple, PUG-friendly play, and it has the potential to literally butcher the fluff. I don’t see the point in it, I don’t recall seeing people asking for it (in fact, the opposite), I think they should have improved the basic rules further rather than come up with this.


I was reading through rumours on the internet earlier today and came across this



Agreeing what you play before a game has always seemed like a sensible staple of any pick-up or club game, but now, for anyone who's mad for rules lawyering, it's actually written in black and white in the rulebook. At the end of the day, if someone is playing a list you don't like, don't play against them. I think people are overlooking the fact that Unbound rules can allow players to really go for very fluffy and interesting lists. Not everyone is going to be going for a WAAC approach.

Why can’t the system be tight enough that I don’t have to check my opponent’s list before agreeing to a game? I don’t have to worry about it if I want to play other games… The fact that they stress this, in bold, is an indication that they know fully just how unbalanced an Unbound list can be.

If they had taken more time to work on the edition, maybe they could have come up with an actual rules system to allow all those fluffy lists that those silly rules prevented, instead they chose to go the way of “there are no rules”. This feels either rushed or incompetent.

In fact, I’m sure I could come up with an expansion ala Apocalypse (i.e., alternate way of playing the game, rather than alternate way of building your army list) that would allow groups of people who want a pseudo-RPG or a storytelling device out of 40K instead of a rules set, that would allow them to indulge, while keeping the basic ruleset tight and balanced.

duffybear1988
20-05-2014, 22:14
Yes, because by getting rid of the worst/most abusable allies combinations, they've dropped the ball.

Those combinations are all still possible. Even come the apocalypse allies can now work together to some extent.

Any more silly statements you would like to make?

Ssilmath
20-05-2014, 22:16
Those combinations are all still possible. Even come the apocalypse allies can now work together to some extent. Any more silly statements you would like to make?

Doesn't Come the Apocalypse require you stay away from your so called allies? And all the stuff that made those combinations stupid are no longer allowed? So what if Tau can ally with Space Marines if the Buffmander can't provide buffs anymore? What good is having a Farseer near a Riptide if the Tide can't be buffed anymore?

duffybear1988
20-05-2014, 22:49
Doesn't Come the Apocalypse require you stay away from your so called allies? And all the stuff that made those combinations stupid are no longer allowed? So what if Tau can ally with Space Marines if the Buffmander can't provide buffs anymore? What good is having a Farseer near a Riptide if the Tide can't be buffed anymore?

Come the apoc is the only alliance level that has major drawbacks, and even then I can think of combos that would still potentially work. The rest will function similarly to how they do now.

Buff comander works just as well supporting the Tau side of the alliance. Likewise the farseer can just hand out boosts to the Eldar force. Riptides will still be running strong, along with the wave serpents and hordes of cheap as chips jetbikes.

I've played all the broken combos apart from beaststar, and looking at the rules we know now, most of the stuff they could pull off before, they will still be able to do. Those parts that don't function quite as well as they used to will just be swapped out for something else to bring the list back up to OPness.

Remove allies from battle forged and the armies go back to being unable to cover their weaknesses, giving people a chance to at least put up a fight.

ehlijen
21-05-2014, 01:48
I have no doubt that many gaming groups will end up on some stable configuration that will keep the game fun for, with or without unbound.

But I feel that will be despite unbound, not because of it. In the absence of any composition rules, player restraint is needed to keep 40k working. Abuse will be limited, though existent, to begin with and then fade as gaming groups make houserules to deal with such players.

40k will survive, mostly.

But GW has shown that when faced with a convoluted mess of a mostly meaningless FO chart rules system, they'd rather throw their hands up in surrender than even try to fix it (but of course still charge AUD$140 for it).

No, thanks. If they want me to make my own rules, I will, but I'll do it without wasting money on their rulebook first. And as someone who likes 40k models (for the most part), that's bad news all around.

Coldblood666
21-05-2014, 02:00
Because the concept of taking any miniature you want from your collection and creating a mish mash of several armies to play is ridiculous and is obviously a ploy by GW to sell big kits! What a joke. Think I'm going to waste my time playing some kid with an army of riptides landraiders and forgefiends and wraithknights? No way. Allies made the game bad enough but this is horrible and an obvious money making scheme. I feel sorry for the suckers that buy into it. But of course people are allowed to waste their money as they see fit. Atleast do everyone a favor and paint it all good so it doesn't look like some kid spilled his toy box on the table.

sturguard
21-05-2014, 02:14
Yes, because by getting rid of the worst/most abusable allies combinations, they've dropped the ball.

Actually they caught the ball momentarily by getting rid of the worst/most abusable allies combinations, only to drop it a second later by creating unbound lists. Why bother taking the required HQ and 2 troops, when you can just take all the abusable models you want in combination?

Icarus81
21-05-2014, 02:23
Allies made the game bad enough but this is horrible and an obvious money making scheme. I feel sorry for the suckers that buy into it. But of course people are allowed to waste their money as they see fit. Atleast do everyone a favor and paint it all good so it doesn't look like some kid spilled his toy box on the table.

Precisely no one is forced to run these armies. It benefits those with a diverse collection or people who like to experiment. Are you also going to complain that it takes so much money to start the hobby when this alleviates some of that issue?

This rule is for the kids who want to take their big robot alongside all those dark angels they got from the starter.

Col. Dash
21-05-2014, 02:34
I am not worried about it, I wont be playing them. There was a clause in there which I havent seen before on one of the screen shots which simply said players need to decide what kind of game they are playing, Unbound or Battle Forged. This means to me, you dont just show up to a pick up game and expect to play your unbound army. I wont, its a silly idea, gw came up with to sell OP giant kits. I think TOs will likely not be allowing unbound lists as well.

Voss
21-05-2014, 03:37
This is WARHAMMER not POKEMON!

GW uses MARKETING on ConsumerBase.
...
It's not very effective.

Shibboleth
21-05-2014, 10:25
My issue is the lore rape thats happening when you let loyal marines team up with blood thirsters...Well then they're not loyal are they. They're Chaos - so now Chaos Marines can get back the Thunderhammers and Storm Bolters they lost when they gave up loyalty...

Coldblood666
21-05-2014, 10:55
Precisely no one is forced to run these armies. It benefits those with a diverse collection or people who like to experiment. Are you also going to complain that it takes so much money to start the hobby when this alleviates some of that issue?

This rule is for the kids who want to take their big robot alongside all those dark angels they got from the starter.

I don't care how much money people spend, my collecting days are over with 8 Fantasy armies and 4 40k armies. I just think it's incredibly bad taste to see a huge mix of several armies all on one side. It's ugly and it's boring.

Col. Dash
21-05-2014, 11:59
They didnt lose them when they gave up loyalty, they lost them 3rd edition. You could have them in 2nd along with the reason why.

hobojebus
21-05-2014, 12:33
Well then they're not loyal are they. They're Chaos - so now Chaos Marines can get back the Thunderhammers and Storm Bolters they lost when they gave up loyalty...

Except most chaos players want to play legion forces not renegades, and we can't because although forge world gives us rules for that GW can't be bothered with chaos and we remain a bad joke.

Mandragola
21-05-2014, 12:43
The trouble with unbound is that the idea behind it is nonsense. GW talks about letting people use all the models in their collection and that would be a reasonable ideal, if there were actually people out there with 8 riptides out there, frustrated at only being allowed to use 3-5 of them.

Those people don't exist*. They may begin to exist now, if idiots set out to ruin the game for their friends and themselves, now that GW has given them the rope to hang themselves with.

*There's probably some millionaire apocalypse nutter with 8 riptides somewhere.

duffybear1988
21-05-2014, 13:31
The trouble with unbound is that the idea behind it is nonsense. GW talks about letting people use all the models in their collection and that would be a reasonable ideal, if there were actually people out there with 8 riptides out there, frustrated at only being allowed to use 3-5 of them.

Those people don't exist*. They may begin to exist now, if idiots set out to ruin the game for their friends and themselves, now that GW has given them the rope to hang themselves with.

*There's probably some millionaire apocalypse nutter with 8 riptides somewhere.

What about Apocalypse? I had a mate who used to own 15 wraithlords that he used purely for Apoc, so I could easily see somebody owning 10 riptides now.

Gungo
21-05-2014, 13:45
My issue is the lore rape thats happening when you let loyal marines team up with blood thirsters and eldar farseer's just cause GW wants to sell more models to keep itself afloat just a little bit longer.
How is this seriously lore rape. Think about this logically instead of raging.
everyone but grey nights can take Malefic powers.
however everyone but chaos is nearly garaunteed to get perils if they attempt to summon a greater demon.
no idea how bad the chart is but it's already going to be worse then lose a wound.
with the allies chart we see even if they are successful everyone but csm chaos orks and neurons can not be within 12in of the greater demon because if they are it will attack the closest model on a failed leadership. Even orks and necrons are desperate allies too.
its completely fluffy for psychers to know how to summon demons it happens all the time in fluff however it's dangerous unpredictable and not the best choice for most psykers. However I feel chaos demons are going to be a much stronger army and Malefic will be pointless for most armies.

Unbound is silly dumb however it's about as required to play as mysterious objectives. It's completely optional.

jeffersonian000
21-05-2014, 13:46
This is WARHAMMER not POKEMON!

Actually, 7th is Pokemon. Haven't you seem the new Demonology psychic powers tree?

SJ


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Asura Varuna
21-05-2014, 14:03
GW uses MARKETING on ConsumerBase.
...
It's not very effective.

The Pokemon reference was actually in response to the suggestion that players lock eyes and therefore have to 'battle' - a common theme from Pokemon games to explain the compulsory battling system. Just thought I'd point that out.

Geep
21-05-2014, 14:14
This has been said countless times before, but I guess it needs re-stating:

Many of us go out to places when we game. We can only take what models we can easily transport with us, so usually 1 army with little or no ability to modify our list against our opponents. If I turn up with a fun, balanced, FOC following army and I find a bunch of opponents with horrible, broken, Unbound lists- What do I do?

Not play? Why did I come out to this place? I won't be doing that again.
Play a horribly one-sided game? It won't be fun for me, and you'd hope it wouldn't be fun for the opponent, but we all know WAAC jerks, and not being fun for either of us doesn't exactly make the situation better.
Play the one-sided game and hope for a better match-up next game? Most people have limited time. Fitting in even 1 game can be a challenge.
Play the one sided game then try to talk the opponent into a better match next game? Why should my opponent change to suit what I want? There is no reason they should*
Play the one-sided game then turn up with own broken list next time? What if I don't want to? Why should I change from the list style fun to me?*

*This leads to fragmentation of the community. In effect people are no longer playing the same game. That's a terrible way for the game to go- and it's pretty much forced by the core rules!

There's also the fact that what is considered 'broken' vs 'fluffy' is far from universal.
To quote the OP:

there's going to be 20 people (like me) running an Astra Militarium tank company An all tank opponent, as an unexpected match-up, is horrible. Some armies will have no problems, of course, but others- Orks and Tyranids spring to mind- will be stuffed. By army selection alone you have rendered all anti-personnel weapons useless. Knight armies already do this, of course, but I think they're an awful concept as well. Even within the FOC guard can take an all-mounted force- it's tough, but at least once I've popped a few Chimeras my AP weapons have a target.

The FOC does have issues of its own- I don't think anyone will argue that, especially with the addition of Alies/Lords of War/Fortifications, but never before (other than with Knights) has it been possible to completely eliminate the threat of what is likely a good proportion of the opponent's weapon through army selection alone.

HelloKitty
21-05-2014, 14:15
The Pokemon reference was actually in response to the suggestion that players lock eyes and therefore have to 'battle' - a common theme from Pokemon games to explain the compulsory battling system. Just thought I'd point that out.

It applauds it. Yes the pokemon reference is from the community at large feeling that once it looks at it in the eyes that it is compelled to do battle and must do battle no matter the cost.

Its group is actually going to film it doing this parody in the very near future at its GW store.

It sees the majority of complaints coming from those creatures that play random games and want a system that everybody must play with no expansions, add-ons etc... and the fights come from those creatures that want to play in the sandbox and want the expansions, add-ons, etc.

hobojebus
21-05-2014, 14:27
How is this seriously lore rape. Think about this logically instead of raging.
everyone but grey nights can take Malefic powers.
however everyone but chaos is nearly garaunteed to get perils if they attempt to summon a greater demon.
no idea how bad the chart is but it's already going to be worse then lose a wound.
with the allies chart we see even if they are successful everyone but csm chaos orks and neurons can not be within 12in of the greater demon because if they are it will attack the closest model on a failed leadership. Even orks and necrons are desperate allies too.
its completely fluffy for psychers to know how to summon demons it happens all the time in fluff however it's dangerous unpredictable and not the best choice for most psykers. However I feel chaos demons are going to be a much stronger army and Malefic will be pointless for most armies.

Unbound is silly dumb however it's about as required to play as mysterious objectives. It's completely optional.

Summoning a demon and controlling a demon are different, sure anyone could accidentally open a breach in the warp by taping too much power but they would not have control over what comes out.

To bind a demon takes significant effort days if not weeks of work and alot of sacrifice, you cant do that on the battlefield.

And eldar willingly summoning demonetes?

And thats just with the psychic powers, then we move over to bloodthirsters and loyal ultramarines/blood angels/space wolves working together, there is no scenario ever where loyal space marines would work with demons never ever would that happen, never ever should that happen but GW obviously isn't selling enough blood thirsters so GW said screw it and made unbound.

as a player of nearly 20 years its damned insulting.

underscore
21-05-2014, 15:34
with the allies chart we see even if they are successful everyone but csm chaos orks and neurons can not be within 12in of the greater demon because if they are it will attack the closest model on a failed leadership.

Is this confirmed or speculation?

Theocracity
21-05-2014, 15:44
Is this confirmed or speculation?

Speculation.

Konovalev
21-05-2014, 15:45
What about Apocalypse? I had a mate who used to own 15 wraithlords that he used purely for Apoc, so I could easily see somebody owning 10 riptides now.

I don't understand the "oh no a riptide army!" mentality, as if merely facing it will cause your models to melt and force your withdrawal from the hobby. If it's such a polarizing army composition, simply refuse to play against it. I know the internet loves it's slippery slopes and hyperbole, but just because you refuse to play against a particular army composition, doesn't mean that you are now forced to refuse everyone who is running more than 1 of a given unit.

If people are honestly fearful that their gaming group will suddenly switch to riptide armies, heldrake armies, etc, that's a problem with your group not the game. Not that I'd believe for a moment that the majority of gamers are going to start fielding a half dozen riptides simply because they can.

underscore
21-05-2014, 15:49
Speculation.
Bah! Well, fingers crossed.

duffybear1988
21-05-2014, 16:00
I don't understand the "oh no a riptide army!" mentality, as if merely facing it will cause your models to melt and force your withdrawal from the hobby. If it's such a polarizing army composition, simply refuse to play against it. I know the internet loves it's slippery slopes and hyperbole, but just because you refuse to play against a particular army composition, doesn't mean that you are now forced to refuse everyone who is running more than 1 of a given unit.

If people are honestly fearful that their gaming group will suddenly switch to riptide armies, heldrake armies, etc, that's a problem with your group not the game. Not that I'd believe for a moment that the majority of gamers are going to start fielding a half dozen riptides simply because they can.

I tell my opponent that 3 riptides allied with Eldar are a little unfair on me because I only brought SoB and they don't stand a chance. Then my opponent says that he thinks exorcists are overpowered and that I cannot use them. Then you're on the slippery slope where people start refusing everything like nobody allowing inquisitors because an inquisitor with 3 servo skulls is a pretty cheap and useful tool to have.

As for being fearful of gaming groups suddenly switching, in many cases this already happened in 6th edition. I already regularly fight 3 riptide lists, 3 helldrake lists and all the other netlists that people take to tournaments or that the internet proclaim as the next big thing. It's not going to happen - it already has! Even if we completely ignore unbound there is still far too much wrong with battle forged.

Fear Ghoul
21-05-2014, 16:05
How is this seriously lore rape. Think about this logically instead of raging.
everyone but grey nights can take Malefic powers.
however everyone but chaos is nearly garaunteed to get perils if they attempt to summon a greater demon.

You shouldn't have the option to attempt to summon a Greater Daemon at all.


its completely fluffy for psychers to know how to summon demons it happens all the time in fluff however it's dangerous unpredictable and not the best choice for most psykers.

No, it doesn't happen all the time.

malisteen
21-05-2014, 16:07
Mostly because it feels indicative of GW's abandonment of their own game rules 'we don't want to bother making a game that is fun to play out of the box, so you just work it out yourself'. Which is, you know, whatever, but it certainly doesn't make it easier for me to find an enjoyable pick up game, the difficulty of which is why I haven't enjoyed 6e to begin with.

I'm not throwing a fit over it, mostly because I don't expect its use to be at all common. I'm more upset about changes that weren't made, honestly. But yeah, I certainly don't see it as a 'good' move.

Haravikk
21-05-2014, 17:30
My main gripe with Unbound is that it feels like a tool for campaigns and other unusual battles, rather than something that should be included alongside the vanilla rules, i.e - it seems more like a rule that should be in a separate "additional rules" section alongside suggestions for unusual scenarios and how to structure your campaign battles.
Either that, or Unbound should be used for certain categories of ally up to a certain number of units; for example allying with space marines who simply send one squad of veterans to clean up your mess. But nothing larger than say, three units, to represent an ally sending specialists and nothing else or something like that.

As a vanilla option for battles it should really be balanced in some way other than the lack of special rules; for example:
If more than a quarter of the Unbound army are vehicles or Monstrous Creatures, then these units will treat all terrain as dangerous in the first turn (to represent mining and other obstacles) and your opponent gets a free Orbital Strike.
If more than a quarter of the Unbound army are Flyers then your opponent gets a free Quad Gun.

Either that, or the new scenarios need to heavily punish over-specialising, for example by having an objective that functions like a flak screen against flyers, or something.


I dunno, clearly we need to see the whole rulebook to find out if there are other protections in there, because as it stands Unbound just sounds like an invitation to bring your cheesiest lists. Like with Malefic powers, are we certain that every army can get them, because that sounds completely bogus to me, has it been properly confirmed or is that just rumoured?

Ozendorph
21-05-2014, 17:43
Mostly because it feels indicative of GW's abandonment of their own game rules 'we don't want to bother making a game that is fun to play out of the box, so you just work it out yourself'. Which is, you know, whatever, but it certainly doesn't make it easier for me to find an enjoyable pick up game, the difficulty of which is why I haven't enjoyed 6e to begin with.

I'm not throwing a fit over it, mostly because I don't expect its use to be at all common. I'm more upset about changes that weren't made, honestly. But yeah, I certainly don't see it as a 'good' move.

Agreed. Unbound isn't going to ruin anything for me (I expect no impact at all, actually). Rather it's further confirmation that GW has thrown in the towel as a legit Game Company, and is now merely a poorly run toy manufacturer with no interest in their customers beyond the contents of their wallets. I realize that may sound a bit harsh or dramatic, but when you've been a customer, fan, and supporter for 25 years this becomes a bit personal ;)

Konovalev
21-05-2014, 19:04
I already regularly fight 3 riptide lists, 3 helldrake lists and all the other netlists that people take to tournaments or that the internet proclaim as the next big thing. It's not going to happen - it already has!

Ah, so what's the big deal then?

Also I like the effect that goes on here. 6 riptides breaks the game. Well 3 riptides break the game too. And not long ago I saw a post with a fair amount of momentum that stated something to the effect of "Riptide is the single most overpowered unit in the entire game", so for some people at least, even 1 riptide ruins the game for them. But that's not all there's also heldrakes, dreadknights, wraithknights, knight knights, paladins, nob bikers, mechanized guard, vendetta's, blood hounds, podding sternguard, storm shields, storm ravens, canoptek scarabs, demolisher cannons, anything that can fly, force halberds, and force staves among others. With so many apparent game ruining things, I cannot understand how no one can change, or adapt, or in any way cope with or mitigate these things.

Rather than saying why did things change? I look at these things and say what can I do to overcome these new challenges?

Okapi
21-05-2014, 19:13
The Riptide isn't ruining the game, but any unit that is good enough to be a nobrainer three-of is a problem, if only because it reduces the amount of variety in the games. It has to be allowed to point that out without a stream of slippery slope-counterpoints and suggestion of not playing that particular opponent. I would much rather GW do the balancing for me, rather than having to tell my opponent not to do such and such, even though the rules clearly allow him to do so.

PrivateLucky
21-05-2014, 19:21
This has been said countless times before, but I guess it needs re-stating:

Many of us go out to places when we game. We can only take what models we can easily transport with us, so usually 1 army with little or no ability to modify our list against our opponents. If I turn up with a fun, balanced, FOC following army and I find a bunch of opponents with horrible, broken, Unbound lists- What do I do?

Not play? Why did I come out to this place? I won't be doing that again.
Play a horribly one-sided game? It won't be fun for me, and you'd hope it wouldn't be fun for the opponent, but we all know WAAC jerks, and not being fun for either of us doesn't exactly make the situation better.
Play the one-sided game and hope for a better match-up next game? Most people have limited time. Fitting in even 1 game can be a challenge.
Play the one sided game then try to talk the opponent into a better match next game? Why should my opponent change to suit what I want? There is no reason they should*
Play the one-sided game then turn up with own broken list next time? What if I don't want to? Why should I change from the list style fun to me?*

*This leads to fragmentation of the community. In effect people are no longer playing the same game. That's a terrible way for the game to go- and it's pretty much forced by the core rules!

There's also the fact that what is considered 'broken' vs 'fluffy' is far from universal.
To quote the OP:
An all tank opponent, as an unexpected match-up, is horrible. Some armies will have no problems, of course, but others- Orks and Tyranids spring to mind- will be stuffed. By army selection alone you have rendered all anti-personnel weapons useless. Knight armies already do this, of course, but I think they're an awful concept as well. Even within the FOC guard can take an all-mounted force- it's tough, but at least once I've popped a few Chimeras my AP weapons have a target.

The FOC does have issues of its own- I don't think anyone will argue that, especially with the addition of Alies/Lords of War/Fortifications, but never before (other than with Knights) has it been possible to completely eliminate the threat of what is likely a good proportion of the opponent's weapon through army selection alone.

I think you are missing the point here. You can already turn up with horribly broken lists which follow the FOC. I can already take 3 heldrakes and 3 riptides and even double that at 2k+, as long as I pay the HQ/Troop tax which I can fill with min sized troop units and cheap HQs. Your argument faulty is that if you show up with your fun and balanced list but everyone else has broken WAAC lists then they are not people you should/want to be playing against anyways. Find people with similar goals when playing Warhammer 40K. You are not obligated to play against somebody. Create or find a group/store with similar values if you can only find WAAC players at your store.

Also, if I show up with an all tank army and your anti-infantry has nothing to shoot at, so what? I currently play an all jetbike eldar/dark eldar army with no tanks. Now you have no tanks to shoot your anti-tank at. Surely people cannot complain if I built a fluffy army to my theme.

Voss
21-05-2014, 19:52
The Pokemon reference was actually in response to the suggestion that players lock eyes and therefore have to 'battle' - a common theme from Pokemon games to explain the compulsory battling system. Just thought I'd point that out.

Yes, but I took your issue-avoiding comment and made something funny out of it.


I think you are missing the point here. You can already turn up with horribly broken lists which follow the FOC. I can already take 3 heldrakes and 3 riptides and even double that at 2k+, as long as I pay the HQ/Troop tax which I can fill with min sized troop units and cheap HQs. Your argument faulty is that if you show up with your fun and balanced list but everyone else has broken WAAC lists then they are not people you should/want to be playing against anyways. Find people with similar goals when playing Warhammer 40K. You are not obligated to play against somebody. Create or find a group/store with similar values if you can only find WAAC players at your store.

Yeah, Geep, how dare you not a ready made stock of clones who only play the way you want to? You can just magic up like-minded players to whatever location you happen to game. It can't be a problem for anyone ever, therefor everything is fine.

Those other people are just doing it wrong, and don't count anyway.


Seriously, building up a new group is a lot of work, and in some places isn't even possible. Dismissing the problems of incompatible groups as a trivial non-issue does everyone a disservice.

Gungo
21-05-2014, 20:10
Yes, but I took your issue-avoiding comment and made something funny out of it.



Yeah, Geep, how dare you not a ready made stock of clones who only play the way you want to? You can just magic up like-minded players to whatever location you happen to game. It can't be a problem for anyone ever, therefor everything is fine.

Those other people are just doing it wrong, and don't count anyway.


Seriously, building up a new group is a lot of work, and in some places isn't even possible. Dismissing the problems of incompatible groups as a trivial non-issue does everyone a disservice.
I played at a dozen + shops in thenortheast. I have never just walked into a place and just start playing randomly. It takes all of 5 minutes to go over point limits, army selection, and specific controversial units. This hasn't ever happened in 5 years payin this game. I have seen players ask me of they could use a forgeworld unit or list, a lord of war, an imperial bastion or other fortification, a 3 knight player, even a third addition player using a snakebite war boar ork army. I have politely refused games and payed someone else or just told someone I don't really want to play with lord of wars right now why don't we just play a lower point total instead and remove The shadow storm. There has never been a single time I have been forced to play someone and not have the ability to at least go over what we are playing. An unbound list is quite simply someone throwing random models on the table and it's the same as the guy with an incomplete army who just wants to play a quick game and I have refused or accepted those offers depending if I wanted to wastey time or not. Unbound is no different and completely optional.

GoodCarl
21-05-2014, 23:01
Because I like my 40k to be 40k and Apocalypse to be Apocalypse. Unbound dumbs the game down and breaks the narrative as much as adds to it. If an army of Hellhammers, Riptides and Heldrakes is against the spirit of the game and such a terrible thing to do, then why legitimize it? Instead of creating Unbound, GW and FW should focus on publishing alternative, army-specific FOCs so that way players can create fluff armies that don't follow 1Hq + 2 Troop with completely removing one of the fundamental balancing mechanics of the game.

Balance is in the eye of the beholder. Being able to play a harlequin troupe or having a genestealer cult run alongside your tyranids is definitely adding to the narrative

ehlijen
22-05-2014, 01:47
I think you are missing the point here. You can already turn up with horribly broken lists which follow the FOC. I can already take 3 heldrakes and 3 riptides and even double that at 2k+, as long as I pay the HQ/Troop tax which I can fill with min sized troop units and cheap HQs.

The fact that the problem already exists should have meant GW would try to fix it in the next edition. They did the opposite: They gave up.


Your argument faulty is that if you show up with your fun and balanced list but everyone else has broken WAAC lists then they are not people you should/want to be playing against anyways. Find people with similar goals when playing Warhammer 40K. You are not obligated to play against somebody. Create or find a group/store with similar values if you can only find WAAC players at your store.

That is an unjustified black and white mentality. Just because someone plays WAAC lists doesn't mean they're bad people. It doesn't even mean they do it all the time.
No, you're not obliged to play anyone, but given a limited opponent pool (and in a niche hobby such as wargaming that will be an issue for many) you only get to turn down so many people before you've turned them down all. And every turned down game is one less game to get people invested in GW products in. Games not happening is bad for everyone.



Also, if I show up with an all tank army and your anti-infantry has nothing to shoot at, so what? I currently play an all jetbike eldar/dark eldar army with no tanks. Now you have no tanks to shoot your anti-tank at. Surely people cannot complain if I built a fluffy army to my theme.

The difference is that AT guns can affect infantry but AP guns cannot affect many tanks. An ineffective unit is still far more useful than a unit that cannot achieve anything.

And I don't care if your army is fluffy or unfluffy. If the game isn't fun because of the lists involved, I have a right to complain that GW dropped the ball in composition rules. They write the rules AND the fluff. If they can't figure out how to ensure that armies fit their own background and still provide fun games using their own rules, then they failed. Simple as that.

Voss
22-05-2014, 02:08
I played at a dozen + shops in thenortheast. I have never just walked into a place and just start playing randomly. It takes all of 5 minutes to go over point limits, army selection, and specific controversial units. This hasn't ever happened in 5 years payin this game. I have seen players ask me of they could use a forgeworld unit or list, a lord of war, an imperial bastion or other fortification, a 3 knight player, even a third addition player using a snakebite war boar ork army. I have politely refused games and payed someone else or just told someone I don't really want to play with lord of wars right now why don't we just play a lower point total instead and remove The shadow storm. There has never been a single time I have been forced to play someone and not have the ability to at least go over what we are playing. An unbound list is quite simply someone throwing random models on the table and it's the same as the guy with an incomplete army who just wants to play a quick game and I have refused or accepted those offers depending if I wanted to wastey time or not. Unbound is no different and completely optional.
Have a cookie.

itcamefromthedeep
22-05-2014, 02:44
In the latest White Dwarf, there's a Phil Kelly army with over 100 Gaunts and a few Zoeys and a Tervigon at the back for synapse. Put that army up against a tank company and they've lost. It won't even be an enjoyable game.

Unbound looks to proliferate the incidence of really lame games. I don't like that.

---

Incidentally, Battleforged armies now no longer require a standard FOC, and you're allowed to take multiple standard FOCs if you like. So, if you bring two HQs and four Troops units, you can bring six Elites units. This is in addition to formations.

Unbound really isn't unbinding much, and Battleforged is certainly no guarantee of a game that looked like 5e for example. That's bad, I think.

PrivateLucky
22-05-2014, 04:14
In the latest White Dwarf, there's a Phil Kelly army with over 100 Gaunts and a few Zoeys and a Tervigon at the back for synapse. Put that army up against a tank company and they've lost. It won't even be an enjoyable game.

Unbound looks to proliferate the incidence of really lame games. I don't like that.

---

Incidentally, Battleforged armies now no longer require a standard FOC, and you're allowed to take multiple standard FOCs if you like. So, if you bring two HQs and four Troops units, you can bring six Elites units. This is in addition to formations.

Unbound really isn't unbinding much, and Battleforged is certainly no guarantee of a game that looked like 5e for example. That's bad, I think.


Honestly, put that army against any balanced army and it will lose. I think the Objective secured bonus will really counteract the fact that Unbound armies can take anything they want.

Gungo
22-05-2014, 04:38
Have a cookie.
Lol that's your best reply for being prove wrong? Congrats!

ehlijen
22-05-2014, 06:55
Honestly, put that army against any balanced army and it will lose. I think the Objective secured bonus will really counteract the fact that Unbound armies can take anything they want.

Then why hand players that much rope to hang themselves with? Are there at least going to be guidelines as to what forces should contain?

Because 'You can do whatever you want! Now go and find out that most of your ideas suck.' is not a helpful approach to game balance either :(

Slayer-Fan123
22-05-2014, 07:08
Because apparently everyone and their mother will run the most broken units in tandem for every single game ever.
People worried about Unbound are simply whiners at this point. Just roll with it and have fun. It's a game.

Hendarion
22-05-2014, 07:09
Actually now that it is known that a Battleforged army can take any number of attachments they want, its not the unbound armies I fear, but the Battleforged ones.

Voss
22-05-2014, 07:15
Actually now that it is known that a Battleforged army can take any number of attachments they want, its not the unbound armies I fear, but the Battleforged ones.
And they don't even need opponent's 'approval' or consent.:D

Lol that's your best reply for being prove wrong?
Um... no.
That was my reply to off topic anecdotal gibberish. It actually seemed more relevant, since cookies are tasty.

march10k
22-05-2014, 07:26
Because I like my 40k to be 40k and Apocalypse to be Apocalypse. Unbound dumbs the game down and breaks the narrative as much as adds to it. If an army of Hellhammers, Riptides and Heldrakes is against the spirit of the game and such a terrible thing to do, then why legitimize it? Instead of creating Unbound, GW and FW should focus on publishing alternative, army-specific FOCs so that way players can create fluff armies that don't follow 1Hq + 2 Troop with completely removing one of the fundamental balancing mechanics of the game.


Hear, hear! Issue a $15 E-book for LatD, and be done with it! I don't play LatD, but I'd LOVE to play my loyalist guard against it... Seriously, every fluffy use of unbound armies could be accomplished via PDF...even tau encouraging nidz to kill off a warlord that they foresee destroying a craftworld 30 years down the road...

march10k
22-05-2014, 07:28
And they don't even need opponent's 'approval' or consent.:D


Silly gamer..EVERY game requires your opponent's consent. He ALWAYS has the option of saying "I'm not playing you!"

Hendarion
22-05-2014, 07:33
Sure. The lack of requirement for consent isn't whats so bad abound Battleforged armies having unlimited attachments (because you always can refuse anyway), but that they can contest which unbound armies cannot - while they still eventually are as overpowered as unbound ones.

tezdal
22-05-2014, 10:10
Not worried about it, just not buying it. Will just buy more toy soldiers from other companies.

Geep
22-05-2014, 10:38
Because apparently everyone and their mother will run the most broken units in tandem for every single game ever.
People worried about Unbound are simply whiners at this point. Just roll with it and have fun. It's a game.
It's not just a matter of taking what the 'net says is broken- what's broken is highly variable, depending on the armies involved, the mission, etc. etc. One player's awesome army of fluffiness is another's nightmare.
The FOC, before it was undermined with lords of war, allies, fortifications and multiple FOC charts, applied guides to army building. Those guides ensured (well, tried to ensure) that all armies would have a good mix of unit types, and that there would be a good mix of unit types in the opponent's army.
Recent trends with the FOC have made it pretty much a joke, and it's quite possible to come up against an army where you're not just on the back foot from the start, you've almost certainly lost.
Unbound means this will be occurring more commonly.
One sided games are not fun. 'Just roll with it' it is really annoying attempt at an argument. I have limited time. I don't always have a range of like-minded people to choose as opponents. To turn up blindly and found out I have lost in the 'build list' phase is not, and never will be, fun for me. Why should I just lie back and accept that? Why should I try and force joy out of that experience?


Your argument faulty is that if you show up with your fun and balanced list but everyone else has broken WAAC lists then they are not people you should/want to be playing against anyways. Find people with similar goals when playing Warhammer 40K. You are not obligated to play against somebody. Create or find a group/store with similar values if you can only find WAAC players at your store.


I played at a dozen + shops in thenortheast. I have never just walked into a place and just start playing randomly. It takes all of 5 minutes to go over point limits, army selection, and specific controversial units. This hasn't ever happened in 5 years payin this game. I have seen players ask me of they could use a forgeworld unit or list, a lord of war, an imperial bastion or other fortification, a 3 knight player, even a third addition player using a snakebite war boar ork army. I have politely refused games and payed someone else or just told someone I don't really want to play with lord of wars right now why don't we just play a lower point total instead and remove The shadow storm. There has never been a single time I have been forced to play someone and not have the ability to at least go over what we are playing. An unbound list is quite simply someone throwing random models on the table and it's the same as the guy with an incomplete army who just wants to play a quick game and I have refused or accepted those offers depending if I wanted to wastey time or not. Unbound is no different and completely optional.
It's awesome how your circumstances, with a wide choice of people to game against and much time to waste, exists for everyone. Heck, I'm going to go outside right now and make a gaming group with... that tree, that shrub, and some local wildlife. Yep, I have many options. And my time is, of course, worthless, so I don't mind that I must refuse a game with that cheating bird- I'll just wait out a couple of hours for a table to be free.

As Ehlijen said, the people who show up with the broken armies are fully entitled to. And I'm fully entitled to make a fluff-bunny army. The enormous disparity in effectiveness is a problem, and one that GW should address and not just ignore.

duffybear1988
22-05-2014, 11:45
Actually now that it is known that a Battleforged army can take any number of attachments they want, its not the unbound armies I fear, but the Battleforged ones.

Yep, I said the same way back last week when most of us were still caught up in our dreams of crazy unbound lists.

Fox Of 9
22-05-2014, 11:47
So if we fear both equally doesn't this make it balanced in some crazy fashion? Or are we just dead either way?



David.

duffybear1988
22-05-2014, 11:56
I've been looking at it and I think I can even run a 7 samurai themed list in battle forged if I really want to -


From Space Marine Codex -

2 captains
2 squads of 5 scouts

2 captains
2 squads of 5 scouts

2 librarians
2 squads of scouts

From Dark Angels codex -

1 chaplain
1 squad of scouts

hobojebus
22-05-2014, 12:55
Actually now that it is known that a Battleforged army can take any number of attachments they want, its not the unbound armies I fear, but the Battleforged ones.

Yeah I see spam lists full of minimum sized troops with lashings of elites in everyone's future, it's not a place I want to live in.

Spider-pope
22-05-2014, 13:13
Not worried in the slightest about Unbound. My group hasn't been using the FOC for months anyway.


Because the concept of taking any miniature you want from your collection and creating a mish mash of several armies to play is ridiculous and is obviously a ploy by GW to sell big kits! What a joke. Think I'm going to waste my time playing some kid with an army of riptides landraiders and forgefiends and wraithknights? No way. Allies made the game bad enough but this is horrible and an obvious money making scheme. I feel sorry for the suckers that buy into it. But of course people are allowed to waste their money as they see fit. Atleast do everyone a favor and paint it all good so it doesn't look like some kid spilled his toy box on the table.

Yes how dare GW try and sell kits. Why it's almost like they are a business or something. And you're right, it's ridiculous to let people use the things they have spent potentially hundreds of pounds on, especially in a game of toy soldiers.

TheDarkDuke
24-05-2014, 18:50
This is WARHAMMER not POKEMON!

Unless your playing chaos space marines. Then it is pokemon.......