Chaplain Lucifer Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 You are right but with a little humility and tact you can just ask your opponent: "Do you mind I play my as unbound so I don't auto-lose on turn one? I follow a detachment but I'm forced to have a couple unbound units to deny an auto-lose on turn 1." I'm sure that if you put it like that and explain any questions no one would refuse to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elios Harg Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 It just occured to me that this also solves the main "issues" with playing pure Deathwing; specifically the whole "I have nothing in play on Turn 1, so I lose!" thing. As any Deathwing units taken outside of either the Deathwing Strike Force or the Deathwing Redemption Force are considered to be Unbound units, you can deploy them *in play* on Turn 1- they just won't get the additional special rules. So, deploy those Deathwing Knights in Land Raiders as Unbound units, because they will -OH NO!!!- be losing those mainly shooty special rules benefits which they can't use anyways. Or, take every Dreadnought in a Drop Pod you plan to use not as part of the Detachment/Formation, but as Unbound units, which means half of those pods (rounded up) will drop in on Turn 1. There are a number of deployment options to make use of so far as the Unbound units in such an army are concerned. I can actually run my pure Deathwing army lists pretty much as before, if I run a few units as Unbound. Just a note regarding the dreads in pods, in he Strike Force they come in normally using drop pod assault. So if you are planning on using dreads in pods, you simply field both a strike force and a redemption force. This let's half your dreads come in turn 1, the bulk of your force can then come in turn 2 as part of the redemption force. The only real reason to field unbound is to do land raiders and squadrons of venerable dreadnoughts. As a side note, I really wish they had stated that squadrons of dreads could take pods, but the pods themselves formed a squadron. They could have made a note that they still count for drop pod assault and therefore you can't drop any other pods turn 1 until they make up less than half of your total pods. So, you would have to field seven total pods before any other pod units come in turn 1. Yes, it would have been expensive, but I love the dreadnought squadrons and would have paid the price to be able to use them without resorting to unbound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shabbadoo Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Right, but if for some reason you don't want to field both the Detachment and the Formation, you don't have to. It is just an option. I think that people would understood why we were going Unbound, and that it is not due to some WAAC reason but simply to be able to play an army that is not WAAC by any means. Maybe more so than if somebody shows up with a Battleforged army composed every messed up thing posible. Hey! it is a Battleforged army, and so is "tasteful and nice"! But, this about what the rules and codex allow for, and that is fielding the armeis that people say they can't field, which, the more that time passes and more people break thigns down, the more we find that these concerns are b.s. People can field the armies they want to, if they do so using the methods fully supported by the rules/codex. The point is not about catering to the whims of those who are purposely disallowing options which are fully supported by the game. This is about figuring out how to field the armies we want to within the confines of what is allowed. I think I'll bring up the the whole ObSec whining topic too. "We've lost Objective Secured!", or "If I go Unbound then I lose Objective Secured!" Like most units in most armies, EVERY unit in a pure Deathwing army is a Scoring Unit- even if the army is Unbound. As a pure Deaathwing player, one's main goal in any scenario using Objective Markers will be to make sure all of one's opponent's ObSec units are either dead or, along with any other enemy untis, are not within 3" of an Objective Marker that one's units control. If one is unable to do that, one probably deserves to lose the game anyways. So, my brothers, our Deathwing might just have to...kill stuff. Kill stuff? In a battle?! You must be mad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elios Harg Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 The hatred for unbound is ridiculous. There is nothing you could field using unbound that is head and shoulders better than the best you can field using battle forged. Can it get unfluffy? Sure, but so can battle forged armies. I mean, I could hypothetically field 126 Ravenwing Black Knights using the RWSF. Not only are there not 126 Black Knights; there are not even 126 Ravenwing. TOs and players in general both need to step back and take a look at decisions that actually alter the game and decide if they are truly necessary or whether they punish some people unfairly (by limiting options) while not really doing much to improve the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shabbadoo Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 The hatred for unbound is ridiculous. I wholeheartedly agree. For some reason people seem to have a need to be told that it is okay for them to play using whatever models they have. So, GW puts in the Unbound option (mainly for n00bs, but not completely) and they are still crucified for it- even when they put in an obvious downside to it. people go Unbound for thre reasons: 1. To avoid having to stick to an FOC; usually to buuild a power gaming force. 2. To simply play with the models one actually owns, which especially caters to those n00bs who don't even own enough models to fulfill the requirements of a CAD, Detachment, or Formation *(yeah, you know the 10-year old power-gaming %#$%! I'm talking about, don't you ). 3. To play an army in a configuration that represents the background fluff. So, the count is at two positive reasons to one negative reason , and it is easy to tell the difference between them just by looking at an army list. Unbound is not just a tool for toolz. It is not all about running all Drop Pods each filled with three grav-amp Centurians, plus one one with Mephiston, one with Njal, one with Ezekiel, one with Tigurius, and the others each with a C: SM Librarian who collectively form a Librarius conclave with Tigurius. Or is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnakeChisler Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 The hatred for unbound is ridiculous. There is nothing you could field using unbound that is head and shoulders better than the best you can field using battle forged. Can it get unfluffy? Sure, but so can battle forged armies. I mean, I could hypothetically field 126 Ravenwing Black Knights using the RWSF. Not only are there not 126 Black Knights; there are not even 126 Ravenwing. TOs and players in general both need to step back and take a look at decisions that actually alter the game and decide if they are truly necessary or whether they punish some people unfairly (by limiting options) while not really doing much to improve the game. Unbound was designed and is primarily there for new players that haven't bought enough stuff to field legitimate armies Unbound is something our club/group has done from day 1 of the Apocalypse book coming out since organizing and playing Apocalypse games is more about fielding all our big toys and having a social gathering while nuking each others armies. So we've been doing it before GW even bothered to give it its blessing and I suspect every one else who's run Apoc games have taken the same view. Its not there coz someone has spit their dummy out at the latest codex structure, regular gamers I know wont touch Unbound for standard game play you just move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucien Eilam Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Unbound was designed and is primarily there for new players that haven't bought enough stuff to field legitimate armies No it isn't. It's there so anyone can buy just the models they want, put them on the table and play a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ValourousHeart Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 The hatred for unbound is ridiculous. There is nothing you could field using unbound that is head and shoulders better than the best you can field using battle forged. Can it get unfluffy? Sure, but so can battle forged armies. I mean, I could hypothetically field 126 Ravenwing Black Knights using the RWSF. Not only are there not 126 Black Knights; there are not even 126 Ravenwing. TOs and players in general both need to step back and take a look at decisions that actually alter the game and decide if they are truly necessary or whether they punish some people unfairly (by limiting options) while not really doing much to improve the game. You are right about there not being 126 RWBK, but I think you might be wrong about the membership in RW. This is just my musing on what I eventually would like to own, but it is based on information listed in the codex. The RW Structure on page 15 breaks the RW down according to the formations not the unit entries. So it isn't RW bike squads and speeder squads, it is RW attack squadrons and RW support squadrons. Now there is a note about the Darkshrouds and Vengences being attached as required and rarely en mass. But that tells me that it is possible to field them en mass, but it just doesn't happen often. So that means to me that there are probably 10 of the larger speeder chassy (my guess is 6 vengence and 4 darkshrouds). Then the box to the left defines the standard operational strenght of the RWAS which identifies seats for upto 11 marines. Now when we compare the short listing for the 1st through 6th attack squadrons vs the standard operational strength box it could be that the land speeder entry in the 1-6 box is refering to both the RW land speeder and the LSV. That means the 1st through 6th attack squadrons could each consist of 66 marines. If the support squadron is the same where land speeders is refereing to both the RW land speeder and the LSV or Darkshroud, then we can conclude that the 7th through 10th support squadrons could each consist of 13 marines given the number of seats. That would add another 52 marines to our roster, total 118 marines so far. From the battle company formations we know that the 100 marines refers to the the 6 tactical squads, 2 assault squads and 2 dev squads. The command / veteran squads are not counted in that number. So the fact that we are over 100 marines right now does not limit how many RWBK there are, except as what is resonably proportional to the entire company. We know there is only 1 Champion, Standard Bearer and Apothecary, but there is also probably only 1 Huntmaster. That would mean there are 12 other black knights that would complete the RWCS and RWBK squads. It is possible that there are more than 1 Huntmaster, but if we add a second huntmaster and a second squad of RWBK that would bring the black knights to about 20% of the total RW, which is way to high IMO. 16 RWBK only works out to be about 12% of the total RW if my numbers are accurate. So now our total is 134 marines. That just leaves Sammie, the Chaplain, and Sammie's sidekick when he takes his speeder. This brings the total to 137 marines. Now this doesn't take into account the pilots for the Flyers or the fact that the codex describes the 2nd and 3rd RW squadrons as oversized to provide pilots for our flyers. To me this means that there are at least 2 silence squadrons, and that the 2nd and 3rd RW squadrons are 14 marines and not 11 as originally calculated. Which bring our final total to 143 marines in the RW. Equipment wise in previous editions I would have said that RW had 100+ bikes, 50+ attack bikes and 50+ speeders to allow the entire company to be fielded however the mission required. Now I would say that there are probably 39 standard bikes (37 required by the structure plus Lib & Tech), 16 Plasma Bikes, 18 Attack Bikes, 26 RW Land Speeders, 6 LSV, 4 Darkshrouds, 4 Nephilim, 2 Dark Talons and 1 Jetbike. (116 models) The hatred for unbound is ridiculous. I wholeheartedly agree. For some reason people seem to have a need to be told that it is okay for them to play using whatever models they have. So, GW puts in the Unbound option (mainly for n00bs, but not completely) and they are still crucified for it- even when they put in an obvious downside to it. people go Unbound for thre reasons: 1. To avoid having to stick to an FOC; usually to buuild a poer gaming force. 2. To simply play with the models one actually owns, which especially caters to those n00bs who don't even own enough models to fulfill the requirements of a CAD, Detachment, or Formation *(yeah, you know the 10-year old power-gaming %#$%! I'm talking about, don't you ). 3. To play an army in a configuration that represents the background fluff. So, the count is at two positive reasons to one negative reason , and it is easy to tell the difference between them just by looking at an army list. Unbound is not just a tool for toolz. It is not all about running all Drop Pods each filled with three grav-amp Centurians, plus one one with Mephiston, one with Njal, one with Ezekiel, one with Tigurius, and the others each with a C: SM Librarian who collectively form a Librarius conclave with Tigurius. Or is it? While I agree that those 3 reasons for taking unbound are right, I think the order is wrong. I am sure that when a lot of people think of unbound they think of 10 Riptides, but that is only because a couple of people on the internet made a big stink about doing just that. I don't think that the typical gamer would do that as their go to plan, but instead would get there due to escalation within their game club. Personally I think unbound is intended as number 3 on your list. A way of building a cool themed list using units from a bunch of different codexes to create something new and unique... not just double down on Ripties. The unbound army I want to build is an arbites lists based on prision guards. Scouts models would probably be the standard prision guard and snipers. The ogryns with the big shields would be the riot troops. Fenris wolves would be guard dogs (Riddick style) Torros and Drop Pods would be the transports. I would want something to represent a gun that shoots a big net or ball of glue that catches people. I would want the dogs to deploy in a unique manner, that is why I picked the Drop pod model to use as a kennel. But instead of deep striking, the DP would set up as an Infiltrator. When the dogs come out of reserve they enter play from the DP, and can assault. I didn't think that was too OP because you know right where they are coming from, so you can avoid the area if you don't want to be assaulted. I also figured that the enemy could blow up the DP, but that would risk releasing the dogs early. The down side is that the DP exploding could kill some of the dogs and pin the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shabbadoo Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 While I agree that those 3 reasons for taking unbound are right, I think the order is wrong. I didn't mean to imply an order of precedenece, just list the reasons. Unbound is really a license to "play as you want to", because there is this odd phenomena that many people need to be told that it is okay to do so. Most gamers eventually figure out that they don't need to be given "permission" to play how they want to, so Unbound is partly in the rulebook to let the newer folks know it is okay to do so. So they codified it, which also gives the rules sticklers something to point at, rub their chins, and nod knowingly about. "Hrumph. Yes, I know of this Unbound...philosophy...you speak of." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Avoghai Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 I have to explain because I think that you misunderstood the problem I have with unbound. I have no problem with the use of unbound with 2 agreed players. Actually I think that it has never been an issue for the 30 years of 40k's existence. We've all decided to use it one time or another, wether it's for a special campaign scenario or an apoc mission. We never needed GW's allowance for that. The problem I have is when It is used as an excuse from GW to compensate bad design. What I mean by "bad design" is something that would have allowed to play an iconic army that justifies the fact that a faction has a separate codex. GW has done that with the archangels scheme in the BA codex : everybody expected something allowing to play assault vets and lots of death company (particularly after putting them all in the elite section). Instead of that they created a special scheme restricted only for terminators... I don't get the point. DC are far more iconic than termi for the BA... Sure it's fine it exists but now BA players have to use the unbound to play an iconic army of death company and assault vets... Same thing here : I understand the DS thing and all but man... we already have a DSing formation... What's the use of a DS detachment? Just by saying "the RESERVE units must be placed in DS reserve" rather than "ALL units must be placed in DS reserve" would have resolved the problem. But no, they prefered creating an almost copy/paste detachment from the formation and leave the players wanting to play LR and venerable dreads squads being told "play unbound". And I could talk about harlequins and all but that's not the place... Unbound is fine between friends and well known groups of players, but it's wrong to say that a noob needs freedom to develop. The process of learning needs limits. Do you throw your kid into a library and say "read whatever book you want"? Or do you learn him to read, understand a selection of books first, then, once he understood, let him do what he likes? FOC has never been a problem for initiation... it has always guided someone to the basics... Unboun is not something for noob because it doen't help them... Nor for vets, because we were already using it and didn't wait for allowance to do so... It's only for game conceptors as it allows them to pretend making their work well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larhendiel Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 I'm fed up with GW simply turning my fully painted miniature colletions upside down or simply removing my entire armies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellSpokenMan Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 I'm fed up with GW simply turning my fully painted miniature colletions upside down or simply removing my entire armies You played Squats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larhendiel Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Not squats but Dogs of War, Bretonnia and now Dark Angels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Avoghai Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Well I think you could help us then Go play eldar and play a max of D weapons and jetbikes with heavy weapons... We then can expect seeing them disapear within few months :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellSpokenMan Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Not squats but Dogs of War, Bretonnia and now Dark Angels. Well, I'm not sure I should say this here, but you probably should diversify your hobby a bit. When Eldar came out I took a break for a couple of months and played Malifaux instead. I never intended to leave 40k altogether, I just found something else to do until DA came back around. It turns out that happened way faster than I expected, but if it hadn't I would have just taken a longer break, focused on the minis instead of the game and waited for things to get better. There are a lot of great aspects to the hobby that you could explore and a lot of other great games to get into. It is also possible that you might find a list you are happy with in this codex. I feel that it is much easier to do that with this edition than the last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larhendiel Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Not squats but Dogs of War, Bretonnia and now Dark Angels. Well, I'm not sure I should say this here, but you probably should diversify your hobby a bit. When Eldar came out I took a break for a couple of months and played Malifaux instead. I never intended to leave 40k altogether, I just found something else to do until DA came back around. It turns out that happened way faster than I expected, but if it hadn't I would have just taken a longer break, focused on the minis instead of the game and waited for things to get better. There are a lot of great aspects to the hobby that you could explore and a lot of other great games to get into. It is also possible that you might find a list you are happy with in this codex. I feel that it is much easier to do that with this edition than the last. I have found friends in Trollbloods, tough, hard hitting army with built-in ward save of 5+ called tough. I'll probably have to wait for another DA codex, since there is no way I'd give up my DA, I consider them the best painted models of mine, ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Blaire Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Not squats but Dogs of War, Bretonnia and now Dark Angels. The Dark Angels were removed by issuing a new Codex for them? Come on Larhendiel, this is hyperbole of the worst stripe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isiah Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 The fact is termis have the Dedicated LR option but neither of the two formation we have allow us to field them We have a venerable dread squad option but it's forbidden to play more than one dread per squad in both the 2 formations. What I regret (though loving this codex) is not the DS turn one or such is simply that both DW formations prevent us to play DW options. I'm in this camp. For me the codex is generally good but contains this crippling Deathwing flaw that MA cited above. And no I don't want to be forced into taking units I don't really want just to make a playable (functioning force). I hate the restrictive list-building. I hate the lack of choice. I hate the idea of needing to go unbound to field fun themed armies that I've been able to field since 3rd edition with varying degrees of success. The only way I get to field my DW in force in a way acceptable to me (without the use of other expensive SM bikes or SM units) is to ally them with my small -][- and/or Scions force*. The irony is delicious: the Inquisition allows my DW to function <_<. [*Insert your primary allied force of choice here] I have yet to field them with my GK as things get expensive fast which I'm trying to avoid. Cheers I Addendum: Part of the joy of the DA was their capacity to field - if one wanted - one of three distinct armies each with discrete skills and abilities. And within each army type a number of different builds was permissible. Fine list-tuning was possible to suit personal preference, playstyle and opponent. Has all that been forgotten? I realise I must sound like an old broken record, but I can't help how I feel <_<. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Avoghai Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 You have another solution though : Play the Land Raider Task Force Formation from SM codex and give them IH chapter trait to represent the deathwing vehicle... Pro : give you the possibility to play the DW strike force without the risk of auto loose. give you LR Cons mandatory to pay 3 LR even if you need only one Costly => limits the number of termi squads in your strike force Cannot start the game embarked inside Are not "DA units" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.