"40k Battle Report - Bound vs. Unbound" Topic

We wanted to see if an unbound army was unfair/unbalanced. Orks vs. Dark Eldar, battle report on Tabletop Gamer's Diary;

link

Nice report and good observations regarding the possibilities for fun with unbound armies if folks can engage the "Nice" setting. The look of a mechanized force is pretty awesome.

I love the Unbound concept. It takes the game away from the min-max "win at any cost" mindset which I hated about the hobby. It's a whole new different approach and way to play the game.

I wouldn't be so sure. With the right people, Unbound can be a new fun way to play lightheartedly. In the game above it made for a pretty neat combination of forces that the players found to be mostly balanced. The result was a fun battle within the spirit of the 40k universe.

However, it offers powergamers even more ways for people to max-max out their forces with improbable combinations of the killy-est units in the game.I've already seen lots of threads that say things like

"Don't take Chaos Cultists in your Chaos army. Take Ork Boys instead…"

It's just list building to the n'th degree except now the armies don't even have to be unified by faction and I don't think the small disadvantages given to unbound armies are going to be much of a barrier. Not to be a downer or anything…

For the most part, our Unbound games have been fun. However, in one game we had the "power" an unbound army can generate make the game a bit of a joke. We played through it, but discussed limiting any further games to more acceptable Unbound lists or simply using the standard force org.

We like the idea of Unbound games, but our most recent games have been moving closer to the standard force organization of old ;)