FOC rules conflict.

[Tynskel]

Here's an interesting question.

Death Company. Cannot take more than 1 Death Company unit, unless you have astorath.

Unbound, take anything.

Well...
hmmmmm... Does codex trump the Unbound rule here? Because the limit to number of units usually is the FOC not a codex rule.

[Caitsidhe]

Here's an interesting question.

Death Company. Cannot take more than 1 Death Company unit, unless you have astorath.

Unbound, take anything.

Well...
hmmmmm... Does codex trump the Unbound rule here? Because the limit to number of units usually is the FOC not a codex rule.

Codex always trumps the main book, unless a Faq/Errata say otherwise.

[Tynskel]

Not necessarily. The codex rule and rulebook rule need to actually directly conflict with each other.

The DC rule is a legacy rule that is 2 Editions old (5th). It was designed to prevent you from having multiple DC units in a Standard FOC (because that was the only thing that existed when the rule was created). There were no allies. There were no double FOCs. In 6th, even with the both of those options, you couldn't ally with yourself.

Unbound explicitly removes all FOC restrictions. The DC restriction, to me is for a standard FOC list. The 0-1 option is for an army that is using the standard FOC. You can only take up one slot in the FOC. There is no FOC anymore with Unbound. You just take units.

Unbound is akin to what Apocalypse was. The FOC limitations were removed in Apocalypse in 5th Edition. I don't know anyone that followed the 0-1 option anymore during Apocalypse.


We can argue this from another point of view:
Honor Guards (command squads, or servitors, etc.)
You can only take them if you take the required HQ choice. Does Unbound ignore this restriction? The DC rule and the Honor Guard rule are essentially the same exact rule. If one were to tell me you can't just take Honor Guards in Unbound, then I would agree you can't take unlimited DC.

[Duo Sonata]

Unit restrictions can be a bit vague in 7th ed when you involve unbound. Personally feel that one should still abide by unit restrictions e.g. only being able to field a Death Company Dreadnought for every 5 death company models in the army even though I'm more inclined to believe that Unbound would let you have as many Death Company Dreads as you want without taking any normal Death Company.

Would be nice to see an FAQ update clarify this.

[Charistoph]

Unbound explicitly removes all FOC restrictions. The DC restriction, to me is for a standard FOC list. The 0-1 option is for an army that is using the standard FOC. You can only take up one slot in the FOC. There is no FOC anymore with Unbound. You just take units.

Actually, Unbound doesn't really say that. It says, "simply use whichever units from your collection you want."

I know there doesn't seem to be any difference, but removing FOC restrictions does not remove UNIT restrictions. However, the way it is written actually allows you to ignore pesky things like unit restrictions, with Uniques being an exception.

When I first started writing this response and looking it up, I was actually intending to disprove you, but it turns out, I'm actually agreeing with you, just not quite for the same reasons.

[Theik]

Unbound is literally "use whatever models you like, regardless of normal restrictions".
If you want to play a list with 10 deathleapers, you can, even though he is unique.

Ordinary restrictions on how many of each model you can take simply do not apply, only minimum - maximum unit sizes and what upgrades you are allowed to take for the unit.

[Mr Mystery]

Unbound is literally "use whatever models you like, regardless of normal restrictions".
If you want to play a list with 10 deathleapers, you can, even though he is unique.

Ordinary restrictions on how many of each model you can take simply do not apply, only minimum - maximum unit sizes and what upgrades you are allowed to take for the unit.

That's my understanding of it. But to be fair, haven't actually read the rules (or indeed lack thereof as the case may prove) for it!

[John Bower]

So... I thought you still had to follow 'unit restrictions' but... Does that mean I can 'just' take my special weapons squad rather than an entire IG platoon which they are normally part of?

As to the Death Company stuff, in the FAQ it does say to ignore the FOC references and instead refer to the Rule book about selecting your army, not a direct quote btw.

[Mr Mystery]

Indeedy. Least ways as far as I understand it.

Want 500 individual Orky Warbikes? Go for it.

[Charistoph]

Unbound is literally "use whatever models you like, regardless of normal restrictions".
If you want to play a list with 10 deathleapers, you can, even though he is unique.

Ordinary restrictions on how many of each model you can take simply do not apply, only minimum - maximum unit sizes and what upgrades you are allowed to take for the unit.

The "regardless of normal restrictions" isn't in there. Nor is there anything saying you ignore Uniques, exactly.

Either way, Death Company are not Unique, so not even in consideration.


So... I thought you still had to follow 'unit restrictions' but... Does that mean I can 'just' take my special weapons squad rather than an entire IG platoon which they are normally part of?

According to the bold part of the rule, which I quoted in italics above, I guess so.


As to the Death Company stuff, in the FAQ it does say to ignore the FOC references and instead refer to the Rule book about selecting your army, not a direct quote btw.

No, it doesn't, at least, not for 7th. The only place it says that is the FOC and using it in standard missions is ignored, which is right before the Army List. There are no changes made to the Death Company.

[Erik Setzer]

As to the Death Company stuff, in the FAQ it does say to ignore the FOC references and instead refer to the Rule book about selecting your army, not a direct quote btw.

Actually, it only says to ignore the section "Using a Force Organisation Chart and Standard Missions" and "refer to the Choosing an Army section in Warhammer 40,000: The Rules."

There is no note in the FAQ for Death Company. It doesn't even swap out "army" for "detachment" like the Ork 4th edition codex FAQ did (so that you could make Nobs and Deff Dreads Troops on a per-detachment basis). Which means the line is still "You can include only one unit of Death Company in your army." Meaning, for now, even a multiple-detachment army of Blood Angels can only have one Death Company. And that makes sense, because all of the lunatics in an army are put into one single unit.

[Ravingbantha]

Simple way around anyone that tries to say no, since its unbound there is no FOC, so you play x number of detachments each with 1 death company squad. Problem solved.

[Charon]

Nope cause it is still 1 DC per ARMY, not per detachment.

[jonas the jedi]

Why is this happening right now. Does no one remember the most important rule? It is important to talk to your opponent about what your bringing before you do, or a t.o. if it's a tourney you're thing.But this could go on all forever

[Caitsidhe]

This whole discussion is just another gem brought to you by the boys at Games Workshop; let's give them a hand shall we. Painstaking research and game testing went into every paragraph to ensure a minimum of rules questions. They follow that up by prompt customer service, Faqs and Errata to nip such issues in the bud. Wait. This is opposite day right?

[Tynskel]

I wouldn't diss GW over this.
Making a ruleset that is fluid is difficult.

Ridged rulesets are fantastically boring.

[Caitsidhe]

I wouldn't diss GW over this.
Making a ruleset that is fluid is difficult.

Ridged rulesets are fantastically boring.

Exactly who should we blame for bad game design, poor grammar, misspelled words, and vague rules? Is there a specialized Gremlin over in England that I haven't heard of yet, some kind of beastie still active since WWII? Without a real war in which to work its mischief upon planes, trains, and automobiles, it has evolved to screw up make believe war games? The buck stops with the game designers. It doesn't matter if designing the rules is hard. That is what they get paid to do. That is what they are charging the big bucks for in the books and electronic publications. If their excuse is (well it is your excuse for them) that it is just too hard, then the price should reflect the fact that they are crying off the hard issues. They produce a product. We pay for it, top dollar at that. We have a reasonable expectation that it will be free of defects.

[Tynskel]

Exactly who should we blame for bad game design, poor grammar, misspelled words, and vague rules? Is there a specialized Gremlin over in England that I haven't heard of yet, some kind of beastie still active since WWII? Without a real war in which to work its mischief upon planes, trains, and automobiles, it has evolved to screw up make believe war games? The buck stops with the game designers. It doesn't matter if designing the rules is hard. That is what they get paid to do. That is what they are charging the big bucks for in the books and electronic publications. If their excuse is (well it is your excuse for them) that it is just too hard, then the price should reflect the fact that they are crying off the hard issues. They produce a product. We pay for it, top dollar at that. We have a reasonable expectation that it will be free of defects.

*Why* are you taking the thread off topic?