Will this build be good for 1440p gaming at 60fps

Except for the PSU and the extra HDD, yes. Still get the Z170 board for the extra goodies though.

Here's a far improved list of both.
@JackNaylorPE you're using outdated components, a poor value monitor, and a Z series mobo with a non-k CPU.
The graphics card also sounds like a jet engine, thermal throttles and is overpriced, an EVGA SC is $5 cheaper.
Hybrid drives are also an awful choice, a separate HDD and SSD is better.
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-7500 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($192.33 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock B250M Pro4 Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($77.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-2666 Memory ($99.97 @ Jet)
Storage: Samsung 850 EVO-Series 250GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($97.88 @ OutletPC)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($49.33 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 1070 8GB SC GAMING ACX 3.0 Black Edition Video Card ($374.00 @ Amazon)
Case: Corsair 100R Silent ATX Mid Tower Case ($47.98 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: SeaSonic S12II 620W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($49.90 @ Amazon)
Monitor: Acer XF240H 24.0" 1920x1080 144Hz Monitor ($209.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $1199.36
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-03-09 17:27 EST-0500

I knew exactly what I'm using ... he stated last generation stuff, that's what I gave him. Buying last gen stuff is like buying last year's model car off the dealer's lot when the new ones arrive, no real impact here but a significant price drop ... I'd be interested in seeing a list of what you think that B250 provides that improves anything over Z170 .. I mean outside of being "new and shiny".

The older gen can provides additional value, minimizing his budget impact and keep away from the lesser user experience which you have suggested. Let's count the ways:

- B series MoBos are usually equipped with substandard (ALC ALC 887 / 892) on board sound, resulting in decreased user experience, so .... while he loses nothing with H170 / Z170 and gains a few features that likely won't impact the user experience, you have put a big nerf on the gaming experience in the sound department downgrading from ALC 1150 to ALC 892

-The initial build I did had a H170 MoBo but I noticed that the the Z170 (w/ ALC 1150) gave him a free / comparable case, a gaming worthy sound platform and was cheaper to boot.... that's called a win-win-win situation

-Hybrid drives are an awful choice ? ... support that statement please. This is a gaming box so booting form a fast SSD is little comfort when most of ya games are sitting on a very slow HD. We have not installed a HD in 7 years, not one SSD has failed in that time. Most boxes will come equipped with an SSD + SSHD, the one I am typing from has 2 of each. We have done extensive user testing on this topic. The Blue gives him a 2 year warranty as opposed to 5 with the SSHD .. the combo gives hm 1.25 GB of storage as opposed to 2.00 GB ... That's a lose-lose-lose (lower storage space, lower warranty, lower gaming performance) situation when it comes to playing most of ya game library.

Two laptops, one with SSHD and one with SSD + HD (5 users using workstation apps and gaming) ... no one could tell the difference. Two desktops, SSD, HD and SSHD blind test, booting and working off SSD, SSHD or HD.... after 6 weeks no one noticed anything .. except for one user who, in one instance, we set to boot off the HD after the SSHD boot the day before said "boot time felt slower". Repeated the same scenario multiple times, no on noticed. Yes, if you stare at the screen or use a stop watch you might notice, but in the course of normal everyday usage, unless ya tell them "let me load windows 2 times and tell me which one is faster", they don't notice. And no, they certainly don't notice the 0.9 seconds between the SSD and SSHD.

Boot Time on SSD = 15.6 seconds
Boot time from SSHD = 16.5 seconds

While I doubt the user will be very upset by the loss of 0.9 seconds at boot time, I think he'll be pleased with the gaming performance which is 2.4 times faster. ... 1.5 times as fast as the much more expensive WD Black.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hdd-charts-2013/-17-PCMark-7-Gaming,2915.html
Seagate SSHD - 976 MB/s
WD Black - 6.34 MB/s
WD Blue - 4.01 MB/s

-Bothered to read the thread title ? .. the stated goal was 1440p, not 1080p so your build is simply non responsive. As I clearly stated, I didn't want to touch the monitor as its not one I'd recommend. But what I would replace it with either a) would not not meet the conditions stipulated by the thread title or b) would kill the budget.

- No upgrade opportunities w/o a complete rebuild ... no possible addition of a 2nd GFX card whereby system life miht be extended another 18-24 months with a PSU / upgrade and 2nd card

-Oh yes the famous failed EVGA 1070 SC series w/ 114C VRMs ... great recommendation. The successor to the EVGA 970 SC in which 1 of the 3 heat pipes miss the GPU and again had missing thermal pads... the card that uses reference PCB, VRM and which they originally failed to cool properly. The thermal pads solved the 114C but still left with a PCB that doesn't measure up. If you are going to recommend EVGA at least recommend the iCX model which fixes at least some of the deficiencies.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/evga-sc15-qr-cooling-icx,33387.html

Although the high temperatures seemed to only occur with specific workloads (particularly Furmark) and every ACX 3.0 graphics card shipped after November 1, 2016, was updated, this could have been the final nail in the ACX cooling coffin (this wasn’t the first ACX-related issue we’ve seen in the last few years). We see the new iCX -branded graphics cards as a vehicle to not only give EVGA the opportunity to improve its graphics cooling from a design standpoint but also to deviate from a seemingly-tarnished namesake of ACX cooling.

Click to expand...

I did make a mistake, my bad, I was looking for the MSI Armor and mistakenly clicked the Aero.... my mistake. But we don't use EVGA SC series cards (FTW is fine except for the 10xx series) and haven't since the 5xx series when they made a name for themselves by frying VRMS. The SCs series VRM always pales against the competition. You make fun of the Aero card w/ it's reference PCB but the EVGA has historically used the same PCB and VRM going back 5 generations now. Since the 5xx series, we've either used Asus, Giga or MSI and since 9xx we dropped Asus, tho that are up in the running again with 10xx. With the demand for the Armor driving prices up again, we'd go with the Gigayte model w/ $374.98 price tag delivered... $5 cheaper than the EVGA and its real pcpartpicker price of $379.99 delivered, from Amazon

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/ph38TW/evga-geforce-gtx-1070-8gb-sc-gaming-video-card-08g-p4-5173-kr
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/4XyxFT/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-1070-8gb-windforce-oc-video-card-gv-n1070wf2oc-8gd

Interesting effort there, ignoring the real lowest price delivered as listed on pcpartpicker for the EVGA model which was $379.99 in order to claim a fake price advantage ... when buying it from amazon actually costs more after adding the +$7.25 s/h and a total price to the user of $381.25

The use of last generation parts was intentional... it's a budget saver and the Z170 is a superior option to B250 in many ways and the listed MoBo is far and away superior to Asrocks extreme low budget model of today. An while a Z170 was by now means necessary it was cheaper than the H170 option and for $14 the user could get a 6600k and i would highly recommend doing so.

Yes, if the user was to say that he could swing an extra $50 or so. I most certainly would have recommended H270 or Z270 but not if it came with ALC 887 / 892

That's a bit rude, I was listing off improvements, I didn't mean to sound accusational, my bad if I offended you.
The 1070 SCs never experienced catching fire in the first place for a start, that was only with the FTW, however the thermal pad issue affected all dual cards, and they were distributed anyway.
That has been fixed now, so it is irrelevant.
I put in a 144hz 1080p panel because it generally provides a better experience in my opinion, but he can stick with 1440p if he wants.
I'll edit in a comment now.
The GPU mistake is perfectly fine, everyone stuffs up sometimes.
The higher achievable clock speeds would be better imo, but I can't find a statement asking for last gen, I must have missed it....
When it comes down to it the Raidmax Viper is an awful case, and I felt more comfortable going with a good B250 board and a good quality case since he wasn't OCing, it's a personal preference.
Faster transfer rates only affect loading times in games, a 45% faster transfer rate won't make a big difference.
Given an only 9MB/s transfer rate compared to a rough 450-500MB/s rate on the 850 Evo, I'd go for the dedicated faster storage personally. Up to you I guess, but the Hybrid drives i've used (two Seagate ones circa 2015) weren't that great, I saw a small improvement over a HDD, but not as fast as an SSD.

In regards to those boot times though, my 850 Evo takes 11 seconds from boot to desktop on my PC, so that might be a consideration, not sure.

I wouldn't take a Raidmax even if it were free.

OP, i gave this list without monitor. Monitor really depend with your personality. Some prefer IPS panel, others might not so. Some prefer high Hz, some fine with 60Hz. Some prefer 1440, some prefer 4K or 1080. This is why i left the monitor up to your liking.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i7-7700 3.6GHz Quad-Core Processor ($295.49 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock B250M-HDV Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($66.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-2666 Memory ($99.97 @ Jet)
Storage: Samsung 960 Evo 250GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($129.99 @ B&H)
Storage: Western Digital WD Green 1TB 3.5" 5400RPM Internal Hard Drive ($44.99 @ Amazon)
Video Card: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1070 8GB Windforce OC Video Card ($379.00 @ Jet)
Case: BitFenix Nova ATX Mid Tower Case ($23.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: SeaSonic S12II 620W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($49.99 @ B&H)
Total: $1090.40
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-03-09 23:06 EST-0500

Ok, this build has samsung 960 evo, it uses M.2 gen 3 which the motherboard have, and has almost 3x the normal SSD (non samsung brand). SSD is a must have for me as normal SSD has 3x or more HDD, although not necessarily has to be samsung 960 evo that price still premium. But if you want total satisfaction from the beginning, this set up will bring the most of $1100 budget pc.

I know the casing is rather cheap, but it will do the job.

I strongly advise against getting cpu with 4 thread (i5 and below). Newer AAA games has able to use more than 4 core hence the i5 killer games was created. i5 can still play those i5 killer games, but you have to tweak around the game (reduce) in order for i5 to properly run. i7 will negate those problem.

This build only weakness in the future before the cpu outdated (end of its life) is the gpu. The other part no longer need to upgrade until the end of this build life. GTX 1070 is a good card, but things will always outdated.

Good luck