Design by constraints

Sorry about the delay - I don't know how the regular bloggers do it every day :)

One of the most powerful tools, in my opinion, in designing your army is the use of constraints. Now we're all used to some for of constraint - nearly every game out there has some form of limitation on how you create your force. Points, FOC charts, unit size restrictions - all these and more enforce a set of rules that constrain the choices you can make.

But that's not what I'm talking about here - I'm talking about self imposed constraints. Limitations that you place upon yourself in order to challenge yourself or to shape the composition of your force.

Constraints can be an interesting way to improve your game. The way this type of limitation works is this: Perhaps there is a unit that you always take. You've designed your force around it, and all of your opponents have come to expect the presence of the unit. So for a game (or more): Don't take it. Force yourself out of the comfort zone and see how you do without this unit. Surprise your opponent. The unexpected can be powerful, and you'll sharpen your skills without relying on your go-to unit. This is a great thing to try with those units that you consider auto-include. Another way to do this is the opposite approach: Those units you find to be useless, pointless, worthless - give them a try. Stretch your tactical muscles. See if your skills can lift up a mediocre unit. Maybe something isn't as bad as your feared.

Note, I'm not recommending this approach for those of you who are in-it-to-win-it on tournament day - these sorts of experiments should be done in friendly games, leading up to the big day and helping you to be a more skilled player. In many games, the dice can be cruel, or there are effects that might remove your favorite unit - so make sure you practice some without it.

For me, I apply constraints as a way to build a fluffy or thematic list. When I come up with an idea for a force, somes story describing the army I'm building, one of the first things I do is to ask myself what units are required, and just as important, what units should be restricted or prohibited so that my force is "true" to the concept or theme.

As an example, in the 40k fluff, the White Scars don't use dreadnaughts (it's there, go read the old Adeptus Astartes books). So, in building my sons' White Scar list we're not taking any dreadnaughts (even though they are cool). And obviously he's taking bikes :) Two constraints that are not in any way required by the rules, but certainly contribute to the thematic integrity of the list.

All of this is leading up to my current 40k, Infinity, and Heavy Gear projects. More on that later...

How did I survive all those years...

....without knowing about superglue accelerant?

Zip Kicker is awesome. I couldn't do my Infinity figs without it.

Test figure for my IG scheme...

So here's the first figure for an Imperial Guard force that I'm thinking about building...

Need to clean up the base, and maybe add some grass or rocks...

I like it. Think I'll stay with it.

Theme Based Army Building

In theory, all army building is theme based. Your theme could be "A list that crushes all my opponents before me and makes them cry".

But usually, that's not what people mean when they talk about a theme. When I say that, I'm referring to some aesthetic, artistic, or story-based concept that is applied to a force that usually ties your army together visually as well as tactically.

The most basic of themes is your paint job - making all the units follow a standard color scheme can transform those plain grey & metal figures into a solid representation of a unified force. A good paint job can pull together units that normally might seem odd to be together - but somehow, when they're all painted the same way... ta da! They're an army!

Another type of theme is the "iconic" army - this force is constructed in such a way that others viewing it on the table immediately recognize it for what it is - because not only are the figures from the given army list, but your choices fall in line with the established fluff.

Consider, for a moment, Space Marines. By everything you read, the vast majority of your force should be tacticals (unless you're doing a specialty force, but more on that later). Everything you read about the Emperor's boyz would suggest that most forces are made up of large amounts of your basic line trooper, the tactical marine. This flies in the face of common competitive tactics (considering that tacticals are overpriced and not as flexible as the fluff makes them out to be). But visually, a large number of 10 man tactical squads on the board just screams "Space marines".

Finally, there are the "specialists". Deathwing and Ravenwing. The 10th company. A specific craftworld. Speed Freaks. Armored Fist. These more specific themes can really be evocative and look great on the board - the trick is, to truly represent your theme and not "cheat" by adding some choice units which in theory shouldn't belong ("Why yes, my scout company just happened to be joined by a terminator squad and two riflemen dreads...")

This leads me into my next project, an Imperial Guard army. But I didn't want to just sit down and throw together the usually suspects (Vendettas, MeltaVets, Manticores) - I wanted a theme. So I'm building an Imperial Guard mortar battery. In the next few articles, I'm going to describe how I've planned this out and then blog about my efforts...

My next project

So I'm starting a new project, an Imperial Guard army. In the next days/weeks/months, I'll put up the idea for the theme, but for now here's a test figure to see if I like the plan:

What is a Casual Wargamer?

Truthfully, its a silly term that the internet throws around, in the attempt to reduce the wargaming community down to a simple classification system. Its usually something like this:

1. The Painters, The Hobbyists (The Art Crowd): Those who aren't actually concerned with the games at all. Rather they are driven to build, paint, and convert models solely on the basis of aesthetics. If they play, there is little or no regard to the tactical value of a figure/model/unit - things are taken for how cool they look or simply because "they like it". At tournaments they're shooting for the Best Painting award.
2. The Historians, The Recreationists (The "Fluff Bunnies"): These individuals construct their forces according to the established histories/stories of the army in question. Even in fantasy and science fiction games, there is usually an established canon of material that describes the potential buildout of your forces. These individuals build their forces in a way that is "true" - once again, not necessarily building an effective force, but building one that follows this established canon. At tournaments, they're shooting for the Best Theme award.
3. The Competitive, aka WAACs (Win At All Costs): The type of player that gets the worst rap online - they are described as someone that tweaks, bends, twists, and does everything possible outside of cheating to win. Their armies are designed for one thing: winning. They take figures solely based on power, cost effectiveness, and the ability to get the job done. If the internet was to be believed, every tournament is dominated by these hard core gamers. They are, of course, playing for the Best General ward.
4. The Casual: Someone who is just in it for fun. Not so concerned with any of the above, but just shows up to tournaments to socialize, play some games with friends, and grab a few beers after the game. They aren't trying for any awards at a tournament...

The problem is, as I see it, is there are very few people out there that fall solely into one of these groups. Yes, there are individuals that embody the above, but most of us are a healthy mix of it all.

Take me, for example. I like to paint, and try to make my guys "table quality". But I have no expectations of winning medals. And I don't obsess over the appearance of my little plastic men. I definitely like a good story, and I try not to have my units deviate too much from the "norm" of the army that I'm building. While I don't ever expect to actually win Best General at a tournament, I do enjoy winning, when I can :) But most of all, I'm in this for fun - to hang out with other people that share my interests, and have fun for a night/day/weekend. In this respect, wargaming is no different than the other multitude of hobbies out there. And from the crowds I see at the tournaments, I think there's a lot more people like me, than of the four groups listed above.

So, what's a casual wargamer? I don't know. But it sounded like a good name for a blog :)

Welcome to my blog, such as it is.

So this is going to be the place where I post my thoughts, works-in-process, and other silliness about my hobby, miniatures wargaming. Right now I'm just getting it started, so there's not much here except some links and some pictures - hopefully that will change soon...