In Denmark there has and probably always will been a lot of debates about army selection systems and restrictions for tournaments. Through the years I been against these constructions, both because I found them stupid and they prevented them from playing the army I would like to field.

But the couple of months something has changed and I haven’t figured out why. So here are some thoughts of why I have changed.

When I started playing 5th edition I ended up playing with a lot if competitive people which of course let to me being competitive. When in Rome, do as the Romans. And I got quite good and I did a lot of speculating when it came to army lists and tactics. And I really liked the army I played (nurgle themed CSM), both because I liked the concept and probably because it was quite competitive. But do to my bad painting skill at the moment the army was put on the shelf and later sold, and then I started building other armies. It ended up with me building a Ork battlewagon brigade for a tournament in the Netherlands (Battle of the clubs) and afterwards I played it once. I used a great time preparing speculating about the list and the missions, and played some practice matches too. I build up a lot of excitement about the army, but it ended up being about winning instead of having fun. So now I’m changed.

Besides that I started in a new gaming club. They are and have always been known for their extreme army selection system and their high thoughts about fluff, hobbism and “the good game”. This time, I got the ideas first hand instead of read on forums and stuff like that. And it ended up in me starting the Imperial Fist army I always wanted. Not competitive, just with the stuff I like, and I started thinking about my army list being interesting instead of hard hitting. I love my army and I use to many ours painting the yellow on my marines, and still I like playing it because my opponents make armies to have fun and they are legal with in the gaming clubs restrictions and army selection system. I wouldn’t use the army in a competitive setting and I get kind of annoyed seeing my opponent fielding far more competitive lists when we are just playing to have fun. The word cookie cutter ending up being a four letter word.

So here is my questions…
- What are your thoughts about restrictions and army building selections systems? Do you use them?

- Do they improve the game or do they make it into something else?

- What makes you love your army and what motivates your army building?

- Do I seem motivated by gamism or hobbism? And are one better than the other?

Hope someone will take up this debate!

Just thoughts of a guy suffering from insomnia

Great thread and I totally agree. Warhammer games should be done with the thought of having fun. Not the thought of crushing my opponent just to win.
I think just the fact that you brought up this thread makes you believe more in hobbyism and the fact that people should do it because they want to play with friends.
I play my Blood Angels because I love their background and am reading all of James Swallow's books on them right now. I have never played them because I wanted to kick the crap out of people, I wanted to play them because they became more a part of me rather than just an army, I have customized them how I think they would look best, not what way would make them win the most in tournys.

Rant over lol... Great Thread!

What I think of restrictions? Depends heavily on what they are. At our LGS we're pretty relaxed about such things so the only thing we actually restrict in any sense of the word are abusive special characters (Vulkan springs to mind. Even though we haven't seen much to him really.), but we have yet to actually outright ban anything.

Imo, banning something should also only be the last resort. One that shouldn't even come up in a game such as this. After all, if you only want to play to win I suggest you play something else. Something where the games only last a couple of minutes, that way you can have so many more of the shallow victories you love so much.

Generally I see find that a few tweaks can bring some balance to an unstable system, but going too far and bureaucracy strangles the system. Like it has happened with Fantasy. At least here in Denmark the so called "restrictions" have totally gone haywire with people swinging the banhammer left and right. Hell, the last one I looked at had banned, no kidding, "all flying monsters with strenght 6 or above". WTF? And a friend of mine actually suggested we should play with that system (which contained tons of other weirdo rules), but he was nice enough to let me use my dragon because he knows that I love it.
That pissed me off. I'm only allowed to use the model I have paid a lot of money for, spent a lot of time painting and really love as my army's centerpiece because you are so good and gracious to allow me to? Screw that and screw all the players who makes people come up with this crappe! Glad our LGS store doesn't have to adjust to this shit.

Anyways, now that my somewhat uninformative rant is over, i'd like to say that restrictions shouldn't ever have to be needed anywhere outside of tournies. If you can't play for fun why bother playing?

As such, the gaming experience is vey important to me. First and foremost I like my armies based on how they play. Then comes the fluff and the overall look and feel of the army (aka the models and such). The army doesn't have to inspire me in any particular way, neither do I have to be able to identify with the forces it represents. All I want it to is to look and feel good with minimal effort and be a blast to play.

Guess what that makes me. That's right, a gamer.

Btw Kaizer, where do you play?

I just hate the notion of each army having a "master list" as a recipe for winning. I find it detracting and down right unfair. I want to play to play, not to win - though winning is obviously a bonus.

No, because they're fail.

All they do is change the game and not necessarily for the better. For example, let's say that for whatever reason next year's Ard Boyz rules that armies are only allowed to take 1 Heavy Support choice instead of the usual 3. Sure, it might fix the supposedly broken Imperial Guard "problem" that everyone bitches about, but all it'd do in the end is create a brand new "best" army - probably one like Orks who don't usually use a ton of Heavy Support.

I love my army because I love the Blood Angel Codex, I love my army's colour scheme and its fluff. For me, the main motivator to collecting new units for my army is for new opportunities on the tabletop - I love trying out new units and combinations.

I usually get motivated by things not related to 40k like i have always wanted a viking army theme for my guard.
restrictions i think would be bad because it would just bring more problems than it would fix.
although winning is awesome as long as its a good game i dont really mind losing....too much lol

- What are your thoughts about restrictions and army building selections systems? Do you use them?

Just makes new and exciting cluster fuckes. IOW if you change something to lessen the impact an army has it will just make another army will just take its place.

- Do they improve the game or do they make it into something else?

See the previous answer

- What makes you love your army and what motivates your army building?

Its fun to play and I usually build me lists to win. Don't see any other reason to build a list.

I build lists to suit the models I have (it's wysiwyg).

I also don't field models that aren't painted (I came in via napoleonics where you just don't field unpainted armies. It just isn't done. )

Given that I also only own models I like the look of, and this is not dependent upon their effectiveness on the table, my lists tend to be on the suck side. I win the odd game, and draw more than I win (close games that come down to last turn).

For the most part, the tourney scene here is still that 40k is a beer and pretzels social game (but you still get tools in the pub, so a tourney is no different).

I think this only leads to handicapping a list...every Unit in a Codex has a valid use in the game, whether it is powerful or not. It's not the lists that suck the fun out of a game it's the dickhead playing said list that does that.

That said, my Group play a lot of Narrative and Campaign - based lists where certain unit selection usually applies. This is where the 'power lists' concept isn't abused, and it's more about the storyline and what objectives need to be met.

In standard games I would say no, and what are people's motives for suggesting restrictions anyway..could be construed as 'sore losers' for one.

My main reasons are because I'm a collector first and foremost, especially with my IG. I love tanks and have 40+ Russ/Chimera chassis. I also play Death Wing/ Daemon Hunters/ SM's, all are about 3/3K, while IG is at 12K and climbing. I build them to this limit because I want to be able to field a variety of different Units and not just stick to the same few.

The background is also very important, and I have a 100 page Word Document containing every piece of info etc I come across.

Neither is the better one, each person has different motivations. Me, I'm both a Gamer and a Hobbyist, and I will powergame against a fellow powergamer, or just play friendly games if that's what's going on...they're both fun.

GW are not perfect; however, they have a team of people who design and revise whole systems as a job, so the system is more balanced than not. Whilst hitting on a better arrangement is possible, trying to fix an issue you think they missed without access to their design decisions, is likely to open up another issue and so on....

An examples of how it can all go wrong, even for professionals, is the furore over the Throne of Skulls attempt to balance things for different armies.

They change the game; depending on which army I am fielding I might find it better, worse or not 40K at all.

For instance, a ruling that only the first three armies including powered armour troops to apply may use them; everyone else has to use another army. As the fluff stresses how rare Space Marines are this makes the game more true to canon, so it must be as good decision, right?

The background. I have really enjoyed the GW concept of Chaos since Slaves to Darkness.

Back in the days of Rogue Trader I picked up whichever models I felt like painting or adding to an army, so I ran Space Marines, Eldar, Squats. Whilst being drawn back into 3rd Edition I used Space Marines for a while as I had lots of them; however they did not gel as I could win but they were boring.

So now I collect based on background, and try to put together a playable army that matches the background.

They are different instances of the overall GW IP: you do not need to be able to paint, convert, or even know the background to win a game; you do not need to play games to be a hobbyist.

I feel that neither is inherently better; however, whichever the group you are interacting with identifies with is better for that interaction as someone who is motivated by primarily fluff and someone who is motivated by primarily by winning are using basic terms (such as, available options) differently so will have to keep translating their concepts.

For me, part of the challenge of list building is to keep within my self-imposed restrictions without making a complete Gordon Brown of it.

Now that is an interesting dilemma for tournaments for which I have not seen a perfect answer; rewarding painting and fluffiness, or penalising lack thereof.

On the one hand, an ugly gun and a pretty gun both kill you the same amount and the dice gods do not actually punish Dual Lash Princes with Nurgle cheerleaders; on the other hand, some of the enjoyment of the game comes from it being played with painted figures with a history instead of counters.