8th Ed. If you could get GW to produce any single model/unit, what would it be?

[NIGHTBRINGER]

The spectacle is half the game and I hate seeing an unpainted army.

 

[BrotherSutek]

+1

Even though I cheated to get mine.

By this I assume you had your army painted for you? All good as long as there is some care and not all grey. I have friends who can't paint well and their armies are, on a professional level, poorly painted. They are beautiful to me as the owner tried their best.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

By this I assume you had your army painted for you?

Well, in a way he did...

(As far as I recall he got a lot of his models on EBay, according to posts in his painting blog and 'What did you do today hobby-wise?')

 

[Lizards of Renown]

By this I assume you had your army painted for you? All good as long as there is some care and not all grey. I have friends who can't paint well and their armies are, on a professional level, poorly painted. They are beautiful to me as the owner tried their best.

I got stuff from Ebay, got a small amount painted by friends (as I eventually gave up trying to find them on Ebay, like Sepulchral Stalkers and Necropolis Knights ....) and I'm starting to a paint a small amount myself. Beasts of Nurgle and (most of) a Hierotitan.

Trying to get myself into the painting part as I never really got into this.

Well, in a way he did...

(As far as I recall he got a lot of his models on EBay, according to posts in his painting blog and 'What did you do today hobby-wise?')

Yup. Still trying to get into the painting but life makes the time investment very, very hard currently.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I am going to be straight forward and not try to sell myself as a better person than I am.

This is an interesting statement, and something that was briefly discussed in the video from which I took these psychographic profiles. Basically, they mentioned that no one category is "bad". There are good and bad people belonging to each of the Timmy, Johnny and Spike groups. As such, bad behaviors that diminish the enjoyment of the game can arise from any psychographic leaning.

I find that in wargaming the Spike profile carries with it a much more negative connotation than attributed to either Johnnys or Timmys. For the most part, I feel this to be unfair (something which you alluded to previously). Sure there are crappy individuals who try to win at all costs, and employ poor sportsmanship, cheating, time delays and the like, but I don't feel that any of these are particular core attributes of the Spike profile. Somebody can be a complete Spike type personality but have the best sportsmanship and play everything completely fairly, in fact, I'd expect most players to play this way.

Interestingly, I find that this stereotype is prorogated much more fervently in war gaming circles than in other communities such as chess, sports or video games. In chess, most groups get along. In video games, most groups are at odds with each other, but evenly across groups . In wargaming, the Spike types are often viewed as the "bad guys". Sports and video games tend to be very much more orientated (for the most part) towards a survival of the fittest mentality, not so with wargaming.

Most of us (because we are a combination of all three profiles) can regulate the way we play depending on the environment and player group. In the cases of more single dimensional profiles, I think the Johnny group can play any of the three groups. The only major issue arises when the Timmys and the Spikes are thrown together, as the Spikes will shred the Timmys and ruin their fun.

Personally, I've had good fun playing weaker lists/armies (I am a Tomb King player after all). On the flip side, when my best buddy and I used to play way back in the day, our games were very Spike-orientated, and that was fun too.

 

[BrotherSutek]

This is an interesting statement, and something that was briefly discussed in the video from which I took these psychographic profiles. Basically, they mentioned that no one category is "bad". There are good and bad people belonging to each of the Timmy, Johnny and Spike groups. As such, bad behaviors that diminish the enjoyment of the game can arise from any psychographic leaning.

I find that in wargaming the Spike profile carries with it a much more negative connotation than attributed to either Johnnys or Timmys. For the most part, I feel this to be unfair (something which you alluded to previously). Sure there are crappy individuals who try to win at all costs, and employ poor sportsmanship, cheating, time delays and the like, but I don't feel that any of these are particular core attributes of the Spike profile. Somebody can be a complete Spike type personality but have the best sportsmanship and play everything completely fairly, in fact, I'd expect most players to play this way.

Interestingly, I find that this stereotype is prorogated much more fervently in war gaming circles than in other communities such as chess, sports or video games. In chess, most groups get along. In video games, most groups are at odds with each other, but evenly across groups . In wargaming, the Spike types are often viewed as the "bad guys". Sports and video games tend to be very much more orientated (for the most part) towards a survival of the fittest mentality, not so with wargaming.

Most of us (because we are a combination of all three profiles) can regulate the way we play depending on the environment and player group. In the cases of more single dimensional profiles, I think the Johnny group can play any of the three groups. The only major issue arises when the Timmys and the Spikes are thrown together, as the Spikes will shred the Timmys and ruin their fun.

Personally, I've had good fun playing weaker lists/armies (I am a Tomb King player after all). On the flip side, when my best buddy and I used to play way back in the day, our games were very Spike-orientated, and that was fun too.

That's a really good reply. I usually have to choose which group I play with to be competitive or casual. I love making new lists but depending on the group if it's not how they view the game it's wasted time. Heck for most of 7th edition I was mocked for playing Tomb Kings because they are "so weak". This was despite the fact that I had started winning more than I lost, knowing the rules and learning how to play my army did wonders lol. Perception is a very real thing and I've played many tournament Spike players who were awesome people and fun to play against. I've also played against some of the most whiney, temperamental jerks who sail under the Timmy flag. I know I can be an overly competitive guy at times but I also can play an all infantry TK army against a Dwarven gun line ...that didn't end well.

 

[Lizards of Renown]

Somebody can be a complete Spike type personality but have the best sportsmanship and play everything completely fairly, in fact, I'd expect most players to play this way.

It's a fair point. When I look at people who I have played in the past who I thought were "Power Gamers" it actually came down to bad sportsmanship. Sure, make a power list. But if you are being a c**t you make the game horrible to play just as much as if you are there with your list made with all your favourite units.

In fact, one of my friends is someone who just plays the units that he likes. With literally no tactics. He's not a bad sportsman so we play every so often.

Interestingly, I find that this stereotype is prorogated much more fervently in war gaming circles than in other communities such as chess, sports or video games. In chess, most groups get along. In video games, most groups are at odds with each other, but evenly across groups . In wargaming, the Spike types are often viewed as the "bad guys". Sports and video games tend to be very much more orientated (for the most part) towards a survival of the fittest mentality, not so with wargaming.

Games like chess are solely based on skill, there is no power gaming possible. So I think that this nukes anything bar the Spike mentality. I don't play a game of chess for a spectacle or something like this and I would imagine that basically no-one does.

Video games on the other hand have so many upgrades possible, or paid upgrades, that bad sportsmen can flourish. It's also easier to be an asshole to people that you never see the face of, who are just pixels on a screen.

Wargaming is solely face to face and due to the time involved, aside from tournaments, you kind of choose who you will play with as it will be a number of hours inevitably.

That's a really good reply. I usually have to choose which group I play with to be competitive or casual. I love making new lists but depending on the group if it's not how they view the game it's wasted time. Heck for most of 7th edition I was mocked for playing Tomb Kings because they are "so weak". This was despite the fact that I had started winning more than I lost, knowing the rules and learning how to play my army did wonders lol. Perception is a very real thing and I've played many tournament Spike players who were awesome people and fun to play against. I've also played against some of the most whiney, temperamental jerks who sail under the Timmy flag. I know I can be an overly competitive guy at times but I also can play an all infantry TK army against a Dwarven gun line ...that didn't end well.

Fair enough.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

but I also can play an all infantry TK army against a Dwarven gun line ...that didn't end well.

I can't imagine that ending well (for the TK).

I've also played against some of the most whiney, temperamental jerks who sail under the Timmy flag.

Good point! That's why I find it interesting that a stigma exists against one psychographic profile (Spike), while the others are seemingly given a pass.

I don't play a game of chess for a spectacle or something like this and I would imagine that basically no-one does.

There is a fair bit of spectator interest in chess games. You can see famous games broken down on YouTube. It's also not uncommon for people to gather around and watch players playing chess in a park. You'd be surprised, there are many who don't have a Spike personality, who just enjoy the beauty of the game. Not like Warhammer of course, but in its own way. There are also Chess puzzles that people find fun.

Video games on the other hand have so many upgrades possible, or paid upgrades, that bad sportsmen can flourish. It's also easier to be an asshole to people that you never see the face of, who are just pixels on a screen.

People can be pretty nasty when anonymity is involved and there is no fear of physical or social consequences. I've had people wish me and my whole family death because I killed them fair and square in a game. You get used to it, plus you can always report and block them!

That said, nothing better than being called a cheat and being accused of using an aimbot when you are playing perfectly clean and fair! That is the compliment of compliments!

 

[BrotherSutek]

I can't imagine that ending well (for the TK).


Good point! That's why I find it interesting that a stigma exists against one psychographic profile (Spike), while the others are seemingly given a pass.


There is a fair bit of spectator interest in chess games. You can see famous games broken down on YouTube. It's also not uncommon for people to gather around and watch players playing chess in a park. You'd be surprised, there are many who don't have a Spike personality, who just enjoy the beauty of the game. Not like Warhammer of course, but in its own way. There are also Chess puzzles that people find fun.


People can be pretty nasty when anonymity is involved and there is no fear of physical or social consequences. I've had people wish me and my whole family death because I killed them fair and square in a game. You get used to it, plus you can always report and block them!

That said, nothing better than being called a cheat and being accused of using an aimbot when you are playing perfectly clean and fair! That is the compliment of compliments!

One of my friends used to play a lot of online shooter games and the level of vitriol heaped on him was scary. He had a 13 year old kid from Texas swearing at him for missing a kill as if this was a game with real life consequences. I like competitive but that's just messed up!

 

[Lizards of Renown]

There is a fair bit of spectator interest in chess games. You can see famous games broken down on YouTube. It's also not uncommon for people to gather around and watch players playing chess in a park. You'd be surprised, there are many who don't have a Spike personality, who just enjoy the beauty of the game. Not like Warhammer of course, but in its own way. There are also Chess puzzles that people find fun.

I was talking about "spectacle" as in the equivalent of fielding all your favourite units regardless of synergy. There's definitely spectatorship on chess. It has a World Championship!!!

People can be pretty nasty when anonymity is involved and there is no fear of physical or social consequences. I've had people wish me and my whole family death because I killed them fair and square in a game. You get used to it, plus you can always report and block them!

Yup. The whole agro thing is waaaaay too much.

But I have found some YouTube videos with a guy called Soviet Womble who has some great videos of him playing with friends. Quite funny.

That said, nothing better than being called a cheat and being accused of using an aimbot when you are playing perfectly clean and fair! That is the compliment of compliments!

Ha!