Which species of wargamer are you? www.patreon.com/letstalktabletop #hobby #warhammerageofsigmar #warhammer #warhammer #warhammer40k #wargame #gamesworkshop
I’ve been a marshmallow since game one. I just like seeing the figures move around & fight. Those against-all-odds moments like “how is that guy not dead yet?!?” or “welp, I blew up my own commander.”
Exactly! The way games can tell a story is always really fun. Like that one little soldier that somehow survived a demon attack or something like that.
I'm a midfielder. I enjoy tournament competitive play, and often play games where the shared expectation is "practice game for a tournament" But even within the competition environment in a fan of the Vanguard Tactics policy that the very best play is play with sporting behavior where your opponent feels that they had a fair and friendly match. Outside of tournament play, there is a single goal. "Make sure everyone involved wants to play again."
Hot take (that shouldnt be hot): tabletop war games are antithetical to the WAAC mindset. Theres too many opportunities to cheat, stretch, or otherwise fudge in some way. Theres too much subjectivity around things like movement, LOS, cover, etc. Games that have leeway and imprecision can never be authentically competitive. Warhammer is collaborative, not competitive. Even if its technically a competition.
I 100% agree! Although somebody could say all of that about sports as well and they are also competitive by nature and not really designed for casual enjoyment. Or maybe I'm just thinking about it wrong
First off, great username. Second, I love narrative games as well. Unfortunately, none of the members of my group are really into them. So I don't get to play narratively as often as I like.
You didn't mentioned the grognards, newbies, or mid fielders of experience level. I have known lots of wargamers who have gamed for 50+ years. Most of them are pretty easy going, but I wouldn't call them marshmallows! I think your comments are pretty much on the nose, but not necessarily when it comes to historical wargamers. I don't play any GW games anymore, nor do I play many popular historical rules like Bolt Action. I'm definitely more of a marshmallow when it comes to how I approach gaming, but I think calling it an artists or creative person's outlook is a bit more accurate!
Fair enough! I think there are a lot of other subcategories I could have gotten into. From what I see, historical gamers have always been some of the nicest and laid-back gamers I've met.
I would be a marshmallow/average john, because I do kinda follow whats going on, but...I'm currently stuck in the hidden category the "eternal painter/collector." One of these days my armies will be finished, and I will be able to play.
I'm a wannabe half marshmallow half mid-fielder. But after having only 1 win in 7 years, I'm probably a Mr Magoo... What I want are close games with narrative lists and cool moments where me and my opponent both have wins and losses. If I won 25% of my games I'd be happy enough. At the moment, despite how obsessed I am with this hobby, I can only say I want to get there (btw, I just discovered this channel and I really love your content)
@@dovlakini1235 Some bad luck, some misplays, a lot of it I blame on our game group focusing on the "kill every enemy model" type game rather than the objectives based gameplay that the game is balanced for, which means my Necrons being kind of frail and with no psychic are trying to out-last Ultramarines, Thousand Sons, and Death Guard. I got my first win against Tyranids which were equally horde-y and about as resilient as my Necrons. Against my regular group I started doing less badly once I stopped using Necrons and started using Chaos Knights which were more resilient, had better AP, some psychic, and an actual invulnerable save.
I don't play tabletop at all, but you just stating your opinion about the "Win at all cost" players (which would probably be me if I played) makes me respect you more. I hate people who pussyfoot around stuff. No. Some people suck and ruin it for others and we need to stop giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Hey thanks! We currently have some of those type people in our group at the local store and they are really starting to turn people off of the hobby. We are actively combating them but there is no fixing them. They are broken inside or something. I've had discussions with him to tone it down. They tried to turn it down but they still don't get it. One of the guys completely table the 10 year old two separate times.
@@LetsTalkTabletop In all honestly, coming at this from an actual video game player, that same breed within gaming has made many player vs player games, particularly in the MMO genre abysmal. They will sit down with a calculator and hammer out the _best_ way to play a class, which quickly becomes the _only_ way to play at all, and any illusion of choice of freedom the game had is obliterated. The developers might as well just have you press 1 button over and over again. It's called E-sports, and it's damn near destroyed multiple genres of computer games at this point. So when you say someone is "broken inside" I know what you mean, and frankly you're in a better position as a TT player to gate keep them out, because developers for games see dollar signs and actively CATER to these people, regardless of how often that ends with a game's diminished player base.
Yeah, you are touching on a topic that I want to do a future video on. The actual insanity of netlisting and min maxing to the point where there is only one build. You've hit the nail on the head!
Not all hyper competitive people are asshats, but I will admit there are lots of them. I was renowned in the warmachine/hordes community for several years as one of the hardest people to play against, but the most fun to lose against. I'm also not a netlister or trend follower, and I hate spam. I've also beaten people so hard that they didn't want to play against me, they had fun playing against me but didn't actually have fun in the game. But I dunno if I fit in the second category.
Then it sounds like you are not a waac, you are a professional average john. Lol. If you care at all about your opponent's experience and you are fun to play against then you simply cannot be a waac.
@@LetsTalkTabletop I was just watching an interview with a pro player on how they view playing against regular players and they said it's amoral to bring the strongest tools you can to that kind of game. It really clicked with me, and this is the same thing. If i'm placing top 3 at tournaments on the reg I can't bring that kind of heat to a casual pickup game. The game I mentioned above, where I steamrolled him so hard he didn't want to play against me again, was actually a TO asking to face one of my best lists. He wanted to feel the heat, and I beat him so hard he wouldn't even face me if I was using a casual list; but we were laughing and making jokes for the whole game. It can be nice getting the raid boss treatment, but it's kind of lonely. That's probably why I ended up focusing so much on sportsmanship.
I’m somewhere between an average John and a casual. I may keep some tabs on the competitive side of a game but I prefer to screw around beer and pretzels style. I also like playing a more “flavorful” list as opposed to an optimal one, be it in 40k/Horus Heresy or Bolt Action. I love the video and I’m excited to see where the channel goes.
For the last 30 years, I use this test when gaming with opponents to gauge whether I game with them again or not. I call miniatures "dollies". (Because of that, some people reading this will know exactly who I am. Hi!) And we play in a dolly land with dolly houses. For example: "Hey Albert, how far can your dolly move?" or "My death dollies are going to now assault your sniper dolly." or "What kind of dolly games do you like to play? I like Warcry." etc. Now, in a long enough timeline, this would get under anybody's nerves. However, the people who matter won't care, and those that care don't matter. So, depending on the level of dismissal that I get from people when I use this nomenclature shows me the quality of their character. Because like you, I am here to joke around and shoot the breeze. Playing dollies is just the excuse to do that. I like my dollies and dolly houses lookin' good so I go the extra mile, yet, to take this all too seriously, which is too easy to do, leads to the path of a bad time. Hence, "dollies". Plus, its good fun to piss off people who take this too seriously by telling them you like how they dressed their dollies. It's the little subversive things like that which brings me joy.
while i'm sure videogame culture has exacerbated the prevailance of cheesy/WAAC players, they definitely existed before that too. i started playing WFB and 40k when I was 9 and those people were common enough to put me off tabletop gaming for years
Yeah I've heard about cheesy lists like the imperial guard leaf blower army from years gone by. I know those people have always existed but my hunch is that video games have made it worse.
@@LetsTalkTabletop nah ... you see that attitude crop up in sports too. Anything competitive will have its share of 'win at any cost' players/teams. That's why doping is a thing in (professional) sports.
I'd like to say I'm a FAAC (Fun At All Costs) player, but based on how often I have to look at unit cards and re check rules due to being newer, I'd have to say I'm pure Mr. Magoo at this point. I'll try to match what anyone is going for, but if you're a competetive player it's usually pretty obvious who's (You, it's always you) going to win by around the middle of turn 2. At the end of the day I just want to roll some dice, smile, laugh and have a good time with you.
lol, I`ve been playing since the very late 60`s (about 1968 I think). I`m a hardcore solo immersionist... and hardcore relaxed immersive narrative when playing with freinds, club, or family. Great video.
Hey, it is my old pal, Scott! Have you got that $10 you owe me? I'm definitely Homo Habilis. I like to stick my paws into buckets of hundreds of Chessex Dice and go goosh, goosh, goosh. Sucking dice it fun too. Thanks for another fun video. 👍 I like the distinction between WAAC and Wannabe WAAC. Can you give a definition of a "Narrative Game"?
Oh I swear I'll have that cash next Friday! You don't have to keep threatening my dog via email. 😉 I actually had to decide between doing a narrative video or this one! I will definitely be diving into that soon. I am in the process of completely revamping all of my narratives for my convention and I've got lots of ideas!
I think there is another category. The collector. We love collecting and painting minis. We have a bunch of noncompetitive armies from a bunch of systems some fully painted some halfway done until the next huge box set drops that catches our eye. Rule of cool is our driving force. We want the coolest looking models that are the most fun to paint. But it's the worst mini on the table you say. We don't care it looks awesome. We never go to tournaments; we rarely play an actual games (but love to do so when we get a chance - except playing WACs), we may or may not be aware of the 'meta' but either way we just don't care, and due to our lack of games under the belt we are very likely to be at least somewhat of a Magoo. So I guess we are a subset of Marshmallow/Magoo.
You know, while I don't understand your collection habits, I have known many people that are just like you. They enjoy the miniatures for the miniature's sake. There's nothing wrong with that!
My friends have played wargames together for much longer than I have, and have agreed upon which edition to play for a given game system (40K, Bolt Action, etc.) Whenever we play a new game system, I quickly fall into Mr Magoo category. But once we have played those rules a few times, I slowly move into marshmallow territory. They have the skills to play each other at a higher level, but are happy for me to play while I am learning. In our group, narrative and friendship are always more important other considerations. I have recently started painting my own minis. I love it, and have painted minis purely for the way they look, or for the lore. I don't mind if I never get them to a game, they make me happy just to look at. That might be a sub-sub-category :)
The people who just love to paint miniatures is definitely a category! I'm also happy to hear that sounds like you have a great group of friends. That's way better than a lot of the horror stories we hear about at local game stores sometimes. LOL
Fine video. Avrage Joe here for many years, tried to be a waac and it did not work for me. Can come up with a few more tribes: The lore hound: more interested in the lore of the game then the rolling dice and moving minis. Both the official lore and/or the one they make for their own army. The painter: more interested in the painting part and is often good at it to a level where i could never get if my life depended on it. The painter have several subspecies: The sculptor/kitbasher: making the most amazing sculpts and kit bashes. The techhead: spending more time with their 3d printer, airbrush, hotwire cutter or in blender then playing the game. The terrain crafter: beloved by every club they join, for the plentora of great terrain that is produced on a regular basis. Someone else mentioned the one who profers the narative game. Hav not really encountered them my self, but heard of this elusive tribe on the interwebs and their way of life seems more and more appealing the older i get. Think we all have a bit of all the tribes in us, and this many different mindsets is what makes this hobby so great.
I'm a Ms. Magoo. Basically playing to the game to stave off Alzheimer's, so the fact that GW is always changing the rules keeps my brain alive. I would like to play better than I do because when you do something well, it probably means that you understand what you are doing. There is joy in the skill. Still a long way from that.
I used to be more WAC when playing tournament DBM, but I've pretty much given up on tournament play as being too stressful. I've been all over the map at different times in life. I'm currently doing more rounding out the painting of my long minis backlog than playing anything very regularly, so I'm not playing at a very high level, maybe Average Joe/Mr Magoo with old grognard tactical sense.
I'm probably a midfielder but I've always called myself more of a Skald or Bard in wargaming. Here's why, I don't mind winning and I try to play to get the win, but if I lose or win isn't really the big focus. The bigger focus is *how* and was it memorable. I've played many a Battletech game where I could swig my Dr pepper at the table like its mead, then regale you with tales that start with "You won't believe this crap, but here's how..." and I'll remember all sorts of goofy crap that happened at the table. That's the fun. The fact I have a friend who used oil slicks to trip up a very deadly Omnimech for a few turns then he left the table because he got his giggles, he's done. The fact I've missed a few skid checks and broke buildings on top of me, doing more damage to myself than the enemy did. Close fights where literally it was down to one salvo. I was able to remember these moments and tell the tale like a Klingon singing a glorious moment of battle.
On the topic of ‘influenced by video games’ I have this too with boardgames or Rp games to be more specific .. Too many times I read (or hear from friends) players (or DMs) about the best build, combo’s , spells. Gear.. But they almost always forget the RP part, the fluff.. Its not only about how much damage one can do but more in-depth how your character acts and reacts to the imaginary surroundings and using imaginative solutions to situations besides only throwing punches and fireballs .. Also its up to the DM to accommodate players even if its just plain “handy harry” That’s with wargames too.. Its always a clash between them “casually” but in truth competitive friends and fluff narrative friends.. And I personally love to play it way more with a somewhat storyline. Just like you said they don’t care about themselves no remorse or compassion if you lose every time, they only care about their streak/wins/loots and it shows.. So most of the time I felt more like an Exp grind when times of Crusade (40k)
Exactly. There really are two different types of mentalities in the gaming group. And people that don't understand but role-playing is will probably never understand what it is.
Oh that's fun. At the moment my group consists of 2 casuals, 1 magoo and a marshmallow (myself). The wolf in sheeps clothing is actually pretty on point, i had one in my last club as a regular battletech opponent... terrible experience
I've been a marshmellow ever since I got into tabletop wargaming back in 1996. (Though my elder brother got into gaming in 1993.) Been using the same army lists for 24 years, and although I have had to tweak the army lists whenever a new edition came out, they have remained relatively unchanged. As a theme player all my armies are non-competitive and are built for casual and friendly games, though I have used them in the odd tournament over the years and they hold up reasonably well against both WAAC and midfielder players. When playing games my philosophy is: "Having fun is my victory, not having fun is my defeat.". Whether I physically win or lose is irrelevant. There are have been many times where I'm losing a battle and laughing at the same time, sometimes actively egging the dice gods to roll the the dice in favour of my opponent, etc. (I once intentionally built a Tyranid army with the sole purpose of getting mowed down! XD) I've lost count of the number of times when at least half my army was destroyed within the first two turns, only for the remaining half end up turning the battle around in my favour. (There have been numerous instances where a lone Death Guard armed with a bolter has won me games.) That being said, the ONLY time when I will actively go about of my way to win is if the opponent is the "bad sport, cheat and Win at all cost" kind. The look on their faces when my underpowered armies systematically destroy their power gaming armies is priceless.
Scott, you quite often mentioned playing 2vs2 or 2vs1. There is not much to be found online written about how it works. Coul you please expand on this topic some time or another?
Absolutely! You aren't the only one that has asked me about the multiplayer aspect. I plan on doing a video on it in the future. There's lots of fun ways to play multiplayer.
I do mid field alot. But I also do try to waac my lists with what Ive got(or still have to build and paint). And the magoo player does sound like the goal.
Great video Scott. Im definitely a marshmallow with a bit of intentional Magoo. I just want to roll dice and have a good time. I like to be forgiving with measurements and LOS an stuff. Play to the opponents intention rather than being super picky over a 1/2" of range or some crap. Lifes too f'n short and theres more than eough stress in the real world to want to add even more in our hobby worlds.
Exactly! If there is ever an instance where the opponent asks, "Is my weapon in range?" and it's within an inch I say "Yup!" without checking. Haha. I think we're on the same wavelength.
Oh man ... definitely me too. Range ? ... yeah ... that looks ok to me. Is it in cover ? ... let's say it is and roll the dice. Dice not landing perfect and it could be the one critical hit that destroys my unit ?... no worries. army of my opponent a few points over the limit ? nah ... it'll be fine.
To use your terminology I guess I started right from the beginning as a Marshmallow in 2nd ed 40k, then with time and experience Marshmallow verging on Mid-fielder; but as the many years, games and editions rolled by I'm more Marshmallow verging on Mr Magoo 😅 I've always been more a hardcore casual, for me it's the fun and experience of the game that is most important for all involved. I love a game that is a spectacle at any scale from skirmish to large battle, full of narrative and storytelling and awesome personalised conversions and cool moments. If the game is also a bit nail-biting and close "competitively"/strategically all the better. I don't care who wins in the end as long as either side technically had an equal chance to do so and the game was fun for all sides. Carry on being awesome and take care 😊
It would be interesting to see if any of this has any correlation with the age of the player. It feels like a young person wants to prove themselves and want to win vs an old player who’s has a limited amount of time and just wants to have fun. I’m sure it’s more complicated than that but interesting nonetheless the less.
Well said. Would like to know both physical age and mental age. Know several waacs and all of them seen to be at least a bit emotional stunted, have low self esteem and immature. Not saying they are less intelligent, most of them are sharp and cunning. Just not nice to play with.
almost ALL my gaming group (about 12 players all told) are some forms of Marshmallow... with a few midfielders and a couple Mr Mcgooos mixed in... the few WAACs we have had over the years don't enjoy our kind of "competitive" games... 5'x10' city table with random moving storms of magic domes as teleporters each round... and sometimes we mix in an adapted Warhammer Fantasy Treacheries system just for fun when were 6+ players... our crusade games have "ambushed in route" games where your list if rolled for random from your army roster...
I'm in it for the aesthetic almost exclusively, and I've been playing and collecting for about 20 years. I have a WAAC friend, and I'm glad to lose to him. I get to paint our minis, and he gets to play his game. There's so much to this hobby that I'm glad to help other people have *their* fun too. However, if you're hyper competitive or hyper casual, it's good to let your opponent know beforehand no matter what. Winning a race no one else is running isn't really a victory in any sense.
I'm that weird player.That narrative is what I like.But if i'm losing to break your way then winning becomes more and more important. This means that my competitiveness is dependent on how i've been doing on that count in recent games and have i'm feeling about my skill levle.
But I take it that if you are crushing your opponent you back off? If that's the case then you are just a decent human being. Lol. I think everyone cares a little more when they're being crushed.
@@LetsTalkTabletop Usually it's in the set of games.And not an individual game which means that I can be a problem if i've been frustrated about how i've been doing over recent weeks. Not the player.I want to be but the player I am.
I was wondering what would you call a tournament players that tries to win the event, yet not with a list that literally is considered meta, rather then with a list nobody is suspecting to be played or using a unit in a way that they would never have thought to use it like? For example I’m a skaven player and the list I have been taking to the last three tournaments was a rattling gun spamm list. Spamming 13+ rattling gun weapon teams.
I agree strongly with the "videogamer" wargamer critique, but to add to it, I feel like wargamers who treat tabletop as a videogame, always ignore the broader scope of the hobby. They focus on one format for set of missions, and I feel like 40k specifically has been pandering to that audience in recent years, and don't have a love of the other parts of wargames, its all numbers to them. Sure there will always be "Spike" players in any hobby game, but I feel like warhammer (The largest game on the market) specifically has in recent years nurtured and let these players grow to a larger and more vocal side of the hobby, which would worry me if there weren't many great people in the hobby, not just games workshop stuff but all the other great games out there (Shoutout to the turnip28 fellas)
I'm on the fence between marshmallow and midfield. Not interested in tournaments, but I'll pay attention to what units aren't doing what they're supposed to and probably avoid them. But usually I just kinda run whatever I've got. My friend and I laugh when vehicles explode or wizards miscast, and usually our games are pretty close because we're so used to each other's armies.
You know, I appreciate your honesty. I fully expected nobody to claim either of those titles. Now that you know what you are, you should be extra careful about how your opponent feels. Otherwise there's going to be people that legitimately despise you in your gaming club. Unless of course, the entire gaming club is that way and then it's probably no problem.
currently dealing with an awful situation with a 'wolf in sheeps clothing' type at my LGS. he has positioned himself as the person in charge of almost all organized play (despite not being a store employee) and in charge of all the discords etc where people organize games. i called him out for being toxic, and he is now trying to make it as hard as possible for me to be able to play at all. these type of people are HORRIBLE for everyone involved, players, the store, etc. i have on multiple occasions wondered whether i even want to get into this hobby because of him. considered selling all my stuff etc. but i refuse to let one douchebag ruin it for me. as for me, i'm probably somewhere between a midfielder and marshmallow.
I played WoW warriors for 15 years straight. through good times and bad, many many bad times. I played thematic lists that come with a story. I only know meta as far as what to expect from my opponent's armies. My Dwarfs work a brewery so dont use black powder weapons as the two dont mix very well. As an example. My Space Marines have a lot of scouts as they a new founding and dont have many full battle brothers yet. Especially no Terminators or Dreadnaughts.
I'm more a simulation- or roleplayer. My goal is to have a nice game, possibly win, but above all to have an exciting game with ups and downs. Easy to win without much effort? Boring. That's why I'm now more attracted to historical games without points. A good game, based on a historical battle, with the closest possible result, that's something. Sometimes outnumbered as an underdog.😊
Self-identified average John here. I even have the trophy. Having fun is always my priority. Win or lose. And I think the ability to be dialed into your opponent's vibe exists with all species. The sub-species of competitive players with deliberate cheaters being the only true villains. I am a huge proponent of rules literacy when playing. The fun at the table is the results of decisions and dice rolls. Not when the game screeches to a halt to look up rules constantly. This can become very frustrating when you have a finite amount of time to play. Games don't come to a conclusion and it feels like a waste of time. Magoos often need lots of supervision during the game. I spend a lot of time coaching them out of tactical blunders and warning them about potentially devastating counter plays. Even a Magoo doesn't want to feel like they got gotcha'd. But we shouldn't have to remind players that the core rule Overwatch strat exists. At some point it feels like I'm playing against myself. And the result always feels like an asterix. For a game to be close and competitive, you've got to be rules literate. At least for core rules and the units you are running.
The Magoo's that you describe definitely exist and they are actually a real Downer to the game. You are talking about the more extreme version. Maybe there should be some differentiation. Maybe they are not Magoo's but they are baby seals?
A demo game should be like a VG tutorial: basically impossible to lose. Teaching games present an opportunity to take sub optimal lists and rarely used units to give a tactical challenge to yourself while giving a new player a fair chance. Im only going to bring out the big guns if my opponent has big guns as well. Seal clubbing just sours the entire hobby for new players and the friendless losers who do it are a detriment to the game and hobby. I used to play tournaments but quit because of all the rapid rules changes. I liked tournaments because I could go all out and smash as hard as I can. I rely on solid tactics and good strategy, not arguing over the rules for an advantage. So idk what you would call me. I did feel kinda bad one tournament game as a Thousand sons player made the mistake of trying to shield Magnus with a squad of Rubrics... Fire Prisms hurt everyone that day, Lol.
Judging by your history, your interest, and your comment on demo games, it seems like you are a very skilled player who knows when to tune it down. Bravo!
I was going to say Marshmallows are the worst because they say they are not competitive but you always end up with a shitty list against their awesome list in demo games. Then you explained the wolf sheep skin.
I call myself a "immersive competitive gamer". The rules are very much important to me, but I like to play games where you can be a strategist without really thinking about the rules, you just do what a "real make believe" general would do and the rules enforce/reward you for that. But massacring my oponent isn't fun to me. So when I bulding both lists I will aways try to make them to be the same power level. Even when I don't like the enemy faction. so warhammer isn't for me, I preffer OPR. and I think that would a substyle of middle grounder in your classification.
I'm definitely a marshmallow. My goal is to have fun. I will even scale down my skill when facing less experienced players and will make tactical decisions that I believe will make the game more enjoyable. My proudest moment is definitely beating one of our local WAAC players. He didn't have an extremely meta list, but it was up there. My list did have some strong units in it, but I chose them simply because I like them.
I feel like I'm floating between a few of these aspects. Probobly a mid fielder the most, but can have some WAAC aspects too, Where I can get quite rule nerdy xD but usually only for tournaments, and even then the later matches if it's going well. But I also love narrative games, both players tuning list down, allow for units you don't often play, focus on both having a good time. But I can like have Marshmallow sentiments too, I do end up occationally deciding / refusing to do the nr 1 optimal route to win, if I'm starting to get a too big lead in a game, I want the game to feel even, if I'm at the lead I might charge with a Hero again his hero, just to have a duel, Lets gamble a bit, while I dont completly like gimp myself I really want the game to feel interesting for longer. But then again I can occationally have some wolf in sheeps clothing aspects too, like while agreeing on taking nicer list, I still show up with a bit harder then I first thought I would, just because I couldn't help myself, I saw a really cool combo I wanted to try out and or wanted to practice this other really cool slightly OP combo, It's NOT gonna be anywhere near bringing 12 leman russes, but not as soft list as I first planned for. BUT if I do that, bring a harderlist then I maybe should have, I start to feel bad about it, and like mess up my own deployment on purpose, small details, ranges wholy within for buffs, and when the game then START I focus on catching up from the handicap I set upon myself as punishment or something. _____________________________________ Another aspect is I love taking STRONG lists, but dislike NET/META lists, I want to feel uniqe with my list and strategy, I want to express myself with listbuilding and strategy, finding the odd combos that might make me slight underdog, but people underestimates the list making it stronger just by that too. _____________________________________ If I have an intro match with someone, NO WAY I'm allowing myself to crush the opponent, I often take a rather weak mess of an army, and I might tell the opponent, since I know this is your first game and I'm experienced, we could agree that I start the game with 200pts less or so? I'm not gonna gimp myself so weak that I couldn't win at all, but weak, and I then DO some typical tricks you can do in the game to do well, but with worse list and a few 100 pts less in my army, that makes up for his setback and he'll have a shot at doing it back or something. A good intro game has the beginner winning by a tight margin, preferbly by them doing something smart towards the end from what they'v learned in the match. ______________________________________ Another aspect is what game it is I'm playing, I'm mostly playing AoS, Got 7 armies of 2500-7k pts, have terrain enough for 10 tables (love making terrain) and spend a TON of time painting / customising / converting my armies, making them uniqe, in AoS I'm inbetween Midfielder and Marshmallow mostely, but I know the game really well, fairly good and I do get a bit WAAC tendencies if I feel it's going well in a tourny and it's the last 2 games / 5. But if I play some other game I might be a bit more WAAC, especially if it's a game with prepainted minis, less investment, fewer miniatures, and so on, I simply care less for the narrative of the game, and just want to execute the tactics.
A great video ! Yet I can’t agree about the role of vidéo game in « sociopath » gaming. Long, long ago un the misty 70’s and 80’s we already experienced crazy competitive wargamer or roleplayers, be ir in Ad&d, fantasy or historic wargaming…
@@LetsTalkTabletop you would bot imagine what kind of violent argument and debased lies I saw between otherwise perfect gentlemen around a napoleonic tabletop !!! Good they had no genuine weapons.
I've thought about it especially regarding competitive video games and I've come to the conclusion that video games are just too popular for their own good. In nearly any other hobby, people tend to care about preserving and growing the hobby they love and that affects how they treat people. For popular video games, there's always the next Xmas noob even if the one you beat on quits the game. I.e. there are literally no negative repercussions for bad behavior.
Absolutely. I honestly think media and video games have had a bad impact on our society, not in the traditional way that people claim such as teen violence, but just in people's antisocial behavior. Such as message boards and things like that where you can be anonymous and talk to people like garbage.
i dont really minmax in video games either, or be mean to the NPC's. i play my characters how i think they are, litterly roleplaying them. Heck i even feel sorry for the monsters i kill and try not to do it..
I am not sure it is as easy as those 3 categories. I don’t want to win at all costs, but number crunching, tactical gameplay and rule combination is my favourite thing to do in PvP, CoOp and singleplayer Games. I want close games that are fun for everyone involved, but I want them to be close while also playing my best. For me Kill Team hits that spot, because the question of not owning the meta models isn't an issue there. I hate gotcha moments and have started to always measure and talk about my threat ranges with my opponent. Winning because someone forgot about the grenade i gave one of my operatives is not earned or remotely fun. That said, I want to build strong lists, and play well and that sadly leads to unfun situations sometimes. Playing CoOp wargames like the new Deth Wizards has helped a lot in my play group. I can crunch all i want and the other players get a stronger ally as a result.
I am 100% a mr magoo marshmellow haha. been playing since about 2003 and unfortunitly the local clubs/ stors have a very high percentage of wac players. So me and my freinds that are all marshmellows just play old editions of the game from when we where kids while watching all the wac players come over and get very confused.
I always just wanted to play out an enjoyable game. Especially with WFB in days of yore. For historical, I play to win but never against the spirit of the rules or in a way I would consider unlikely to be possibly IRL. Fantasy and Scifi are fun, Historical is a tactical simulation.
hmmm i feel like you are missing on category, the good players who just only playes other good players, they are like the wack player but don't force their list on newer/casual players Im not saying im a good player, but there are alot of these in my community and im only mentioning this because you make it feel like all super competive players are jerks which i don't find to be true (ofc some are) Aside from that great video
Fair enough! I do have a bit of a bias against competitive players. That probably just accidentally comes out LOL. But having said that I have competitive player friends that are not jerks. So I know not all of them are.
In all honesty, I'm probably somewhere between a wannabe waac and a Mr Magoo, with delusions of being a midfielder. :) I wanna play with the cool stuff but can't be arsed to keep up with the changes every few years since 3rd Ed.:)
You realize that Cro-magnon And Homo Sapiens are different names for the same thing, not a different species, right? Or was it supposed to be some kind of supercerebral meraphor I'm not getting?
I actually meant Neanderthal but cromagnon is what came to mind. Whoops. Good catch. I mean, yes it was absolutely a very cerebral metaphor that we are all really the same despite our differences.😉
I'd like to think I'm a midfield player, but I'm more a marshmallow, maybe even a bit of magoo, lol. I mainly play midfield players with the odd marshmallow, though we've definitely got a wolf in Sheep's clothing player as he likes to beat down the competitive players that play rarely while crushing everyone he plays. I just let it pass, but try not to play him too often. I just think we'll. I'll just have fun, but know I'm always going to lose. Winning just isn't something that I care about. 🤷🏻♂️
It sounds like you have the right attitude, but it's still really sucks when you know you've lost on turn one and you still have to continue the game. That's why I hate playing those super competitive people. Basically you could compare your list to theirs and just math it out without rolling dice.
Hmmm... I don't really fit your thesis. I would have to go sub spiece of waac that you would actually enjoy playing against, most of the time. Let me explain how Warmachine mk2 changed how I game. I am an old school min max player. I typically have 2 armies for a game, the bad guys and a joke army. The bad guys I save for actual competitive environments. Mk2 influence running demo games with a battle box for every army. What I put on the table are typically is a joke army. I will take the worst army in a game, as long as it is fun and go full bore min max. I will take that trash pile and push it to be as competitive as possible or I will go full role play an theme the hell out of the army. Basically it is my way to be me, but not be a disruptive nightmare for the locals. Yes I am driving around with the hand break on but it's funny. What is always interesting is running into people that don't know I am a closet waac at a tournament and the stomping a mud hole in them. Mostly these days I just TO events or help people prep for events rather than pulling off the mask. Here is what warmachine really changed. It is far more fun if both players coming to the table are there to destroy each other. It changes the mood at the table to one of glee, because as much as you want to win, you also want to see the cheesey B.S. your opponent has cooked up..it is a weird kind of respect for maximum efficiency? Carnage? Cheese? So if I am not going to get the game I want at the level i enjoy, against a willing opponent... I just want to offer people a fun time and see if I can get a trash army to play well. If I get above a 50% win rate I nerf my list. I aim for about a 40% win rate, just enough to keep it interesting. Where the waac label does not fit... I won't cheat, fudge rules or anything else. I will concede and remove myself from a game or event if I have screwed up my army or game rules. Yes I want to win but more than that i want to be the better skilled player on the day. I dont need a tainted victory for my ego. Also my main goal is seeing just how broken a rules interaction I or my opponent can dig up. I want to see the cheese I missed and share the cheese i found far more than I want a win.
Sounds to me like you are a hardcore competitive but not a waac. It also sounds like you have the level head to know when to tone it down or abstain all together if your opponent is not going to have a good time. There's nothing wrong with that.
Sorry i gotta disagree somewhat. You can still be competative and on meta and be super fun, empathetic, social and nice You can also have poor social skills and be bad at a game. Activities that have high skill ceilings are going to attract people who enjoy honing their skills. Its fun for them. But to your point, people should play different kinds of games to find a rule set that fits their sensibilities. Want narrative games? Play frostgrave or make scenario rules for your games Want a more fair competition where skilled players can thrive? There are a few choices. *i do think the problem happens when opponents are mismatched, so people should be accustomed to asking "what kind of game do you want?" Esp for GW games
Humm,.after all the different games I've played over the years my take is to be fair have and fun. I hate Waac players sadly for the past 20 years that's mostly what I've ran into. The constant bending of rules and everything else that goes with Waac players lead me to hardly play at all. It came to a head about 2 years ago where I decided not to play anymore. Since then, I just collect and paint my figures. Except Narrative games with my son and his girl friend when they have the time. As it goes being a gaming father my son picked up not just the game but, also the way I play and he passed it on. I don't really like the term Marshmellow because, It's really a Waac term for people against whom they can easily Win.
I think video games make it worse. I play video games, I don't think they are the worst thing in the world. But it's that uncaring mentality that translates into in person games in my opinion.
@@LetsTalkTabletop Caring about what exactly? How the other player feels? Those players existed before video games. They are competitive players and, by itself, being competitive is not a problem. The problem is the missmatch in expectation and video games don't contribute to that but rather games workshop / online discours focussing on the "competitive tabletop"
Dude... Sociopath? Do you call Ronaldo or Messi sociopaths too? Its a VS game the objective is to win... Imagine a soccergame where noone wanna touch the ball. Or Chess... Its a game of skill and IMO "Casual" just means "bad stupid player who needs an excuse" :P
That's a pretty sociopathic comment there buddy. LOL. Okay I'm actually just joking with you. I had to say it. You do have a point though. It's just the people see the game differently.
@@LetsTalkTabletop lol :) To me "Casual game" is when you just grab a list and play. Still try to win but with something wierd like "baseline infantry" only.
Yeah I can see that. I think it probably means different things to everybody. But casual games for me is more about the story unfolding on the table top, and me and my opponent are actually cooperatively playing together to see what happens. So there is a lot of discussion about our lists ahead of time to make sure they are balanced, or they are intentionally not balanced to make the matchup interesting. It's much more about story and camaraderie for me than winning. If I have a good game, I don't care if I win it all.
Starting video with shiting on comp player and argument this with video games is so afoul take, yes there are players who take winning too seriously but presenting this ass all comp player is bad, yes you rehabilitate yourself later by telling that in way what represents most comp players as average Joe but starting video in that way will make you look like another casual who hates comp only beacose you lose against someone better withaut agreeing how much comp list you want to play before game.
No, your feelings aren't important. Your feelings stoo at your personal space. I am not a sociopath or a win at all costs player. I just don't want to be member of your feelings first, virtue signaling cult. Your pre conceived stereotypes are a part of the problem. You have unreasonable expectations that your feelings are important. They really aren't.
It's a two-player game. The point is for both people to have fun. Crushing people with no regard for their experience is sociopathic behavior and super selfish.
@@LetsTalkTabletop virtue signaling and putting any enjoyment you might get behind the sensitive feefees of blue haired commies that think words are weapons is brain dead, cult activity.
