The Art of Empathy - Gamer Style

Emotional Intelligence (EI) is the ability to identify, assess, and control the emotions of oneself, of others, and of groups. In the business universe, this concept has been adapted into the Art of Empathy - a set of personality models used to assess and empathize with prospective clients as a way to ensure a successful business relationship. A personality model is simply a set of descriptors that combine to form a recognizable archetype. The Art of Empathy details a matrix of four personality models with the goal of identifying an individual's personality as a gradation between any two models in the matrix. Identifying a person's placement within this matrix allows the user to better empathize and support that person's needs within a business setting. 

This got me to thinking whether the same might hold true within a gamer setting - namely would it be possible to identify and empathize with an individual on the basis of where they would fall within a set of gamer archetypes. The ultimate goal with this concept is to create a better gaming environment by understanding your opponent in advance and tailoring your game direction and preconceptions to how your opponent understands the game.

The simple notion here is to identify the type of gamer based on this set of traits. The matrix is comprised of two sets of diametrically opposed traits. Someone who is strictly a Painter by definition cannot be a Player as he does not enjoy the play aspects of a miniature game and a strict Player has no desire to paint miniatures and is happy to play with any representation of game figures. A Formalist plays strictly within a game universe which means using only prescribed models and/or models developed specifically for a game system. In opposition, the Inventor takes pleasure in using whatever models/conversions as he sees fits, which could include models from other systems, extensive conversions to "count as" something else, etc. 

Having said all of that, very few gamers will fit neatly into any one of these four personality models. The gradient arrows in the graphic above represent a sliding scale of personality traits and I maintain that any gamer will exist within one of these gradients. For example, I find myself somewhere between the Inventor and the Player, with a general tendency toward the Inventor model. All of my miniature armies have some aspect of heavy conversion to them and I tend to use rules that show off these conversions to good effect. However, I still build lists that are intended to be effective in normal game play and do enjoy getting deep into the rules mechanics.

Where do you see yourself within this matrix? How about your friends? Would using this matrix to better understand how your opponent sees the game help you to adjust your perceptions and thereby have a better game? Did I miss the mark with these models? Are they nuanced enough to capture the type of gamer personalities that you have experienced?

As a footnote, the following are visual cues to identify a given type of gamer:

The Player

• Models painted to a basic standard (or unpainted)
• Proxied models that are being used to "play test" a unit or option
• Multiple units that are identical, or nearly so, to provide list redundancy

The Formalist

• Models painted within a specific theme including unit markings and identifiers
• Army lists that are self-limiting in order to represent a theme "in game"
• Will have a depth of models within a specific theme (i.e. every unit from a given army)

The Painter

• Will have one of many different models
• Will be painted to a very high standard
• Will actually not be at a gaming table to game (i.e. is probably just entered into a painting contest)

The Inventor

• Heavy use of conversions throughout the army
• May be using a ruleset that "plays as" the intended theme of the army
• Will have "counts as" options that are consistent throughout the entire army

Indicium: Grey Knights - What Not to Run

I got in a game last night over at a friends house using the new Grey Knights codex. I had a list planned out, tweaked from the last game I played, and was ready to try out some new units. Upon arriving, however, I realized that I had forgotten the tray containing my dreadnoughts and land raider. D'oh.

Undaunted, I updated the list with some units that I wanted to try out. What I ultimately came up with is THE WORST LIST EVER! Okay, so not really but it sure wasn't good. For your reading pleasure:

Librarian w/various powers
Xenos inquisitor with conversion beamer

inq. warband w/8 psykers, 1 jokaero, 2 multimelta servitors

9 Purifiers w/2 psycannons, halberds, and a MC hammer; rhino
1 techmarine with rad and psychotroke grenades
1 callidus assassin

10 x terminators with 2 psycannons and a MC hammer
10 x grey knights (strike squad), 2 psycannons and a MC hammer; rhino

1 x dreadknight; naked
5 x purgation w/incinerator and rhino

That was it... let me tell you that list did not work. My friend played a strongly themed ultramarine list (Sicarius, 2 x tac squads, assault terms, etc.)

Needless to say I got crushed! The callidus waited until turn 4 to show up, the conversion beamer did absolutely nothing, and eight out of ten terminators were dead by turn two.

Needless to say, that is not a list I will be running again. Obviously, there were too many shiny toys in there to make it work right, but there were also some lessons. Callidus needs to have a GKGM to bring her in with psychic communion. The inquisitor with beamer is a cool concept but not worth the practical limitations of a small blast and range/strength mechanics. The purgation squad should have just been another GKSS squad and hunkered down on an objective for scoring. The techmarine is probably good... when you remember to actual bolster a piece of terrain!

Indicium: 40k Whippersnappers

In honor of Tony's win of the Adepticon 40k Championships, I present something only he can appreciate:




Created by Oatmeal


Enjoy, Tony, enjoy!

Indicium: Games Workshop UK Sweet Spot

Not directly related to the game, but I noticed recently that there is a sweet spot when ordering from the UK GW site and shipping to the United States.

The discovery came about when I realized that the US GW site no longer stocked the Grey Knight terminator psycannon arms. Considering that I had recently purchased six metal terminator bodies from ApocaBitz for use with those arms, I was justifiably upset. Calling US GW customer service rendered no satisfaction, only the statement that the bits had been discontinued in favor of the plastic terminators soon to be released.

In a state of desperation, I ended up at the UK GW site and found that they still carried the bits. I added these to my shopping cart, clicked Check Out, and found that shipping to the US was in the neighborhood of 8GBP (pound sterling) which is roughly $14! All that for something like five total ounces of metal.

I decided to see what else I could order so I added a few more things to my shopping cart. In doing so I noticed several things:

• Every item added to my cart showed up at a 17% discount from the list price
• As long as the total cart value stayed under 50GBP, the shipping remained 8GBP
• As soon as the value went over 50GBP shipping jumped to 24GBP (about $40)

The 17% discount is the VAT that gets taken off when the shipping address is in the US. This alone is more than enough to offset the cost of shipping on an order that is just under 50GBP.

Moreover, ALL Necromunda models are discounted about 20% on the UK GW site from their US counterparts. 

In all, I ended up ordering two arbites gang boxes, one escher booster, and the aforementioned psycannons. After all the dust had settled (VAT, US vs UK price differences, etc.), the shipping and the psycannons were essentially FREE.

So if you are considering picking up any Necromunda product and shipping to the US, do it from the UK GW site (just keep it under 50GBP per order). For anything else, you are still getting a discount especially when the UK site has product no longer available elsewhere.

Indicium: New Warhammer Expansion - Gridlock 40k

More and more vehicles inevitably gives rise to new expansions that support the sales of these models - call it a vicious circle or a revenue model. First there was Spearhead, where tanks of all stripe were encouraged to take the field with updated unit rules in numbers limited only by the points value of the game being played.

With the unrivaled success of Spearhead, Games Workshop saw an opportunity to further encourage the sale of their larger model kits. As such, they are pleased to announce Gridlock 40k!

Set in the far-off future, on inhospitable worlds, where vehicles are dirt cheap and infantry are just meant to drive them, Gridlock 40k allows players (except Tyranids) to experience vicariously the fevered flush of rush hour traffic, drive-by shootings, and carjackings. With rules that have been thoroughly researched and play-tested, Gridlock 40k represents the pinnacle of gaming finesse (except Tyranids) and is the most fun you can have pushing plastic boxes across your dining room table (except Tyranids).

Click here for the complete rule set

Indicium: Spearhead Rules for 40k Now Online

PDF rules for Spearhead are now available here. As an avowed non-subscriber of White Dwarf, I missed this expansion almost completely. I did snag some of the JPGs and downloadable content made available at the time but never actually got into the game.

So I am curious, what do people think about Spearhead? A day after I complain about the lack of hobby content, GW makes this available to all and for "free".

To me, the gesture is a good one, but the ruleset is a pretty blatant attempt to get folks to Buy More Stuff. I wouldn't have a problem with this if a) GW still sold those Apocalypse box sets and b) they had released the Spearhead PDF a month or so after the White Dwarf issue.

At this point, I think the Spearhead thing is gone and done with. I am not sure that most folks will even realize that the rules are available as PDF (hence this post) and that people will be unwilling to play with such a radically altered force organization. The latter is due to the tournament mentality (more on that in another post) but the former falls squarely on GW's slender shoulders.

I certainly don't mind the push to sell models. However, the way to do that is to produce more hobby content like Spearhead and make it available immediately online.

Thoughts?

Advocatus: Modified Kill Points

I played a really good game recently where we used a modified version of the NOVA format by replacing victory points with kill points as a victory condition.  However, the kill points were actually selected by each opponent and were limited to five. Mike Brandt, over at Whiskey & 40k, introduced me to this system and I have to say I really like it!

The basic concept is that, before the games starts, you and your opponent each pick 5 units from the others army list that will be worth a kill point. You can put limitations on this, like no more than 2 dedicated transports or a unit with a dedicated transport must always be taken together as 2 kill points, etc. There are also different ways to allow selection of these kill point units (i.e. before/after deployment, secretly before game starts, secretly until game ends, etc.).

Using kill points in this way required a different set of tactics, as now you had priority targets to take out and your own kill points to protect. The game itself was great and I lost in turn 5 because one of my kill point units broke and refused to rally by the end of turn 6.

For the next game, I will have each player secretly choose their opponents kill points before deployment. Then, once both sides are fully deployed, each player reveals the kill points chosen to their opponent. This way, there is no advantage gained either by a) knowing what your own kill points are and deploying them accordingly (holding everything in reserve, bunkering them in transports, etc.) or b) knowing how your opponent is deployed then selecting the most vulnerable units as kill points.

The cool thing about this system is the simplified creation of new scenarios based on mixing up the kill point selection. Here are a few mission examples:

• Taking Scalps: Both players fully deploy. Each player marks a copy of their opponent's list with 5 kill points. At least 2 of these must be non-vehicle units. Lists are folded over and set aside so that kill point selection remains a secret throughout the game.
• Assassinate: Both players fully deploy. Each player openly selects 3 kill points from their opponents list. The other 2 kill points are assigned to the highest leadership independent character or, if no ICs are available, an HQ unit selection with the highest leadership (Ex. guard company command squad). If their are 2 (or more) ICs or HQ units with the same leadership, randomly determine the target AFTER both sides have deployed.
• Priority Targets: Before deployment, each player secretly marks their opponent's list with 5 kill points (no more than 3 may be dedicated transports). After both sides have deployed, the kill point selections are revealed.

There are many more possibilities that a 5 kill point system opens up. The mechanic is fairly simple, but the permutations should keep the game fresh without encumbering players with oddball victory conditions (that I usually manage to forget).

Gaming Aid - Codex: Civilians

Codex: Civilians gives you the ability to field civilians who take an active role in your battles. Civilians are aligned with one specific side in the conflict. This can be determined randomly or explicitly as part of a narrative for the game. For example, you might have the Dark Angels defending an Imperial colony against the predations of a newly uncovered Necron tomb. Or you could have a human genestealer cult aligned with a Tyranid assault force intent on consuming an Imperial stronghold.  Regardless, civilians become part of the action, both offensively and as part of the mission objectives.

You can download the PDF for Codex: Civilians here.

Indicium: Warhounds at the Gladiator Tournament

I have entered the Adepticon Gladiator tournament this year... and plan on losing every game! Seriously, my goal is just to have fun and take a unit or two that I normally wouldn't be able to run in a normal game of 40k.

Specifically, my Armorcast Warhound will be making an appearance, complete with plasma blastgun  and turbo-laser destructor. Having played a few games with this hulking beast, I am firmly convinced that destroyer blast weapons really have no place in a game of regular 40k. Of course, the Gladiator is not a normal game of 40k and I fully expect to see a bevy of flyers, super heavy tanks and walkers, and gargantuan creatures. This is also why I am expecting to lose. Having not used the warhound overmuch, I really have no sound tactics and will likely just shoot at the biggest thing on the board... hopefully that works!

On the plus side, no Reavers allowed this year and hopefully the organizers clean up that silliness about flyer bases blocking opposing units from assaulting.

Annuntio: 2010 Games Day Mini

So here is the latest Games Day miniature and I have to saw I am less than impressed. Though not a Fantasy or Chaos player, I really did like last years Chaos mini. On the other hand, this mini just doesn't do it for me. I suppose its because GW already has a number of excellent sorcerer minis in both games systems and this one really brings nothing new to the game.