Intro/Open Letter
Hello and welcome back for another serving of Bacon’s Bits, the article series where I get to dig into a niche Underworlds topic and weigh in with my opinion. Apologies for the delay between articles, but work has been quite busy of late. A bit unorthodox, but I feel obligated to start this one with an open letter to the audience. You can take it with as many grains of salt as you like, but, ultimately, I trust that anyone who has read my content in the past or who has personally interacted with me (within the community or otherwise) knows that what I write on this blog is an honest representation of my thoughts and feelings and I hope you read this as such. If you don’t care to read the pseudo-rant I’ve posted below, please feel free to skip to next section for the actual article topic! I just feel like the two are related enough that it was worth combining into only one post.
I’ve occasionally (and also recently) heard some criticism of Path to Glory that maybe we aren’t so much focused on the whole “community growth” aspect of content creation anymore. Upon reflection, I think it is fair to say that we tend to focus a lot of our content on the competitive analysis/advice and not as much on building your Underworlds community, bringing in new players, etc. However, by the same token, I think the thing that makes our content worth reading/listening to is that competitive analysis. There are a number of creators out there who do fantastic work in supplying community-centric content, admittedly better than much of what we produce in that space. That being the case, I think it is a disservice to both us and them if we parrot or reproduce content instead of focusing on what we do best, which is compete. Therefore, sharing our opinions on competitive play, to me, seems like the best way for us to give something back to the community, even if it does mean that targeted content on community growth sometimes does take a back seat.
That said, where I take great exception is to the implication that we don’t care about this community being the best that it can be or, worse, that we would do something deliberately detrimental to it simply in the name of adding another trophy to the shelf. I don’t wish to speak for other members of the crew, but personally I can say that, while I love chatting with folks and making friends at tournaments, if you line up across the table from me, I am going to try as hard as I can to win. I hope folks find me to be respectful and sporting, but that’s the goal when I attend an event. Social aspects aside, everyone who is participating in a tournament has signed up for a contest, and that’s what I hope to give them when we play. Might I pull back a little on my warband/deck selection for a local/small tournament where the prize is far outweighed by the sense of community? Sure. However, as soon as we’re at a Grand Clash/Worlds Qualifier, there is a reasonable expectation set by the status of the event (and the prizes that are typically on the line) that everyone has brought something that can help them win, whether that is a meta staple, counter-meta pick, or just something they feel comfortable playing. Everyone has access to the same tools going into these events, there’s no shame in picking whichever one you feel is best for the job.
Today’s Bacon’s Bits
Thank you for indulging me. After all that, today’s topic actually is a little more community-centric, rather than competitive analysis, as we will be discussing player archetypes in Underworlds. Some of you may be familiar with the terms Timmy, Johnny, and Spike from a similar analysis performed when discussing player archetypes in Magic: The Gathering and, to keep things simple, I am going to use the same terminology here, especially as there is plenty of overlap in these archetypes across all competitive gaming. However, for those of you who are not familiar, I will do my best to provide an overview of the 3 different categories of player, as well as their hybrids.
I want to preface the discussion by saying that this article is not meant as a way to put any one of you (the readers) neatly into one of these boxes. In fact, the human experience is such that we often do not fit neatly into these boxes. If you can imagine a spectrum or a slider for each of these archetypes, I expect each one of us would find that we have at least a little bit of all 3 archetypes within us, and likely the exact “settings” will be unique from one person to another. While you may read some of these descriptions and identify strongly with them, I cannot stress enough that my goal with this article is really not to characterize you. If you find it personally helpful in identifying your motivations to play the game and even somehow improve your game as a result, that is wonderful news and I’m glad if that turns out to be the case. However, the real impetus for writing this article is that I think, as great and welcoming as this community can be, we struggle with the same thing that every human being on the planet does: truly understanding and engaging in meaningful discourse with people whose viewpoints and values are different from our own. After reading this article, what I strongly hope you take away from it is that none of these player archetypes are “better” or “worse” than each other, they are just different. If you read the section for one or more of them and think “man, that really does not describe me at all,” that’s totally fine! All I am asking is that when you read about them, you make a true effort to see things from their point of view and reflect on interactions you might have had in the past with someone you think might identify more strongly with that description. Could your interactions with that person have gone differently if you had understood more of where they were coming from in advance? While I’m sure we all try to be good and respectful opponents, there will be times where we fall short, myself included. It’s a tough balance to strike between being a good opponent and trying to win when you are attending a competitive event. Dice may or may not be going in your favor, your opponent may be playing the worst warband in the game or the best, you may or may not have slept very well the previous night, etc. Regardless of the circumstances, I think it can only help your interactions to have a bit of empathy for the person sitting across the table from you, so hopefully this article covers a wide enough range of personalities that you feel better prepared to meet folks where they’re at the next time you go to a tournament (or even just while you are interacting with them outside of a tournament setting).
Timmy
Often assumed to be a more casual or inexperienced player, Timmy plays their favorite warband(s), which may range from exclusively playing one to playing all of them. Sometimes those are the best warbands, sometimes they are average, sometimes they are the worst, but their meta relevance is not important to Timmy. What is important to Timmy is that they can maybe pull off a 7-Damage Desperate Rage attack with their last surviving Guardian. Maybe they enjoy the rush of finding out if Rittak is going to live or die from his More-More Power! charge. Or maybe they just sculpted a really cool hat for their pirate ogre and they want to show it to their friends. The feeling of joy that Timmy gets when playing their warband(s) of choice and playing Underworlds in general may have variable sources, but the primary source of enjoyment is something other than winning, which often makes for some of the most pleasant people you will interact with in the community.
That said, the assumption that Timmy doesn’t enjoy winning or that they can’t be good at the game is patently false. While winning is not the ultimate goal of playing the game for Timmy, they can still be extremely well-versed in various elements of the game and may even be some of the best players in your area. They might have played over 1000 games with their first edition Chosen Axes (shoutout to Wathlab) and can still kick your butt from time to time despite using a “weaker” warband. Don’t underestimate Timmy, and shame on you if you outright disrespect them!
Johnny
Johnny plays Underworlds as a creative outlet. They want to use the game to express themselves and this most commonly comes through in their deckbuilding. This often manifests in playing for some really interesting combos, whether leaning into a unique synergy between a warband and a card (or cards) or taking cards in their deck which provide unique and/or unexplored interactions with each other. However, in Underworlds, it may also be that they want to play with a warband that is generally underdeveloped or underexplored, not necessarily because they really love the aesthetic or anything like that, but more so because it is uncharted territory they can pioneer.
We’ll get into the hybrids later, but Johnny also doesn’t necessarily care about winning either (although, like Timmy, Johnny can still enjoy it). In fact, the hair-brained schemes that Johnny concocts can sometimes be total nonsense from a competitive lens. However, when the combo works as intended or Johnny shows their opponent something they’ve never seen before, Johnny walks away from that game satisfied, even when they’ve lost.
Spike
Spike wants to be the very best (𝆕 LIKE NO ONE EVER WAS… DUH DUH DUH 𝆕). Sorry, couldn’t help myself there. For Spike, the highest form of enjoyment that can be found in the game is proving their capability by winning. A tournament is branded as a competitive event and gosh darn it they are going to compete. Sometimes this involves playing the “best” thing, sometimes it involves playing the thing they think is about to become the “best,” but it almost always focuses on executing a highly competitive choice well enough to win.
Spike is probably the most maligned of the 3 archetypes because they will play stuff like pre-nerf Gorechosen or Gitz at events since those are things that give them the best chance of winning. However, that doesn’t mean there is anything inherently “wrong” or “bad” about Spike. In fact, Timmy and Johnny only really get to have their fun because of Spike and the competitive metagame they established as a “baseline” for the game. At the end of the day, tournaments are there to be won, and that’s what Spike strives to accomplish. Everyone who attends has access to the same tools that Spike does and has to abide by the same rules, so if Spike wins by playing the best thing, why should they be ashamed at having chosen the best tool for the job and using it to the best of their ability? While you would hope that Spike calibrates their choice a bit for the audience and setting (for example, there is not much to prove when teaching a prospective new player), the competitive circuit both needs and should welcome Spike, especially since they (and their hybrids) usually make up the majority of tournament participants.
Hybrids
Timmy/Johnny
Timmy/Johnny is an interesting player because they want to enjoy that feeling they get while playing the game while also expressing their creativity at the same time. Sometimes this is by playing the more off-meta pick, as we discussed in the aforementioned V1 Chosen Axes, not necessarily because they want to catch people off-guard at a tournament or because they want their favorites to move up on a competitive tier list, but because they feel these picks are very strongly associated with their own identity. They might also build some crazy deck combos that go for some outlandish intersection of the “god hand” to pull off what they are trying to do. It might only happen once every 10 games, but man when they get to make it happen, they have a blast. It’s not competitively consistent or might not even have that strong of an effect, but the fact that they did something nobody else thought to try and the rush they get when the plan actually comes together are enough to keep Timmy/Johnny coming back for more.
This hybrid also commonly engages with custom and/or non-standard formats. Timmy/Johnny might create their own kitchen table ruleset or enjoy one of the custom game modes from a White Dwarf magazine. They might even go so far as to make their own custom warbands for factions/models which are not currently in the official game. While all of this does little to directly contribute to the standard competitive metagame, Timmy/Johnny enjoys the creative aspects of these activities and that is more than enough for them.
Timmy/Spike
Timmy/Spike might appear to be at odds with themselves because they want to enjoy the game, but they also want to win. Luckily for them, winning is fun. However, the Timmy in them makes it difficult to play the most efficient thing if that thing strikes them as boring. For example, maybe playing Take and Hold is what brings the Timmy in them the most joy in Underworlds, so they won’t play pre-nerf Dromm just because that warband gives them the best chance of winning. However, because the Spike in them is still interested in winning, they’re going to try and find the best Take and Hold warband they can play. Alternatively, maybe they really dislike Destruction warbands (narratively, aesthetically, whatever the case might be), so they won’t play Gitz, but they might love ghosts and so would be inclined to pick up something like Headsmen since they are generally a stronger option than Thorns (in my opinion). Despite their competitive mindset, there’s something satisfying about seeing a Timmy/Spike choose to use their favorites/make the “fun” pick in a competitive setting, even if the warband they select ultimately is still a strong one.
Johnny/Spike
I know I said the point of this article was not necessarily to assign people to boxes, but Johnny/Spike is definitely where I most strongly see myself represented in any of these categorizations. Johnny/Spike still wants to win, they just want to do it on their own terms and with their own creations. While Johnny/Spike won’t handcuff themselves with a less-than-competitive warband/deck selection, they do want to make sure everyone can see they’ve made a creative choice. They’ll often go for an innovative deck pairing and/or a warband they have identified as being underrated. However, unlike the “neutral” Johnny or the Timmy/Johnny, they won’t do so simply to show off their creativity (although that is part of it), they’ll do it because it provides them a unique angle to winning an event. This is often where the largest group of “counter-meta” picks will be found, as Johnny/Spike knows what the top tier threats will be trying to do and will construct their warband/deck around defeating those opponents. Johnny/Spike derives immense pleasure from winning, of course, since it proves their creative choices were “correct,” but even just a strong showing at a tournament (e.g., making top cut, defeating players that were using “better” warbands, etc.) will often be enough to validate Johnny/Spike’s process.
Timmy/Johnny/Spike
As I mentioned at outset, I do think every player you meet at a tournament will have at least a little of Timmy, Johnny, and Spike in them. However, this hybrid is that player who has managed to land right in the middle of the Venn diagram for all 3 of them. Their investment in all 3 aspects is perfectly balanced (as all things should be). So many of us lean into one or two of the traits heavily enough that there is not much room for the 3rd, but when you meet a true Timmy/Johnny/Spike, I think you’d have to say that’s the exact kind of person you want to see in a tournament setting. They play for the love of the game, to be creative, and also to win, so they’re likely to be great opponents who will also teach you a little something you might not have considered every time you play. While there’s nothing “wrong” with any of the player types we’ve discussed, I think it’s a worthy personal goal to strive to embody all 3, if you can.
Conclusions
Since I feel it is worth repeating one last time, there’s not a single one of these player archetypes that is “better” than another. Just because Timmy wants to have fun doesn’t mean that they don’t care about or are incapable of winning. Just because Johnny tends to enjoy the list building aspects of the game the most doesn’t mean they can’t also dominate the tactical elements. And lastly (and perhaps most importantly), just because Spike comes to a tournament with primarily with the goal of winning doesn’t make them the “bad guy.” Regardless of whatever branding Games Workshop slaps on the side of a box, a tournament setting places an inherent value on winning games, and there is nothing wrong with trying to do what you can (within the rules) to do that.
I see a lot of talk on Discord servers about not “yucking anybody’s yum” by talking down to folks about the things they enjoy about the game, but I have noticed that this defense is often only applied in one direction: towards competitive-minded players who are critiquing formats, warbands, and/or decks they feel are less competitive than whatever the tournament standard happens to be at the time. While I agree that it is not their place to tell people how to enjoy the game (and I have often seen people get way out of line in doing so), this is a two-way street. If a competitive player plays the game to win and wants to use the best tools they have available to them to do so, why would it be wrong to enjoy the game in that way? At local events or what have you, sure, we just want everyone to have a good time and keep sharing the game with friends to build and grow our community. However, at a national or even international tournament—and I acknowledge that this is going to sound harsh—players have no obligation to make sure their opponent is having fun. Heck, if a Spike plays against another Spike, one of them is inherently going to have less fun than the other because one of them is going to lose. We accept this as soon as we register for the event. Yes, you should be polite, respectful, and all of that, but that only creates an environment where your opponent can have fun. Whether they actually do have fun is not really your responsibility beyond that, nor should it be. That’s the point. Everyone has their own motivations for playing the game and they are entitled to the same level of respect, regardless of whether those motivations might be different from our own.
Well, that’s all I’ve got for this one. Thanks again for reading and please let me know if there are any topics you’d like to see addressed in future installments of this series. Until then, we wish you the best of luck on YOUR Path to Glory!
