Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In all the systems I play.

I started in Ancients and I played Carthaginian and Later Seleucid after that. After years of tournaments of tweaking and improving the Seleucids I realized that I had made a slightly better version of my Carthaginian army from several years earlier, in terms of how it worked and played.
They were aggressive, combined arms cc armyies with:
A tough group of infantry (spears/pikes), something faster and aggressive (like heavy cavalry), some fast skirmishers and/or chaff to bulk out the numbers and finally something specialized against elite troops (preferably something exotic/cool and big, like elephants).
Have the infantry march up the middle to put pressure/grind, while the heavy cavalry all hit the flank I weighted hard and the skirmishers/chaff keep the other flank busy. The big exotic thing joins the attack or controls a part of the board with their perceived threat.

My Medieval German army was similar too (nothing exotic though). So was the Ch'in Chinese army I had planned, but never got because I decided to get Warriors of Chaos instead; how does that play you ask? Pretty much like Varangur in Kings of War . I built a Nightstalker army for KoW and I realized that I designed it to be, just that.

I've been playing Warhammer with Tzeentch daemons and having loads of fun, but I've been tempted by some Necrons.
I was thinking get some Lychguard guard and warriors to march on the center, wraiths to attack down one flank and scarabs and a spyder to tie up the other flank with something like annihilation barges for anti armour guns. To do the thing I always do. Not a problem per say, but it starts feeling a bit stale.

Does anyone else find that they keep gravitating back to the same kinds of builds?

Yes, I find I tend towards an aggressive movement, short range combat play style that happens on my opponent's side of the board. Blood Angels, Bretonnia, Bonesplitterz, etc. I even default to this with armies that shouldn't like my Union army or my FoW Tank army.

Gunlines bore me to no end and finesse armies I don't have the patience for. I always forget to hit and run. I play hit and stay. lol

That tends to go with most games for me in general. I usually gravitate towards glass cannons or tanks, usually specializing in short-range combat or bombardment. I also play healers quite often.

My history of characters I play shows this, too.

Junkrat (bombardment)
Roadhog (short range)
Mercy (healer)
Pryo (short range)
Medic (healer)
Orks (short range, at least how I play them)

I tend to go unchecked aggression without the defense to back it up. Pretty much in every game. Physical primary Nosferatu in V:tM, dawrven fighter/thieves in 2e D&D, dwarven rogue/barbarians in 5e, sligh decks in MtG, and either Drop Pod Salamanders or Dark Eldar in 40k.

I'm in the fortunate position of having lots of choices - and I enjoy experimenting.

I was going to say no... but now that I think of it... yes, yes I do.

I tend towards glass cannons although I am less strict than the OP (man, how do you not get bored doing the same thing over and over again?). I play Eldar in 40k, Craftworld only so far although I am working towards getting allied Harlequins and Corsairs up and running. I have wraith models, but I almost never use them.

In DnD, constitution is generally my dump stat, and I run hilariously fragile but high damage-dealing rougues or wizards or clerics. It's always funny to hear the tank complain about losing half his health and then think "well, good thing the monster hit you cuz that would have floored me."

In other RPG's and board games I run characters with the lowest health and higher mental skills, often focusing on dealing damage with dexterity, magical, or mental abilities. It's even how I run video game characters...

Maybe it has to do with representing my personality...?

 Red_Ink_Cat wrote:
I tend towards glass cannons although I am less strict than the OP (man, how do you not get bored doing the same thing over and over again?).

It wouldn't be an issue otherwise.

I do play ridiculous stuff (i.e. where the dice can just screw me, preferably in amusing ways) from time to time. Like feudal knights (in DBM), they have a habit of charging off on their own. Hence Tzeentch Daemons in 40k.
I always end up getting something more sensible (to my mind) though, so I'll probably end up getting those Necrons.

Yeah, despite the exception that is my Ogre Army I tend to go all Horde, all the time.

You'll run out of bullets before I run out of men!

It makes sense because you go for things that have traits that you like. You see others and are attracted to them but they are not yours.

I seem a pool way back when about video games and what you are likely to play. As an adult you will play more then likely humans,defenders ect.

As a young adult you are more likely to play the alien the scary tough do it all type.

As a teen/ child your more likely to play the bad guys non human evil scary type like zerg and such.

It was suggested it had something to do with your mental state, as an adult you know your place and try to defend it. As a young adult you try and take the wolrd on yourself and as a child it was something like you see everything the same so when something is total different you tend to be attracted towards it.


For myself tho as much as I love ork ironjaws I find myself falling in love more and more with imperal guard......... Just the average human out numbered out gunned can barly fight anything. The ones who are most likely to die but do it to keep their people safe, something very nobel and easy to relate to. Like if earth was attacked they would be us crappy guns crappy all around but we would fight to the last tooth to keep our crappy home. You know what I mean millitary brothers!!!!!

That's really interesting to hear, OgreChubbs. I can definitely relate to that theory as I loved wizards and bad guys as a kid but now I always find the knights/paladins/regular heroes far more interesting.

Kind of a middle-ground on the bad guys, though. I never liked the inhuman villains and still don't but when the bad guy is just a human with a grudge against the Mary sue hero (like Captain Hook, Lex Luthor, and to an extent the Juggernaut) I can't help but still root for them.

Also, humanity fighting to the last round and the last man, you know it!

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:
Yeah, despite the exception that is my Ogre Army I tend to go all Horde, all the time.

You'll run out of bullets before I run out of men!

My apologies but I'm going to have to steal that quote for a future art sketch.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Yes, I find I tend towards an aggressive movement, short range combat play style that happens on my opponent's side of the board. Blood Angels, Bretonnia, Bonesplitterz, etc. I even default to this with armies that shouldn't like my Union army or my FoW Tank army.

Gunlines bore me to no end and finesse armies I don't have the patience for. I always forget to hit and run. I play hit and stay. lol

^ All of this for my playstyle as well. Be it in tabletop or videogames, nothing beats the satisfaction of smashing headlong into the enemy and completely crushing them either by sheer might or destroying their supports and cleaning up what's left.

I think I first noticed this with Skyrim. Somehow I had ended up with a particularly weird build that I eventually realised, "hey, that's kinda what I do with Crysis too."

1) Wear Heavy Armour (so, not sneaky)
2) Start sneaking
3) Bring bow out.
4) Poison bow.
5) Find sneaky place, near doorway / corridor
6) Shoot at bad guys with bow.
7) Bad guys come running up at me, hide behind doorframe
8) Draw gigantic, ridiculously huge battleaxe.
9) Cut down first bad guy as he runs through.
10) YOU SHALL NOT PASS.

It's like some crazy quadruple hybrid class thing. - There's a couple of spells I put in as well like Circle of Protection and generic healing spells.

Sort of, but not really.

I tend to play alot of games that are not specific to a certain miniature line, so a given army gets used in a variety of settings.

For example my Chaos'ish Kings of War army has played at a variety of scopes and rulesets. Kings of War, Saga, Dragon Rampant, Song of Blades and Heroes, etc... Likewise, my Ventauran reinforced Platoon has seen action in Tomorrow's War, In The Emperor's Name, Mech Attack, etc...

That said, my tastes are pretty diverse and I have a wide range of forces that show up in various games. Squats, Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Ventaurans, Sedition Wars Vangaurd, Void Junkers, Sentient Animal Fantasy, Crusades themed warband etc, etc...

Not at all for me, really. At least in RPGs/MMOs/etc

I'm not a huge fan of the healer/suppoort role, but if forced into it by the party makeup I'm pretty good at it.

I've played the Tank role and enjoyed the hell out of it.

I enjoy playing DPS, particularly agressive DPS. But only in games where that's a proper, feasable thing. I've got a mate who also likes playing agressive DPS but does it in games and systems where it means he gets killed constantly because he's a bit too fond of the charge forward (which the rest of us joke is his inevitiable suicide charge).

Having said that, I also really enjoy (and tend to gravitate to) steal roles, particularly in 1p and 2p co-op games. Notsomuch rogue, but sniper./assassin type play.

In wargames, though, I'm happy to play anything. I like the diversity and as long as the army/force/models is aesthetically appealing to me, I'm happy.