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.

We have all heard the the theory that dogs look like thier owners right? Well I read a very interesting article recently that explored this and studies show that when selecting what breed of dog a person gets they will subliminally select one that they feel is a reflection of thier own personality and or appearance. ..

This article got me thinking about why we play certain armies, I know some competitive people will select exclusively based on the rules but for the most part I think people will select an army that they feel reflects their personality. I know for me this is probably accurate as I play khorne CSM / CD, with a big emphasis on psycho monsterous creatures.... a reflection of my short temper and monsterous ego.... on the other end of the scale my friend who is currently in the military and his career goal is to be a cop, plays imperial guard.

Does anybody see the connection? Have a think about what army you play and what that could say about your personality.... I would love to hear other examples and peoples opinions on this matter.

Note. This is just a theory, ork players im NOT saying you too have an IQ of 6

Not really a reflection of personality, but I tend to favour mobile, hard hitting armies and units. Essentially I'm a cavalry man at heart and that tends to be what appeals about a faction.

Hence I was Unicorn in L5R CCG, Brets when I played FB, my two 40k armies are BA and Daemons. I'm Aleph in Infinity, which doesn't exactly figure, but...meh.

I have space marines, orks, chaos marines, tyranids, dark eldar and even some sisters of battle. So do I have multiple personality disorder?

Are you saying I look like a Rottweiler? Which are actually very smart, loyal, loving and playful dogs.

I do Ultramarines, I don't think they really reflect my personality, I just love the background and colours.

Not sure what this says about me, as i run Orks, Nurgle Daemons and Haemonculi coven DE...

Something deeply wrong with my psyche there..

its more about what draws you towards particular armies, alot of people have more than one army because they probably share traits with many... i just think it is interesting that the studies show people often make decisions based off of their opinion of themselves.... i think this works well with warhammer because of the role playing aspect of it, as you are essentially commander of a force that you get control over everything from colour to unit selection,

Ive actually got one army to fill each roll

-Shooty
-Tanky
-fighty

so I can flit between play styles

 amanita wrote:
I have space marines, orks, chaos marines, tyranids, dark eldar and even some sisters of battle. So do I have multiple personality disorder?

If I were to hazard a guess from those armies I would say you actually have a very singular personality. And that's aggressive and in your face or your compensating for a lack of that in your real life. All of those armies are very assault based armies. Whether its actually in assault or close range face melting shooting.

I actually think this concept holds very true. Sure you may play an army that doesn't fit your personality, but for the most part people play an army with a style they can relate to. I play Vulkan marines and necrons, they are both in your face and angry, they want to crush under their weight of attack and smother you till you quit. Which is how I am. When I wrestle and am doing jiu jitsu I don't get as much satisfaction from submissions, what really gets me going is breaking your will and wearing you down till you can't fight.

Tyranids
Lahmian Vampires
Haqqislam

That would make me someone who enjoys the finer things in life (Lahmian vampires), has a thirst for knowledge (Haqqislam) and, well, is usually pretty bloody hungry (Tyranids).

That's fairly accurate.

I have IBS (Irritable Bowel Syndrome) and I'm also lactose intolerant.

I play Death Guard.

I tend to go win whatever I feel looks the most bad ass at the time...currently doing a nid army but was stuck on marines and titans for the longest time

Chancetragedy wrote:

 amanita wrote:
I have space marines, orks, chaos marines, tyranids, dark eldar and even some sisters of battle. So do I have multiple personality disorder?

If I were to hazard a guess from those armies I would say you actually have a very singular personality. And that's aggressive and in your face or your compensating for a lack of that in your real life. All of those armies are very assault based armies. Whether its actually in assault or close range face melting shooting.

I actually think this concept holds very true. Sure you may play an army that doesn't fit your personality, but for the most part people play an army with a style they can relate to. I play Vulkan marines and necrons, they are both in your face and angry, they want to crush under their weight of attack and smother you till you quit. Which is how I am. When I wrestle and am doing jiu jitsu I don't get as much satisfaction from submissions, what really gets me going is breaking your will and wearing you down till you can't fight.

That's an interesting observation, but I can't say if it's valid or not. Your response did make me pause to consider a few things. I play my marines quite differently than say orks or tyranids, but there is always a certain ruthless approach to my game. But it is a WAR game after all, so isn't everyone out to kill and destroy, at least in theory?

It's all about the methodology of the specific list as opposed to the codex. There is some logic in this. All kinds of competitive games exhibit stylistic preferences. If you can see it in chess playstyle (eg Tigran Petrosian, Frank Marshall), you can see it in 40k. For example, CC Dark Eldar could indicate a predilection for high risk and high reward gameplay while a shooting gallery DE list could be a sign of a more patient and thorough personality type.

I tend to play reasonably mobile armies with the ability to be highly aggressive. My Blood Angel and Chaos Undivided lists use combat to apply pressure and my Grey Knights and Death Guard/Night Lords lists rely on heavy shooting, but the common theme is using offensive threats to dictate the game. I use my units to define and constrain your choices.
In person I tend to be pretty passive and let other people take point.

Ive always been the sniper, long range, big gun style type of support player. Realizing that most things work better when there's some unity to the situation. I also put intelligence and technology in the forefront of everything. I play Tau

Hmm interesting.

I always try and get right into the thick if the action in whatever I do, ie work, paintball, car clubs etc. So having orks as my first army is pretty good.

I am also a very loyal honerable person who will bend over backwards to help others this is quite fitting of SW my second army.

Not sure what part of me wanted IG guess its my families millitary history and possibly the British connection with routing for the underdog.

No idea about my fantasy slannesh army...maybe there are some issues there.

One thug for sure I certainly am addicted to plastic crack!

I am generally kind, tolerant and something of a pushover.

I play Sisters of Battle.

On the other hand, I'm a total nerd who loves learning and proving my intellectual superiority.

My secondary armies are Necrons and Thousand Sons.

 amanita wrote:

Chancetragedy wrote:

 amanita wrote:
I have space marines, orks, chaos marines, tyranids, dark eldar and even some sisters of battle. So do I have multiple personality disorder?

If I were to hazard a guess from those armies I would say you actually have a very singular personality. And that's aggressive and in your face or your compensating for a lack of that in your real life. All of those armies are very assault based armies. Whether its actually in assault or close range face melting shooting.

I actually think this concept holds very true. Sure you may play an army that doesn't fit your personality, but for the most part people play an army with a style they can relate to. I play Vulkan marines and necrons, they are both in your face and angry, they want to crush under their weight of attack and smother you till you quit. Which is how I am. When I wrestle and am doing jiu jitsu I don't get as much satisfaction from submissions, what really gets me going is breaking your will and wearing you down till you can't fight.

That's an interesting observation, but I can't say if it's valid or not. Your response did make me pause to consider a few things. I play my marines quite differently than say orks or tyranids, but there is always a certain ruthless approach to my game. But it is a WAR game after all, so isn't everyone out to kill and destroy, at least in theory?

Exactly, this is not an exact science and many reasons lead to people choosing an army. I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, and my opinion about you was just that and uneducated opinion haha. And your right technically all armies are seek and destroy armies in a wargame, it's just the way those armies to about the search and destroy mentality. Your exactly right about how you can play the armies quite differently as I play my necrons very differently than my marines. There are still some similarities in play styles though as they are both short range in your face even if how they go about it is not the same.

I love variety, excitement and I have a short attention span!

I think Slaanesh fits me pretty well

and as an earlier poster said with Dark Eldar I think it's a high risk high reward kind of style..I could see that in myself

EDIT: Also I bent my Dark Eldar more towards a Harlequinesque type of army because I couldn't stand the idea of them being evil..hah

For me, its playstyle more than anything else.

In 40K, I play Eldar as my primary army, and I love the feel of them in the game, being able to dance around my opponents, surround them, eliminate isolated threats. I like having an army that lacks the brute force to win a head on fight, but rather has the speed and precision to deliver precise lethal blows where I need them.

Similarly in Fantasy I play Bretonnians, which trades ranged for shooting, but the overall emphasis is the same, use superior mobility (Knights not slowed by barding, Peg Knights, etc) to set up favorable charges, and avoid the enemy death star blocks, while using tons of cheap chaff drops (peasant archers, mounted yeomen, and even Peg Knights who can vanguard to a better position) to scout the enemy deployment and further give me a movement phase advantage.

In Malifaux, however. I play the Guild. But this actually further emphasizes the point. I often wish I had picked a crew like Collette or Zordaia, just because I often feel limited in the movement phase with my Death Marshals.

Bit of an odd one, this. My main army is Blood Angels, but I also like Space Wolves - in that respect I'm very much gung-ho and "charge forth unto the breach", I wanna get stuck in and be at the front of the action. *USUALLY*, I play video games this way too.
However, there's an exception - when given the choice in shooting games, I'll always pick the most sniper-like. For instance, Mordecai and Zer0 in Borderlands, or the Lightning Gun/Sniper Rifle in the Unreal Tournament series.

I'm sure there are underlying reasons but as with anything in psychology, there are too many factors to boil it all down to a single personality trait. It's a decent indication but by no means is it a hard and fast rule.

Not sure how this lines up with psychology, but I do tend to favor small, fast, and very aggressive elite armies built to do serious damage immediately (Grey Knights, Death/Raven Dark Angels, Mechdar); also because a smaller selection of characters makes them more interesting to write about.

I hate to be the boring rational person who points out that most of this is probably going to be confirmation bias, and that there are likely many dissimilar aspects as there are similar. However I feel obligated to ruin your fun.

It's not ruining our fun... It's a discussion about why and what, if anything psychologically goes into your army choices and play style. A fun little thinking game if you will. Nice try though.

And your right, for most of the similarities there are probably differences as well. I'm trying to come up with some for myself right now, but frankly am drawing a blank as I've built my 2 armies to be everything I think I would be in a made up game about a made up 41'st millennium. Which I guess is its own aspect of psychology in and of itself.

Aesthetically, I've always been drawn to SoB and Space Wolves, with robed power armor always being really cool looking. I would have started with SoB if Dark Vengeance didn't drop, or Space Wolves if they looked more like traditional Vikings.

Well i suppose me playing IG is a way to compensate for failing my medical for the RAF last year. Ah well Though truth be told to start with i never really bought into the SM, partially cause i despised the blind faith and unreasonable hatred. Now though I'm used to the zeolous nature of them and I now play BA and DA. IG still remains my favourite army and always will. You cant beat an army of people you can relate to.

Well I think I'm agressive then by using khorn tyranids orks and blood angels lawl

It could equally be a draw to things you are not. For instance my slaaneshi csm could be my envy of the unrestricted freedom, and constant search for pleasure that slaanesh represents, but I am barred from.achieving due to my own inhibitions and you know... the law lol.

It doesn't have to be what we are, but could also be what we want to be.

Since its a game, most people probably play armies that really don't represent their true personality. Instead, the probably play armies that are quite different, as it enables them to live out a fantasy of sorts and behave in a different manner. Who wants to play the same way they live?

For example, I am, by nature, not an overly aggressive person, but my first army was Orks from RT to 4th edition, and I played them very aggressively. I ended up selling the army since I took a long hiatus, but I kept enough Space Marines that I had collected via boxed sets and one-off trades to cobble together something just in case.

My personal nature is a bit methodical, so one would think that Marines would be a great fit. Well, I tend to get bored with them, and be overly aggressive since we have started back in the game. As a result, my win/loss record has greatly suffered as Marines are not really designed to play that way. Now I'm building a Chaos Daemon army, and I love it! Insanely aggressive, crazy randomness, and great big monstrous models to build and paint!

Since the CD codex came out in early March, I've painted 54 daemon models, with several more in the works. My Space Marines I've been painting since last August, and I've painted 24 models fully with about 6 others halfway painted. Wonder which army I'm more enthusiastic about

I play Nurgle daemons. I think i'm a neurotic hypochondriac who is paranoid about their appearance.

I play sisters, chaos space marines, and grey knights. I'm a pyro so sisters is a perfect fit. Chaos space marines for doing what they want and seeking personal gain. And grey knights for.... I just wanted to play them. Never really thought of this before