PDA

View Full Version : Playing as the underdog



Plebian
25-06-2010, 19:06
So, I realized a strange thing about myself today when I was looking through the warseer tactica. A few years ago I was constantly reading the IG tactica. Now I rarely if ever do. I like to play as the underpowered army. It just gives me more joy. Here is what I mean.

I started playing the game many years ago, at the twilight of 2nd edition and the beginning of third. My first army was Space Wolves, and then Tau when they were released. However, I preferred to play Space Wolves, because the general consensus at my LGS was that Tau were 'overpowered'. I then collected Tyranids. This was when they were seen as not that great, and I enjoyed them. When their new codex came out, my gaming group again called them 'cheesy' and I switched to Tau, who were magically free of the stigma of cheese. I began collecting Eldar and Imperial Guard, but after the Eldar codex came out and they dominated the tournament scene, I played Guard exclusively for a long time, despite their book kinda sucking. Now that several codexes have gone by, I play Eldar all the time, and have not even looked at my IG other than a few games-I wouldn't dream of taking them to a tournament. I sold my Wolves after I saw the new codex.

Does anyone else have a strange compulsion to play with older codexes? I'm not even sure why I do.

Well, thanks for listening to me.

PS I just started collecting Dark Eldar. Now the new rumours are getiing me worried...

bigcheese76
25-06-2010, 19:10
Yes. I much prefer my old guard book to my new one. Also, at the moment I really enjoy playing my Daemonhunters. The models are beautiful, its an elite army (completely different to my guard) and I love painting them.

A friend of mine, has a main army of Sisters of Battle, he has some Wolves aswell, but the Sisters turn up to battle 90% of the time and I really enjoy games against them, at least when that penitent engine is down!

Lechium
26-06-2010, 16:56
I'm kind of tempted to play the older Dark Angels codex just so I can use the Standard of Retribution, which lets you (or a squad within 6") once per game shoot at a squad that's assaulting you before it actually moves into assault. Rapid firing bolters and plasma guns into a squad of assault troops and only having two or three get there only to get massacred by the chaplain in my command squad was pretty funny. Other than that though I still prefer the new Dark Angels codex. My only wish is that they'd actually make identical wargear, oh I don't know, identical in games terms to the new stuff in the Space Marine codex. For some reason Dark Angels don't get the new storm shield or the new cyclone missile launcher.

sigur
26-06-2010, 17:50
@Lechium: I think you completely misinterpreted the point the OP was trying to make. ;)

Anyhow, while I don't exactly share your sentiments towards older books, I get what you're saying. While I don't mind getting a new codex or army book, I tend to have a nagging feeling when my army got a new codex/army book due to accusations of being overpowered or simply ...being overpowered in the current context of things. Being an IG player as well, I could have done without some tank varients, the psyker battle squad, some special character rules and especially the Valkyrie which not only doesn't fit my image or playstyle of the guard but which I also blame for a terrible trend we'll see more of in the future: flyers in 40k. I don't care how they're not actually flyers but get bastardized into fast skimmers. It's just incredibly uncalled for and basically a way to sell bigger plastic kits now that they're able to make them.

Anyway, I digress. The problem is that this whole thing, just like most things in the game, are highly dependant on the gaming enviroment you're in. bigcheese's games between SoB and DH sound great but if you don't have a good group of gaming friends and basically go have pick-up games at some stores or something, you can easily get sucked into GW's codex creep arms race. Codex creep IS there and one of the main reasons I'm getting drawn away from the core games. Sad thing, really.

TheSanityAssassin
26-06-2010, 18:01
Yeah. I play Eldar, Chaos and Guard, and all of my armies are purposely un-optimized. I know that's arguably foolish, but I still win a LOT of games simply because I've played at a high level for many years. I'm really not fond of the "point and click internet lists" that seem to be taking over most gaming communities, and would much rather play a weak list, struggle to win, and perhaps pull out something miraculous than stick a wall of Chimeras in the corner and not move all game, just so I can somehow be convinced that I'm "Better than everyone else" because I have cash and can use a search function.

Jind_Singh
26-06-2010, 18:53
I am the preverbial underdog!

Way back in the day I played Deamons for warhammer when they were a joke. Then their book came out and I put them under my bed!

Then I switched to Empire but then they got to tough so I went to Ogres

Who got good so I went to my Orcs & Goblins!

So I am NOT making that mistake in 40k - My 1st, and hopefully only, army is my 100% pure Guardian army with NO ASPECT WARRIORS of any shape or form!

Project2501
26-06-2010, 19:14
I play whatever apeals to me. I couldn't care less what some whiny person considers overpowered.

As to codexes being changed based on GW's percieved overpoweredness, I agree in the case of the newest C:CSM, but that's about it. I think it has more to do with not wanting change than anything else after years of playing a certain army, not knowing whether your list(s)/models will still be effective or even legal.

MOMUS
26-06-2010, 19:31
I think i agree with the OP, i recently downloaded the PDFs from GW and find WH very appealing. Is this why i like the idea of a WHFB all skink, southlands army?

Wolf Lord Balrog
26-06-2010, 19:37
A bit off-topic, but I've noticed a very interesting pattern: lots of players that started with Space Wolves in 2nd Ed then picked up Tau when they came out. My own reasoning was that they were both armies that were very different (at least visually) from other 40k forces.

On-topic, though related to the above: I've always liked playing something 'different', not just what everyone else was playing, regardless of power level (though of course it sucks when your army is one of the 'left behind' for a long time, as SW were, and Tau still are).

Jind_Singh
26-06-2010, 19:48
I play whatever apeals to me. I couldn't care less what some whiny person considers overpowered.

As to codexes being changed based on GW's percieved overpoweredness, I agree in the case of the newest C:CSM, but that's about it. I think it has more to do with not wanting change than anything else after years of playing a certain army, not knowing whether your list(s)/models will still be effective or even legal.

Not really old fruity, the topic of this thread is concerning people who naturally move to an army or particular build which is by default the 'under dog' or considered a challenge.

Nothing wrong with new books - can't wait for a new Eldar book or O & G for Warhammer, etc, and the learning curve is actually part of the fun, it's great when you don't know if your army can hack it - but here we're just seeing why certain players WANT to play crappy armies - what's in it for them?

And since the thread talks about underdog lovers - well a lot of the time you pick an army that is a challenge, master it, and off you go. But with a new book the old army inherently becomes so much better - so you're losing the joy of why you picked that list in the 1st place. Point in case my Daemons went from being Warhammers joke to being Warhammers DEADLIEST army - period!

For me being an underdog - it's the challenge - doing the unmentionables of gaming, of squeezing out every ounce of challenge from the rules/game to see how we can compete - building a house from damp card board essentially and then throwing a house party once that's been done!

And seeing the look on the other guys face when your Goblin warriors pull down his high & mighty Chaos warriors in combat! Priceless!

Swordsman
26-06-2010, 20:05
I don't mean any offense mind you - but in my personal experience the people who play the "underdogs" or "weak" armies tend to be people who just really want to be unique or stand-out.

They play armies that are slightly dated so that they can be noticed, or get a pat on the back for doing so.

I play armies that appeal to me; I couldn't care less what other people think. I play Ultramarines, I'm used to being hated for no other reason then it being in vogue to do so.

Project2501
26-06-2010, 20:36
Not really old fruity, the topic of this thread is concerning people who naturally move to an army or particular build which is by default the 'under dog' or considered a challenge.

I undertsand what the OP is on about. I am saying (poorly appearently, my apologies) that the same people that consider things overpowered also consider other things underpowered, and that either way, their opinions are meaningless to me. I play what I feel like playing, based off of whatever whim hits me at the time.



Nothing wrong with new books - can't wait for a new Eldar book or O & G for Warhammer, etc, and the learning curve is actually part of the fun, it's great when you don't know if your army can hack it - but here we're just seeing why certain players WANT to play crappy armies - what's in it for them?

I see (the OP's poin of view) it as being a sheep, letting other's dictate how you can/can't have fun and/or be able to gloat that much more, nothing more.



And since the thread talks about underdog lovers - well a lot of the time you pick an army that is a challenge, master it, and off you go. But with a new book the old army inherently becomes so much better - so you're losing the joy of why you picked that list in the 1st place. Point in case my Daemons went from being Warhammers joke to being Warhammers DEADLIEST army - period!

This is not necessarily true, point in case it is subjective, and there's my example of the 3.5 CSM codex, or the 5th Ed. Tyranid codex a lot of other people wish was never made.



For me being an underdog - it's the challenge - doing the unmentionables of gaming, of squeezing out every ounce of challenge from the rules/game to see how we can compete - building a house from damp card board essentially and then throwing a house party once that's been done!

And seeing the look on the other guys face when your Goblin warriors pull down his high & mighty Chaos warriors in combat! Priceless!

As long as you chose to do so based on your opinions alone, I completely agree.

Necron Lord Omega
26-06-2010, 20:50
I play Necrons. Now do I win the thread ? :)

Jind_Singh
26-06-2010, 21:01
They play armies that are slightly dated so that they can be noticed, or get a pat on the back for doing so.

LMAO! That is so true now that you mention it - in the begining I played mixed Orcs & Gobbos but then switched over to pure Gobbos - for fluff reasons and gaming challenges. But I must admit it IS NICE when people look at it and go "oh, all Goblins!".

I guess you do get a mild rush out of the aclaim! Wow! I'm an attention seeker! Lol!

And I must admit that while my reasons & motivations for going pure Gaurdians in 40k is both fluff & challenge, again it is gratifying seeing peoples stumped looks of confusion as to why I'd go with such an unbalanced and poor army choice! But the real kicker for me to take the army was the pure classic look of the models - I've been in love with the Vyper kit ever since it came out, the Guardians look amazing, I LOVE the tank range, and the new Heavy Platform I just finished assembling a few minutes ago - my goodness it's sexy! My only complaint is the jet bike - love the bike, I need to work on the rider though, he's showing his age!

Go Underdogs and Go Attention Seeking Underdogs!

:D

Vulcan7200
26-06-2010, 21:43
I like playing the Underdog, but not by "Codex Power". I started Imperial Guard, because they feel like the true underdogs in the 40k lore. Sure, they got a nice new book, that is certainly not even close to weak, but they're still the "Underdogs" in the 40k universe, to me.

Plebian
26-06-2010, 22:18
For me being an underdog - it's the challenge - doing the unmentionables of gaming, of squeezing out every ounce of challenge from the rules/game to see how we can compete - building a house from damp card board essentially and then throwing a house party once that's been done!


Yep, this is exactly what I mean. I remember in the old IG book, I would stress for hours on the perfect list, just so it could be reasonable competitive. Same with Tau and Eldar now. It just makes winning that much sweeter. And yes, it may be attention seeking as well. But I usually go for that with unique paint jobs :)

madden
26-06-2010, 22:47
I play under dog armies like a no vehical chaos marines and no oblits and the only cult troops are a 8 man beserker unit no lash or sorcerer at all but I still win half my battles, my nids have carnifex and no hive gaurd or zoes. I mainly do this as the challenge of an original list winning or close is good.

RobPro
27-06-2010, 06:43
I don't know about being the underdog, but I do like adding variety to the gaming tables at my store. I'm the only player there still running Necrons (for about the last year and a half), and I've recently started Eldar because the only person who plays them at the store will show up once every few months for a game. I see no reason for me, personally, to pick up marines, guard, tau, etc. because I get my fill of them when I play against them. I've never played against Necrons, and I'm usually watching the Eldar player go against someone else, so pretty much the only way I see those armies in action at all is by playing them myself.

madival
27-06-2010, 18:15
I picked necrons for my second army. I had loved them for tge longest time, then I found out they were bad and I knew I just had to collect them. They were the other side of the spectrum for my orks. I love the underdog armies, but I will never buy one just to play underpowered.

ReveredChaplainDrake
27-06-2010, 20:45
This is sort of why you will never see me play an IG or Ork army. Though admittedly I'm in it to win it, it's more satisfying taking an old codex, finding all the jinky loopholes, and pulling a draw out of my rear, rather than going out, buying an all-new Codex, buy and assemble all-new models, and then paint all these new models, just for the win that will be easily countered by the next MEQ codex to hit the shelves.

Also, just throwing it out there, but "newer" doesn't always mean "better". My primary army? Tyranids. My secondary army? Night Lords. My tertiary army? Daemons. After that is Black Templars, Daemonhunters, and Tau. I haven't jumped on a bandwagon since 3rd edition Ulthwe Eldar. (I'm not counting 3rd edition Tyranids as a bandwagon moment because I was already gonna' start Tyranids at that point.)

Arvendragon
27-06-2010, 21:03
I'll stick with Deathwing forever. <3

No matter how difficult it becomes.

It is a lot more challenging and tactically interesting to play as the underdog. It also allows you to feel happier if you win.

Setesh
27-06-2010, 22:48
I like playing as underdog codecies because its more fun when you have to -think- about your turn rather than just not have to worry about anything because you're so buffed

Xyrex
28-06-2010, 00:15
I wish they would update all the codices at the same time and make codex creep disappear.

Melion
28-06-2010, 00:19
I play necrons because I like them and that none of my friends play them. That way we can have more interesting battles.

fwacho
28-06-2010, 02:16
I do remember the 3rd ed Ulthwe. That was a FUN list to play. i didn't win a lot with it but it was sure enjoyable. I have 10 armies that I rotate through just to keep thing fresh. My favorite army is a raven wing army (that is soon to be a full fledged double wing) not a single tactical marine to be seen. I taught my 7 year old to run necrons with reasonable competency. I do like the flashy new codexes but I love my old ones. Tau are still one my favorite to run. I pull them out when I want someone to really ponder what to do. I keep telling myself I'll get a sisters army when/ if they get their next dex.

Born Again
28-06-2010, 14:41
Does anyone else have a strange compulsion to play with older codexes? I'm not even sure why I do.

Not with older codecii, but with lists that would usually be seen as uncompetitive. My ork army has a weirdboy, and nobs without power klaws. My Tau army has, get this, Vespid and NO transports! Crazy? Maybe. I'd never dream of taking it to a tournament, but that's not my scene anyway. It does make me work hard for victory in games, and it does lose a lot. But when I win, I have a sense of achievement and know I deserved it.

Currently building a CSM army without a Lash Prince, as if that wasn't enough it has Spawn!

Carlos
28-06-2010, 16:13
I have always been a strong upholder of the 'fun' aspect of the game and Im opposed to competitive play as I find talking to tournament players yields little by way of intetesting stories.

I digress. One of my favourite things about 40K is coming back from certain defeat or playing with unpopular builds or weaker armies and love being the underdog. I take no pleasure from tabling an opponent as where is the fun for them in that?

I was an Eldar player for 15 years (since space crusade) and 2 years ago decided to sell the lot and invest in some Tau because the challenge with the Eldar had gone. I found it too easy to win with them.

Plebian
28-06-2010, 18:53
I taught my 7 year old to run necrons with reasonable competency.

Forcing a child to play necrons counts as abuse in most civilized nations.

Brettila
28-06-2010, 19:34
Hallelujah! Someone else who enjoys NOT playing the newest list. I have Chaos, Eldar and Witch Hunter armies. Also, I have an absolute aversion to special characters. Will not use them. And amazingly enough, I seem to have no trouble winning games. All it takes is the ability to think during your opponent's turn, forcing them to react to what you do; rather than the reverse.

daladzor
28-06-2010, 19:49
I've enjoyed playing Guardfor the last 4-5 years. With thier new and old Codex.
My local group we all run themed armies so despite new rules ect things havent changed much from the older codexes. the fun of using what some people view as the underdog or underpowered units and then proving them wrong as tactical use shows thier talents provides amusement

Sunfang
28-06-2010, 21:35
Hallelujah! Someone else who enjoys NOT playing the newest list. I have Chaos, Eldar and Witch Hunter armies. Also, I have an absolute aversion to special characters. Will not use them. And amazingly enough, I seem to have no trouble winning games. All it takes is the ability to think during your opponent's turn, forcing them to react to what you do; rather than the reverse.

I play what I want. I will not and have not ever jumped codex. Stuff just costs too much.

Quoted because I also have a serious aversion to SC's. Thats all :)