Style

[Storm Dragons 3rd Company]

If your list is maxed out on heavy support and your style relies on the range

 

I recently read this in a thread and it got me thinking about "style" (and since it was off topic for that thread, I made a new one). What is style, really?

 

It is not the strategy, the plan to win the game, and it is not the tactics, the methods I am going to use to implement my strategy. It is closer to tactics than strategy though. To some extent it is the type of army people play within the codex they use, yet the codex often dictates the type. For example, consider assaulty Necrons or shooty 'Nids. So what is "style?"

 

Is long range a style? If so, you should only expect to indulge it against someone with a similar style because assaulty armies will be in your face on turn two.

 

I tend to think of styles as aggressive, mixed, or defensive. Passive or active. Direct or indirect. Maneuver or static. Proactive or reactive. Maybe even close combat, shooting, or balanced. You could even say that WAAC and fluff are styles.

 

How do you guys use "style" when talking about how one plays the game and one's army?

[techsoldaten]

How do you guys use "style" when talking about how one plays the game and one's army?

It means the ladies love me, men want to be me, and my dice are furry.

[Sinners Red]

It's one of those things, that kinda just is I guess.

 

I mean I would say that your play style can be active or passive, while your army style can be balanced, CC, or Dakka.

 

To make this Chaos related, my chaos army uses Marine Corps principles of 'Shoot, Move, Communicate'. In reality, the Communicate part has no part in it. But the shoot in move works well, but it should really be more of move and shoot, establish a base of fire, and move in with assault squads, and destroy the enemy in close combat.

 

I mean, I would say that, your play style is influenced by who you are, or how well you can manipulate your own impulses and emotions.

 

I have my mind set cause it was drilled in my head.

Mission of the Marine Corps Rifle Squad is To locate, close with, and destroy the enemy, by fire and maneuver, or repel the enemy assault by fire and close combat.

 

But thats just me, and I've had a few beers tonight.

[King Willy]

I like to think that style of play is that inherent way we might make a list, the appearence of the army and list doesn't matter but the way we set it up will always show a slight tell as to how we prefer to play.

 

For example, I guess you could call me a Fluffy Marine player, I like to design the list after the characters and like the small elite units.

This translate into a balanced style with my Vanillas because that how the vanilla marines a portrayed.

My chaos is close combat oriented cause I like the visual image of Marines in close combat.

 

On the table my style is dictated by those factors, with my vanillas being reserved and attacking one section of the enemy and pulling them apart piecemeal.

 

My chaos marines are very aggressive, they still focus on killing one section but aim to do it with overwhelming force hoping to divert the enemy away from key unit.

 

Theses styles arise accidently as we get involved in the game and hobby, we unintentionally begin to chose an army or list style that we like, some a flexiable so can change there style on the fly, others a very single minded and will continue to revert to there perfered style of play, which they may not even realise there doing till there shooty unit is charging into CC.

[Hellios]

What is the difference between style and fashion?

 

Style is wearing the clothes that work for you and match your identity or whatever message you want to get across.

 

Fashion is whatever is 'popular' at the moment, apparently according to the mysterious deities of clothing.

 

Master your style (which may not be the same as the style you wish to emulate) and you should be able to look good, whatever it is.

 

Fashion also makes it look like you know what is hot at the moment and can make you look good in certain circles... Mess it up and you will look silly and either way you can risk becoming its slave!

 

So how would this relate to board games?

 

Fashion ( not a term really used in this context) would roughly be the hot choices in the meta at the moment. So Necron Airforces or whatever the internet is going on about.

 

Style is how you like to play armies and this often impacts on someones choices when constructing an army. Some armies do restrict you... Is CC normally your style? You won't have much choice to adapt if you start playing with Tau. Basically style is how you like to do things and finding something that works for you. GC08's scout army could be said to be 'unfashionable' but it seems to work for him and be very much his style. I might give you the 'hot list of NOW' and you might not be able to pull it off, it might not suit your style however good it is.

 

If you stick with a style for long enough... you will probably find yourself in-fashion for a little while at some point.

[King Willy]

And to be honest, sticking with your style just leads to being a better player. Eventually you'll pick up any old codex make a list and your experience will aid you in winning your games just as well, and often better, then whatever list is hot at the moment.

 

I do like the clothing-mini comparison a lot, actually thought it was a troll post at first.

[Svarte Hanske]

There are probably few people that randomly pick an army. Usually new players look at pictures of the armies, look at what other friends got, talk with some guys at hobby/gaming shops and end up with an army choice that reflect themselves, who they hang out with and what they think look cool. Maybe the fluff is the reason they think X is awesome?

 

I was a player that favoured melee before, now I'm moving towards shooty. Its a change in my personality. I still take great pleasure in charging into melee, so I'm building an ork army for that purpose. My play style is influenced by how I want to solve problems.

 

We can talk about play style as favoured way of tooling and using the army.

We can also talk about artistic style for converting and painting the army.

[Jacinda]

Is long range a style? If so, you should only expect to indulge it against someone with a similar style because assaulty armies will be in your face on turn two.

 

This is a great example. Long range shooting is just the first layer. Keeping stuff off your long range shooting is the next. Taking out your opponents long range shooters is another. All the while, you need to be able to clear, capture and deny objectives. How you do ALL of this is your style of playing.

 

I like a shooty army, I exploit mobility(keeping mine and removing my opponent's) and use cheap and effective counter assault units to keep the opponent in my kill zone. With this I maintain small troop squads out of combat and away from objectives to be used end game to capture easily held objectives in pre-cleared areas. I would say that I don't like foot sloggers because it does not fit my style. That is, they do not mesh well with my army and how I use them. Sure, I could play an army based on combined arms with assault troops up front backed by a gun line on foot and finally several heavy, long ranged pieces in the rear but I like my mobility. So no foot sloggers except those with long range ability.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with footsloggers and many people are making good use of armies on foot now. But they don't fit my style. Or is it they don't fit my strategy. Either way ... same thing. I have different abilities I wish to capitalize on to achieve my objectives.

[the jeske]

And to be honest, sticking with your style just leads to being a better player. Eventually you'll pick up any old codex make a list and your experience will aid you in winning your games just as well, and often better, then whatever list is hot at the moment.

 

I do like the clothing-mini comparison a lot, actually thought it was a troll post at first.

 

I played NM the whole 5th ed . I doubt that may ability to play water style armies got better. on the other hand I know that if I played same gameplay GK , I would have had more wins and more fun in general .

[Jacinda]

It means the ladies love me,

You're cute and all but "love?" How about I just use you for a weekend and we deny it ever happened. ;)

[zyl-]

The original quote looks like something I could have written. I would think of it more to mean "strategy," but in this game it's hard to use that word sometimes. Reason being if I field the same army in six games, I might get 6 different missions and 3 different deployments. Each mission very well may demand a completely different strategy from the exact same army list, so if you are fielding an army that focuses on heavy ranged combat I think of it as a play style.

 

EDIT: pming Jacinda my phone number

[Vesper]

Style ?

Well, in a 40k army building topic, that feels pretty limited to me. You're the shooty kind of guy, the MKB boy (Maim Kill and that other stuff), the guy that likes tanks or something...

It's all about the dominant orientation of your army build.

On a hobby note, it's more about fluffy restrictions, and unit/codex picking. Then, you end up in tiny boxes like WAAC or for-the-fun.

 

And that's pretty much it.

 

Speaking of my style, I'm a 40k masochist. Played Chaos even when GW ruined it, because I liked Chaos.

Ugh, I feel like Justine now.

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

I guess you could replace 'style' with 'doctrine' and they would be synonymous in this regard.

[Rune Priest Ridcully]

Is using a faction that has got, if we are honest here, such poor rules that it feels more like a 4th ed codex then a 6th, the imperial gurad, necrons andf tau all feel more 6th.

It means taking an army you like the look and fluff off, and the models you like, and dam well keeping to it, no matter how poor the rules, overcosted the limited options, or what ever advantages other armies get. Your style is what you choose, how you use it and wherever you keep with it or just ditch it for the latest count as craze.

[the jeske]

I think it is something like my addiction to exploding dice . If I can I make necron armies just around tesla and nothing else. It is not optimal and there for I dont play necron . I think style is something like that. gimping your own army , because of sources other then cash/scenarios/models owned/possible choices out of a codex.

 

that is why I dont think playing 1ksons has much to do with style . its more like borderline masochism .