Going with or against the grain

[Skywrath]

Title. So after participating at the Brisbane GT, I was let into some tactics. Turns out the entire time have I've been playing my main armies wrong. According to the player, philosophically speaking, all space marine armies can be divided into two axis' - aggressive/defensive axis and the reactive/pro-active axis. So my armies that I play are Dark Angels and Grey Knights, with me expanding into Custodes. This player believes (who hosts a podcast, and has been in many tournaments before), DA and GK are both defensive/pro-active, with them having limited capability in the offensive territory. 

 

Myself, I'm an aggressive/pro-active player, and thus been playing my armies that way. Contesting the board, gating into enemy territory/deep-striking to meet face to face, that kind of idea. Most of my lists are built with this kind of playstyle in mind. So the common denominator is a preference for pro-active play, while the path to victory diverges. Of course, all this aggressive play was done with 9th edition in mind, with most of the tactic being of shooting threats away from the points, or engaging them in melee (with my paladins) before they become a threat, later on. Essentially pro-active playstyle to a T.

 

So with all this in mind here's my problem. Despite the player's recommendation to adopt a more defensive playstyle (which I am learning in the interests of open-mindedness), all of this playstyle has been working out for me, playing my armies that way, with me winning most of my games. Could it be, despite his successes, he is just wrong?

 

Now here is the series of questions I would ask:

 

1. Out of the factions I described, where would you put your <insert chapter here> on that axis? And where would you say the Grey Knights/Dark Angels are on that axis as well?

2. Should this player be worth listening to, despite my successes? 

3. Do any of you play your armies differently that what is accustomed to, and if so how is that working out for you? The reason I ask is whether certain chapters have the flexibility to be whatever I choose them to be.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Skywrath

[clanfield]

i play different to most with puzzled looks on there faces around this parts.

 

so ye marine army's are so flexible they can do anything hence defensive wolves aggressive fists etc its always worth listening to others 

but temper this with your own experience ,

 

it helps throw off the expected way your army plays

sure there are some great picks in the codex's but thats the joy of being original in your approach 

[War Angel]

That guys wrong. You can probably build your list to work one way or another, but the faction (at least in the case of dark angels) is not limited to defensive reactive.

 

Dark angel plasma is a very aggressive move.

 

Inceptors used to deepstrike and destroy a unit can be active or reactive depending on if you waited for an opening or made an opening. It can be aggressive or defensive if you used it to punch into your opponents castle (or equivalent) or used it to fortify your own battle lines.

 

Some of his information could be right, but he’s narrowing it down and confining it far too much. This I wouldn’t listen to him. At least not 100%

 

I play imperial fist, like splitting my forces up, and like pushing up the board. Rules wise, I’ve been playing very poorly, but it worked out alright. Now the rules are shifting and some of those things I do are no longer “the wrong way” to play. My tanks don’t benefit from my aura anymore anyway, so it’s ok for them to take a flank. Good times for me.

[Dracos]

Yeah with War Angel. With all due respect sounds like a mathhammer guy trying to sound tactical to me ... or vis-a-versa? Real world analysis cant be plotted on a two dimensional axis like that. 

 

I will give the concept of finding an army with a ruleset that is enhanced by your playstyle props though. Playing "against the grain" as it were is fine for building your tactical muscles but when my "chips are all in" I want to be playing an army that fits my personal style like a glove. 

 

As War Angel said Marines are versatile enough that's pretty easy but even within Marines there can be optimization. I'd make a horrible Iron Hands player, but give me the right models with Blood Angels and Templars and I could run them almost as well as my Raven Guard. 

 

Go with what brings you joy and the Emperor will be pleased ;)

[Snazzy]

Success speaks for itself.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

War Angel you been eating those smart pills again :D

[MegaVolt87]

No, you are playing your factions correctly. A counter puncher + defensive faction would be CSM's, they are highly synergistic, quite a few individual parts are nudged average, but the total is greater than the parts. I would consider IH a premier defensive faction, while I would rate IF's +successors and UM + successors as good counter puncher factions who are capable of aggression or defence also. GK and DA are best in 100% offensive, they have been that way for years even though their rules have suffered. Just improve your attacking priority in the new missions, maybe revise the list later. 

[War Angel]

War Angel you been eating those smart pills again :D

What did I say that makes me smart? *goes back to crayons*

[Volt]

Title. So after participating at the Brisbane GT, I was let into some tactics. Turns out the entire time have I've been playing my main armies wrong. According to the player, philosophically speaking, all space marine armies can be divided into two axis' - aggressive/defensive axis and the reactive/pro-active axis. So my armies that I play are Dark Angels and Grey Knights, with me expanding into Custodes. This player believes (who hosts a podcast, and has been in many tournaments before), DA and GK are both defensive/pro-active, with them having limited capability in the offensive territory. 

 

Myself, I'm an aggressive/pro-active player, and thus been playing my armies that way. Contesting the board, gating into enemy territory/deep-striking to meet face to face, that kind of idea. Most of my lists are built with this kind of playstyle in mind. So the common denominator is a preference for pro-active play, while the path to victory diverges. Of course, all this aggressive play was done with 9th edition in mind, with most of the tactic being of shooting threats away from the points, or engaging them in melee (with my paladins) before they become a threat, later on. Essentially pro-active playstyle to a T.

 

So with all this in mind here's my problem. Despite the player's recommendation to adopt a more defensive playstyle (which I am learning in the interests of open-mindedness), all of this playstyle has been working out for me, playing my armies that way, with me winning most of my games. Could it be, despite his successes, he is just wrong?

 

Now here is the series of questions I would ask:

 

1. Out of the factions I described, where would you put your <insert chapter here> on that axis? And where would you say the Grey Knights/Dark Angels are on that axis as well?

2. Should this player be worth listening to, despite my successes? 

3. Do any of you play your armies differently that what is accustomed to, and if so how is that working out for you? The reason I ask is whether certain chapters have the flexibility to be whatever I choose them to be.

Anybody who thinks Grey Knights is a defensive army primarily is either an idiot or sniffing paint fumes. Grey Knights don't even have the bodies to be anything but aggressive, their winning tourney style is to jump around the map with Terminators out the arse to bring the pain to the enemy's face. If you slow down you lose with elite armies, which is why Custodes for example are actually a pretty high skill force equitable to Dark Eldar on some days. Dark Angels depends entirely upon the Wing in question. Greenwing is absolutely defensive, but again Ravenwing and Deathwing are elite armies and loss of momentum is death. As the saying goes, if it's working out, then it's not stupid. Aggressive play absolutely works with any elite focused marine army, as otherwise you'll be swarmed in bodies or shots.

 

Of course he also might be feeding you such advice because he wants to win games against you.

Edited September 23, 2020 by Volt

[Skywrath]

i play different to most with puzzled looks on there faces around this parts.

 

so ye marine army's are so flexible they can do anything hence defensive wolves aggressive fists etc its always worth listening to others 

but temper this with your own experience ,

 

it helps throw off the expected way your army plays

sure there are some great picks in the codex's but thats the joy of being original in your approach 

 

That's the playstyle I go for! Upvoted. 

 

That guys wrong. You can probably build your list to work one way or another, but the faction (at least in the case of dark angels) is not limited to defensive reactive.

 

Dark angel plasma is a very aggressive move.

 

Inceptors used to deepstrike and destroy a unit can be active or reactive depending on if you waited for an opening or made an opening. It can be aggressive or defensive if you used it to punch into your opponents castle (or equivalent) or used it to fortify your own battle lines.

 

Some of his information could be right, but he’s narrowing it down and confining it far too much. This I wouldn’t listen to him. At least not 100%

 

I play imperial fist, like splitting my forces up, and like pushing up the board. Rules wise, I’ve been playing very poorly, but it worked out alright. Now the rules are shifting and some of those things I do are no longer “the wrong way” to play. My tanks don’t benefit from my aura anymore anyway, so it’s ok for them to take a flank. Good times for me.

 

This is exactly why I disagree with that player, who also claims to be a DA player. Everything about their lists, and their new chapter tactic (+1 to hit), screams offensive. Even the Deathwing Knights with the Ancient with the pennant/MoM warlord trait is practically begging to say "Knock me off the point, and steam-roll the next available target within 12". Hell, they even have the Fortress of Shields strategem, which is specifically made for that purpose, I would say. I know a good player can switch play styles as the occasion demands, and I do know that some armies have abilities that make them favour one playstyle over the other. 

 

Yeah with War Angel. With all due respect sounds like a mathhammer guy trying to sound tactical to me ... or vis-a-versa? Real world analysis cant be plotted on a two dimensional axis like that. 

 

I will give the concept of finding an army with a ruleset that is enhanced by your playstyle props though. Playing "against the grain" as it were is fine for building your tactical muscles but when my "chips are all in" I want to be playing an army that fits my personal style like a glove. 

 

As War Angel said Marines are versatile enough that's pretty easy but even within Marines there can be optimization. I'd make a horrible Iron Hands player, but give me the right models with Blood Angels and Templars and I could run them almost as well as my Raven Guard. 

 

Go with what brings you joy and the Emperor will be pleased

 

Could be true, and I will, thanks brother!

 

No, you are playing your factions correctly. A counter puncher + defensive faction would be CSM's, they are highly synergistic, quite a few individual parts are nudged average, but the total is greater than the parts. I would consider IH a premier defensive faction, while I would rate IF's +successors and UM + successors as good counter puncher factions who are capable of aggression or defence also. GK and DA are best in 100% offensive, they have been that way for years even though their rules have suffered. Just improve your attacking priority in the new missions, maybe revise the list later. 

 

Thank you for that response, and I'm glad to see someone else thinks I'm doing things right. I'll definitely take this into further consideration. At the risk of derailing the topic, where would you say Custodes are? I presume defensive?

 

 

Title. So after participating at the Brisbane GT, I was let into some tactics. Turns out the entire time have I've been playing my main armies wrong. According to the player, philosophically speaking, all space marine armies can be divided into two axis' - aggressive/defensive axis and the reactive/pro-active axis. So my armies that I play are Dark Angels and Grey Knights, with me expanding into Custodes. This player believes (who hosts a podcast, and has been in many tournaments before), DA and GK are both defensive/pro-active, with them having limited capability in the offensive territory. 

 

Myself, I'm an aggressive/pro-active player, and thus been playing my armies that way. Contesting the board, gating into enemy territory/deep-striking to meet face to face, that kind of idea. Most of my lists are built with this kind of playstyle in mind. So the common denominator is a preference for pro-active play, while the path to victory diverges. Of course, all this aggressive play was done with 9th edition in mind, with most of the tactic being of shooting threats away from the points, or engaging them in melee (with my paladins) before they become a threat, later on. Essentially pro-active playstyle to a T.

 

So with all this in mind here's my problem. Despite the player's recommendation to adopt a more defensive playstyle (which I am learning in the interests of open-mindedness), all of this playstyle has been working out for me, playing my armies that way, with me winning most of my games. Could it be, despite his successes, he is just wrong?

 

Now here is the series of questions I would ask:

 

1. Out of the factions I described, where would you put your <insert chapter here> on that axis? And where would you say the Grey Knights/Dark Angels are on that axis as well?

2. Should this player be worth listening to, despite my successes? 

3. Do any of you play your armies differently that what is accustomed to, and if so how is that working out for you? The reason I ask is whether certain chapters have the flexibility to be whatever I choose them to be.

Anybody who thinks Grey Knights is a defensive army primarily is either an idiot or sniffing paint fumes. Grey Knights don't even have the bodies to be anything but aggressive, their winning tourney style is to jump around the map with Terminators out the arse to bring the pain to the enemy's face. If you slow down you lose with elite armies, which is why Custodes for example are actually a pretty high skill force equitable to Dark Eldar on some days. Dark Angels depends entirely upon the Wing in question. Greenwing is absolutely defensive, but again Ravenwing and Deathwing are elite armies and loss of momentum is death. As the saying goes, if it's working out, then it's not stupid. Aggressive play absolutely works with any elite focused marine army, as otherwise you'll be swarmed in bodies or shots.

 

Of course he also might be feeding you such advice because he wants to win games against you.

 

 

While I wouldn't go to using such explicit, that's the same impression I got. Absolutely love the analogy that they don't have the bodies to be anything but aggressive. My playstyle is the same pretty much. So T1, I shield everyone behind terrain, T2, I move strikes (preferably ones that aren't doing anything) to an objective, and reinforce it with a 10m paladin squad. Then I blow every single defensive strategem/psychic power such as armoured resilence, transhuman, masters of combat, redoubtable defence, and push from there, as described earlier in the same manner as my Deathwing Knights for DA. Then I knock the opponent off the point, charge my paladins across and reinforce my previous one with a strike squad, while maintaining the defences on them. 

 

As for Dark Angels - I presume both aspects of Ravenwing/Deathwing are offensive focused? Predominantly a Deathwing player here myself. So in conclusion, I presume I don't give him any second thought?

 

I don't think he's feeding me such advice intentionally, as according to many sources he's been in country wide tournaments, while I'm still a newbie to this, with some interesting ideas. He wouldn't get any benefit from doing so, however his whole mentality is essentially "Take my word as gospel".  So yeah.. take from that what you will.

Edited September 23, 2020 by Skywrath

[MegaVolt87]

Bad advice aside from that guy, if you want to improve further custodes would hone your playstyle at a relative little $$$ investment due to model count. If you have a big DA model pool you could try playing greenwing to learn how a more defensive/ counter punch playstyle works to better understand how to beat it. Wonder if you grinded their gears and the next podcast complains about losses lol. 

[War Angel]

you can be aggressive defensively, and you can be defensive aggressively. It’s crazy but true. Edited September 23, 2020 by War Angel

[Karhedron]

Part of the problem is that terms like "offensive" and "defensive" are pretty vague and can mean different things to different people. I agree with the poster above who said that DA shooting is very offensive so I can only think that what this Podcaster means is that DAs are the kind of army that likes to castle up to shoot and then react to the enemy's moves.

 

If this is what he means then I don't really agree with it for the simple reason that Ravenwing exists. It sounds to me like a rather simplistic assessment of the faction. One of the advantages of Marines is their flexibility meaning they have few gaping weaknesses but are usually equipped to exploit weaknesses in other lists.

 

It sounds to me as if you have fun when you play and do well enough to be satisfied with your win rate. I rate enjoying the way your army plays higher than finding the most efficient way to play and exploiting it an all circumstances. Way back in 4th edition when Net lists were only just emerging, I put together an Eldar list that was flavour of the month (2 Fire Prisms, 5 serpents with MSUs and lots of MSU with heavy short-ranged firepower). It did very well and I ended up in 3rd place when I took it to a tournament but after that I moved on because the idea of running a cookie-cutter list didn't seem fun in the long term.

 

Listening to other players' experiences and tactics is a valuable way to learn. But at the end of the day, it sounds like you make your army work for you, you have fun and you win enough that you don't feel hamstrung. That sounds like a winning combination to me.

 

What did I say that makes me smart? *goes back to crayons*

Drawing with crayons looks smart when you are sitting next to me and I'm eating them.

[Schlitzaf]

So its not aggressive/defensives. Its Active vs Reactive. In card games for example its which player is taking “aggro” position ajd which player taking the “control”. Its possible for Aggro “Decks” to be the latter and control to be the “former”.

 

“Competitive” Marine (and most 40k) armies are traditionally composed of three parts:

The Hammer - Your Big Scary Thing. Thunderators in 5th to 7th Ed Deathstars, and the Castallen in 8th. Basically they are how you “clear” and take positions. The player with the “strongest” (not the best) Hammer is in 40k sense the “Aggro” as rhey seek to wield their Win Con like well a Hammer. A Hammer is generally around 200-400 ooints and many lists have 2. Or one “Deathstar” at 600+ points. Related to “Center”.

 

The Backfield - This is well. Backfield, units you have holding home objectives. They tend to be longer run and more “Defensive” armies tend to this. They also tend to lack a center/assault force when most units are “Backfield”. Backfield generalt is where Anti-Tank, and Anti-Hammer Units are located. Because tou can screen them. Or protect them easier from being Alpha. The “longer” range backfield army will tend to shift and be the “control” player.

 

Center - Center is well everything else. More specifically is where what best described as “do nothing” units. Troop Choices, or Troop-Lite like Assault Marines and Reivars. They are bulk of your army. Screen your Hammer, and Backfield. A strong center allows you dictate flow of the backfield. A weaker center of like only say 30 Geq’s or 15 Meq’s, surrender ability to play the battlefield for better Hammer’s or Backfield.

 

These are units that are “flexible” in how you wield them. And are vital to dynamics of the tabletop. While having a strong center won’t enable you to take aggressor or favor taking the reactor stance. It will enable you to play the battlefield. Meaning if opponent Deathstars barrels down at you. If they invested little into there “center” you can just avoid it allowing you to play a psuedo aggressor role by forcing the “aggressive” army to respond despite being “control” in trying nuetralize. A smaller center will be able to concentrate it firepower to act like a Deathstar.

 

Related Unit

Bully - Bullies are Reivars, Assault Marines etc. Not punchy or shooty enough to threaten Deathstars but cheap enough to take in mass. To threaten backfield units.

 

—————

The dynamic that guy spoke about was this. Its not a codex favors “defensive” or “aggressive”. A list or player procivility favors one or another. A Codex like DA has defensive/control aspects given several rules favor stationary movement. But they have units like DW Terminators and Raven Knights. Whom can be powerful Deathstars can be used dictate battlefleld flow. And likewise you have solid troops in Intercessor if you want solid center to play the battlefield.

 

—————

Tl;dr

Every Good List has

“Hammer” or unit(s) meant to dictate backfield flow. Hard Hitting. Generally melee inclined. “A Unit Opponent has to Respond too”

“Backfield” or unit(s) that can project it firepower, and take down high armored targets/threat. They are an armies answer to “Must Kill Now” units

“Center” or unit(s) represent Meat and Potatoes. They are how you control the backfield. Or how one “plays the scenerio”

Edited September 23, 2020 by Schlitzaf

[WrathOfTheLion]

Dark Angels chapter tactic is more defensive, but all their unique units are extremely aggressive. Ravenwing and Deathwing both want to move up, they do not want to defend. Furthermore, the librarian abilities and characters all give strong benefits to melee. So the faction as a whole is quite aggressive, but the 8E rules have been quite a bit split in their focus I think.

The new chapter tactic with the +1 to hit working in melee might allow for more aggressive greenwing play too, where you might push up and try to goad the opposing player into a charge.

[War Angel]

Backfield isn’t control, center is control, control the board, control the objectives, control movement.

 

Backfield is long ranged damage, sustained damage.

[Schlitzaf]

Well backfield allows you dictate, and answer the enemy regardless of “positioning”. A SmashCpt and GravDevi in Pods are “Backfield” in that they allow projection of firepower. Which is control. Control = Answer in this context. Replace Backfield with “Answer” if you prefer.

[War Angel]

Well backfield allows you dictate, and answer the enemy regardless of “positioning”. A SmashCpt and GravDevi in Pods are “Backfield” in that they allow projection of firepower. Which is control. Control = Answer in this context. Replace Backfield with “Answer” if you prefer.

Ok, I see the issue. Your over simplifying it. I wouldn’t call a smash captain backfield, because he doesn’t work there. If you want to call him a counter unit, ie “answer” I can see the metaphor, but he doesn’t ever need to be put into the backfield, he can start in the front. He could also start in reserves, and I can see that as an even further back field. But he could also be used as “the question” instead of as an answer, send him into the enemy first turn not as a response to something they send at you.

 

So it doesn’t seem my issue with what your saying is the terminology, so much as your hard labeling things and saying that X does Y, when in reality X can also do Z. I suppose that it works as a foundation principle, a building block if you will to start your tactical planing of your list, but its not for everyone.

[Schlitzaf]

Exactly, but a Smashy doesn't have a durabiltiy of a "question". I used to have a better term but forgotten sense it was years sense I used them (sense last time was in High School introducing folks to dynamics of army building and explaining mono Thunderators and/or Devies is a bad idea. And that each unit has a role to play). I could like 'counter' but I dislike the term. Basically perhaps a better term. 

1) A Method of Threat Projection. Either Fast (and Far Moving) + Hard Hitting. Or ability project your shots from afar at little loss.

2) The "Big" Thing (which might be things), its the question you are providing that opponent must answer. Generally 'slow' but existence dictates flow of battle. (A Big Thing could be something from a Castallen to Gulliman). Its primary role is that is clears objective and board. Classic examples 5th Ed Nob Bikes, and Thunderators. It could even be something like a simple Farseer. It what your opponent has to kill to 'beat' your army (which is not same thing as winning the scenerio). A center main aspect/most important aspect it that is 'hard' to kill and can clear objectives to allow weaker units to take.

3) "Center" Or Core: I don't want to say everything else but bulk of the army. The grunt troops, your tacticals, infantry squads, don't have fire or threat projection of first type. Doesn't have durability, punchy or multiplier abilities of the "Big" Thing. 

 

Also not everything is '1' category. A Castallen could be threat Projection and "Big Thing". But if it being a "Big Thing" its less likely to be contest the No Man Lands Objectives. Likewise Custodes regular troops, function as "big things" and as the armies "center". Its less of a unit only doing one thing, and more what you build your army to want that one to be doing. Or should be doing. 

 

A simple example is why back in the day a Flamer + (Most Heavies) Tacticals was a poor loadout. Sense if had a Heavy Weapon you want to anchor/be backfield. But if you had a Flamer you want to contest center or no man's land. Sorry for the confusion wargamer hope that helped. 

[War Angel]

That makes a lot more sense, and I’m agreeing with you a lot more, but I’m having difficulty with the “big thing” category. It’s not quite a blob of wounds because you say it also does damage. The enemy has to kill it, but it’s not the core of the army. But sometimes it’s also the core and sometimes I can be your threat. I’m just not seeing a distinction that gives us a third category if that makes sense, or is it just “something durable”? To me a core can fit that through it’s number of bodies.

 

The core holds ground, the threat provides the threat. The “big thing” is just something hard to kill? That could be my core of 60 intercessors, or 200 guardsmen though right?

 

Sorry for questioning you on this, I want to fully understand what your saying.

[Schlitzaf]

and yeah its np, I'm not the best of explaining. 

 

Big Thing is Hard to Kill, High Damage output, but limited area of what it can affect on the table. Its primary job is Taking No Man's Land Objectives (while the 'cores' job is to contest No Man's Land Objectives). Classic examples, it are ThunderHammer Terminators, Nob Bikers from 5th edition, in 7th Edition, the be the Deathstars of Insanity, and in 8th Edition the Castallen. 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Schlitzaf

[War Angel]

Hard to Kill, High Damage output, but limited area of what it can affect on the table. Its primary job is contesting No Man's Land Objective.

 

Is that not just combining the other two categories? Threat is high damage, Core is hard to kill?

[War Angel]

 

Hard to Kill, High Damage output, but limited area of what it can affect on the table. Its primary job is contesting No Man's Land Objective.

Is that not just combining the other two categories? Threat is high damage, Core is hard to kill?

Edit: you changed your post, raising different questions. Perhaps I’m confused from when we shifted the terms, but I thought hammernators were threat?

 

Edit, apparently I didn’t hit edit earlier, I hit quote.

Edited September 24, 2020 by War Angel

[Schlitzaf]

Hmm Wargamer what the exacr confusion? Will try to explain better in morning.

 

But “Big Thing” is Threat/Question

Edited September 24, 2020 by Schlitzaf

[SanguinaryGuardsman]

I dont find these axis to be particularly useful in general.  Why can't a unit or army be proactive and reactive?  For example, I play WS and RG and both armies have elements to react or "proact".  WS bikers can quickly grab objectives proactively but they can just as easily react and challenge objectives because of their speed.  RG can do similar things but with deep strike/deployment.  

Offensive/defensive isn't all the useful either since it is mostly a factor of your armies ability to absorb punishment.  That will be largely dependent who you face and the terrain.  Harlequins are a good example of this.  On a terrain dense table vs mech guard, space clowns will be offensive since their haywire bikes will easily feast on the IG tanks.  On an open table vs ork green tide I dont see them doing much on offense.  

 

I think a more useful concept is initiative.  Initiative to me is when you achieve a game state which if unchanged will result in your victory.  How your army achieves initiative and eventual victory will define its play style.   Death guard lists would fight for initiative through denial since they are hard to kill and hard to shift of of objectives.  White Scars will fight for initiative with speed and space marines firepower.  That army is earning points by being really fast enabling it to contest objectives no one else can reach and by chopping your best units in half with ease.