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.

A term that gets bandied about a lot is "play style." Often times you'll hear it or read it in this sort of context: "that unit can be good depending on your play style."

But what the hell does it really mean? I honestly think that it's a meaningless phrase. It's not like your "play style" lets you alter the rules of the game or the points costs of the units you bring to the table.

Its how you play. whether its with bikes foot slogging or tanks. its the tactics you use.

To me playstyle is how you generally react to a certain situation. Do you try and save your units or do you sacrifice them for the "greater good"? Do you like to control the pace of the game or would you rather react and counter your opponent? Do you prefer to shoot your opponent to death, crush them in assault, or do a little of both? That's what I think of when I hear "playstyle".

Playstyle means having an affinity or "knack" for a certain set of tactics.

For some players, this comes down to the kind of list they build. Mechanized, Horde, Hit and Run. Lists that lend themselves well to having a theme, and playing in a fairly specific way. For example, Rommel, he probably would have played tank heavy Imperial Guard, because he liked tanks, and understood how to field them effectively. Ghengis Khan would probably have played a SM Biker Army. Fluff connections aside, this was how he built his empire.

Other player's playstyles take into account things going on outside the 4x6. Some players have an excellent understanding of the metagame. I've met some who are very good at psyching out their opponents, through misdirection. Putting false emphasis on one unit, while downplaying the importance of another. Yet a third are thee 'Mathhammer' players, who base tactical decisions on statistics and math.

So, as to your example above, if the player in question is trying to build a Salamanders list with Vulkan as an HQ, one could say that a Landspeeder with a Multi-Melta and a Heavy Flamer would fit that playstyle.

I think that playstyle is a very real thing, and is what keeps the game interesting, as most players have a slightly unique one.

Gornall wrote:To me playstyle is how you generally react to a certain situation. Do you try and save your units or do you sacrifice them for the "greater good"? Do you like to control the pace of the game or would you rather react and counter your opponent? Do you prefer to shoot your opponent to death, crush them in assault, or do a little of both? That's what I think of when I hear "playstyle".

I guess I don't see the game in this sort of generalized way. Most of the time there are two "good" courses of action, one of which can increase your chance winning the game, and the other will either not increase your chance of winning as much, or will not have much effect on the game. There are many courses of action that will increase your chance of losing the game, but a good player can spot those and avoid them.

If you prefer to sacrifice units when the board position and your opponents army dictate the conservation of units, then you are making a bad decision.

If you prefer to conserve your units when the board position and your opponents army dictate that you must sacrifice some units then you are making a bad decision.

If your units are better at assault than your opponents units then assault.

If your units are better at shooting then shoot.

As an example:

You have a unit of storm bolter/powerfist terminators.

If your opponent has a bunch of tactical marines, assault them because your storm bolters are less effective than your powerfists.

If your opponent has a bunch of harlequins, shoot them because they will likely beat you up in CC.

As others have said, its how you react to a certain situation, and it CAN mean the type of list your build (all footslogging, all bikes, mechanized, tank heavy, etc etc etc), as certain players playstyles favor certain types of builds. Gornall has pretty much hit it right on the head.

And in regards to altering rules or points cost, you are right, but the truth of the matter is certain units synergize better with other units. This is whats meant by "can be good depending on your playstyle". Taking roughriders in an IG army is generally frowned upon, but if you field an all infantry force, the rough riders become invaluable, as they are the fastest component of your army and can get the jump on enemy vehicles and assault troops.

Also, in attempting to disprove the idea of a playstyle n your previous post, you have, in effect, proven that there is such thing as a playstyle. Your playstyle is very mechanical and analytical, analyzing your strengths vs. your opponents weaknesses and taking the best course of action to maximize your ability to eliminate the opponent.

Some would say its a rather boring, but efficient, way to play the game, but hey its your playstyle.

My playstye is shoot the guy to death while trying not to get assaulted. Im generally overly cautious, but once it looks like Im going to lose anyways I kinda lose all restaint and start playing like a suicidal maniac. It works kinda, I've won a couple games from suicide rhinos in the last two turns that my opponent ignores because they are empty rhinos.

Willydstyle: That works if humans are purely logical and capable of accurately determining the correct course of action (especially how that action affects the game 2-3 turns from now) every time. I don't think either of those are true for the vast majority of players. Our personalities might make certain actions seem more attractive than they generally are. For example, if you love assault, your first instinct is to charge even if shooting might be marginally better in that situation. Therefore, designing a list to fit that playstyle means designing a list that will often result in situations that mathmatically agree with what your gut instinct is.

So effectively playstyle is people building lists that cater to their limitations.

willydstyle wrote:So effectively playstyle is people building lists that cater to their limitations.

Cater to their predispositions is how I would phrase it.

willydstyle wrote:So effectively playstyle is people building lists that cater to their limitations.

Cater to what they have fun doing. Sometimes winning at all costs is not the most fun action. A game is supposed to be fun right?

willydstyle wrote:So effectively playstyle is people building lists that cater to their limitations.

This seems almost like trolling on your end because of your phrasing, but no, not to a persons limitations. If a person prefers a CC heavy playstyle, and build their list with that in mind, then they will tend to move in on their opponent quickly, while a gunline style army will not. You don't charge a Tau gunline with an IG gunline just because one may be better than the other at shooting. There will be other tactical decisions to be made, but assaulting with a gunline is never a good idea.

willydstyle wrote:So effectively playstyle is people building lists that cater to their limitations.

Technically correct (for the most part), though you say it in quite a... condescending manner which implies a feeling of superiority, when the limitations are pretty much built in to humanity and the sheer mathematical complexity of this game. As Gornall says, it's more like catering to their predispositions.

The fact is that no-one (well, certainly no-one I've ever met) can evaluate every tactical situation in a stark and logical manner. Some people find a short-range firefight style very effective, some can naturally make very effective target priority choices which lead them to a long-range army, some like to get up close and personal* and some find a great deal of effectiveness with messing with the opponent. That's not even considering the - surprisingly common - situations where there are simply too many factors to evaluate holistically, and therefore having an effective heuristic - such as preferring a particular approach - can ensure the marginal choices synergise with each other.

After all, it may be that the mathematically correct action, in terms of expected value, is for one unit to assault but another to shoot. However, a single bad roll could suddenly mean that splitting the army up like that ends up, in a low-percent scenario, wrecking the controlling player - and therefore it would have been more effective for both units to shoot, or for both to assault.

Plus, there are people out there who - to put it bluntly - play with bad but fun units. For example, I normally play cold and tactical armies which revolve around subtle movement battles and carefully-thought-out long terms plans, so when I take a break and play my Night Goblin army, I bring out my Squig Hoppers. I play the entire game to have a laugh and to maximise the potential of crazy, memorable moments, and Squig Hoppers fit the bill perfectly, despite the fact that logically they're not that amazing as a unit.

One last thing to consider - when making tactical decisions, there is an element of randomness. Playstyle can also refer to what level of risk is acceptable - is making an assault that is 60% in your favour but can result in the death of an important squad the correct play? Mathematically it may be, but it might be more effective in the long run to not take that risk. Risk-averseness threshholds is another aspect of playstyle, and not one that can necessarily be evaluated correctly.

*In-game, that is. If done by the actual player, this qualifies as psychological warfare.

My play style tends to be more of a defensive approach and a love of Mechanized troops, so I build my lists much more to hold objectives rather than to take them.

Play style is the way you would instinctively play the game.

An Example is:

You have 10 khorne bezerkers and you opponent has 20 Tau Fire Warriors.

Do you:
1. Charge across the open areas and get to them as fast as possible ignoring cassulties.

Or

2. Use Cover to avoid casulties but get their slower.

Playstyle depends on what part of the game you feel most comfortable playing or enjoy most. Each army has a different playstyle. E.g. if you feel comfortable or enjoy Monstrous creatures you would choose an army with many of them in it, like Tyranids.

Within each army there are usualy a few different ways you can play them, each with their own tactics and units, IG can go Gunline, or Mechanised. Some units in the army are the basic units for any build but most suit 1 playstyle. For example almost all SW armies would have GH as they are a main unit for any SW army, but the player could then choose to put them in Rhinos, Drop pods or just walking depending on their style of gaming. If you put them in rhinos you would probably want to add in TWC, and skyclaws because they would work with them. However if they left the Grey Hunters without a transport Skyclaws would be less effective because they would have very little support. This would be an example of where a unit fits 1 type of playstyle
.

willydstyle wrote:A term that gets bandied about a lot is "play style." Often times you'll hear it or read it in this sort of context: "that unit can be good depending on your play style."

But what the hell does it really mean? I honestly think that it's a meaningless phrase. It's not like your "play style" lets you alter the rules of the game or the points costs of the units you bring to the table.

there are only two playstyles.

1) The casual players that play to have fun.

2) The WAAC Tournament guys that play to validate their existence.

I can explain it better by referring to Blood Bowl than 40K, but I believe it helps understand the concept....

When playing as defense, many players will spend each turn attempting to reach the ball-carrier, in order that they can tackle that player and get the ball. Other coaches prefer to simple stop the other team making forward progress, and wait for the other team to make a mistake. Both methods have advantages - the first may well be quicker, and therefore allows more time for scoring your own TDs. It is also good if you hae a small number of stand-out players. The second method is good if the underdog, and also tends to be "safer". Good players can switch between either style, almost from turn to turn. Personally, when playing Orcs I used to play the first way, mostly. I switched to Wood Elves, and went with the second approach. Now I am back with Orcs I am struggling to re-adapt my playing style, and keep acting as if I am a Wood Elf player.

The same is true on offense. You can concentrate on keeping the ball, knowing that chances will present themselves eventually. Otherwise, you can try to score right now, and take a few more risks, but you are therefore able to free up players from protecting your thrower in order to act as scoring threats and make defending against you more difficult.

Play style is affected a lot by how you approach the game, which will drive what armies you buy, what units you take, and how you approach the game.

For example, people that really dislike uncertainty and randomness don't typically run Skaven or O&G. There are clearly other people who get a a hoot out of all the zaniness that results from the same armies, even if it results in losses to them.

Some players are very conservative and risk adverse. I had a friend in another game club that we nicknamed General 1-inch, because he would advance his line very slowly. He would never execute the make or break cavalry charge, but instead keep moving protected blocks of infantry forward.

Other players can be super technical, super aggressive, and all shades in between. That's what 'play style' means to me.

I agree with Ifurita.

Play a game of Mordheim, Confrontation 3rd Ed and Warmachine if you want to understand different playstyles. Each game works hugely differently to represent the same type of fantasy skirmish. Warmachine involves unleashing killer combos and attacking its also very much I do to you then you do to me. Mordheim while it has a similiar I go You Go mechanic as you can fight in your opponents phase leads to a much more active opponents phase. Confrontation 3.5 was far less controllable as you'd both move and shoot and then work out combats at the same time. I far preferred Confrontation as it was far more about interacting and countering with your opponent.

I'd think that, aesthetics, fluff and any financial considerations aside, playstyle is why we don't all play the same army.

willydstyle wrote: It's not like your "play style" lets you alter the rules of the game

Actually, it can...Various groups have various interpretations of the rules. Those interpretations make the game play differently.

There is the 'how powerful of an army do you want?' questions that is a type of playstyle.

There is also the type of the army...Horde, Elite, all deepstriking, heavy infiltration, Mechanized, all Cav, Heavy infantry, mixed force, MC heavy, etc...All those have different playstyles. Each army and army type has a different 'feel' when you use it as to how it plays.

On top of the type of list or army you play, you could have an offensive, defensive, or fluid style of play. Even if I'm using a really assault-heavy army like Space Wolves, I can still play them very defensively. It all depends on what kind of army you're playing against. If they're playing Guard that are content to turtle in cover, you will need to play offensively to dig them out. If they're playing Mechvet melta spam Guard, then it's probably best to play more defensively, and instead take cover and hold your ground.

In some cases you could have army lists tailored for the same playstyle play against each other. A gunline Tau list vs. a gunline Guard list for example, would make for a fairly dull game. Another game could have a horde of Ork slugga boyz running at a horde of hormagaunts. In this case the game basically becomes a game of American football.

"Playstyle" is a really broad term and can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

Llamahead wrote:Play a game of Mordheim, Confrontation 3rd Ed and Warmachine if you want to understand different playstyles. Each game works hugely differently to represent the same type of fantasy skirmish. Warmachine involves unleashing killer combos and attacking its also very much I do to you then you do to me. Mordheim while it has a similiar I go You Go mechanic as you can fight in your opponents phase leads to a much more active opponents phase. Confrontation 3.5 was far less controllable as you'd both move and shoot and then work out combats at the same time.

There would be parallels in the playstyle of a player who played Dwarves (for example) in all three systems though. The not move much, shrug off light damage and shoot you playstyle crosses over into all three game systems through the Dwarf archetype. How do Dwarves play in Warhamer, Lord of the Rings, Armies of Arcana, Warmaster, Epic, Rogue Trader Blood Bowl, Man-o-War or Uncharted Seas?

HI all.
Your 'play style' is YOUR personality transfered to in game interactions.
40k tends to have a heavy tactical bias, so play style tends to have heavier influence on build types.

So, terms like defencive , agressive, cautious,reckless , open , close ,etc.Tend to be used to define playstyle.These are not absulutes but have many levels between the extreems listed.

And these many types of personal preference mean we get to be more sucessful when we play 'in character'.You will have the most sucess when you play a game to your own prefered style.

There is NO right or wrong , just different !

TTFN
lanrak.

Howlingmoon wrote:

willydstyle wrote:A term that gets bandied about a lot is "play style." Often times you'll hear it or read it in this sort of context: "that unit can be good depending on your play style."

But what the hell does it really mean? I honestly think that it's a meaningless phrase. It's not like your "play style" lets you alter the rules of the game or the points costs of the units you bring to the table.

there are only two playstyles.

1) The casual players that play to have fun.

2) The WAAC Tournament guys that play to validate their existence.

You forgot the third style: judgmental people who look down their nose at people who prefer
casual games/tournament play/just painting the models.

willydstyle wrote:A term that gets bandied about a lot is "play style." Often times you'll hear it or read it in this sort of context: "that unit can be good depending on your play style."

But what the hell does it really mean? I honestly think that it's a meaningless phrase. It's not like your "play style" lets you alter the rules of the game or the points costs of the units you bring to the table.

Play style is a pretty simple descriptor of how a unit will react to a given player.
It may not alter the rules of the game, but what it will do is determine if that unit, or army, will work for a given player.
A great example is a person with a n aggressive style of play will find gun line frustrating to play and generally unworkable. The same army in a defensive reactive play may perform brilliantly.
I will use myself as an example:
I am an aggressive player who enjoys pushing an opponent hard and keeping the pressure on hot.
I came into WFB by getting a used dark elf army. No matter how I tried (I currently own 90% of the units in the army book) I could not make it work for me. It really didn't match my play style. I've tried other WFB armies and had a really successful SoC daemons list and a moderately successful High Elf list using more smash mouth units in both lists.

Playstyle...

I play orks.

Lootas are a great elite choice. They have arguably the most powerful guns in the ork arsenal. A *lot* of ork lists rely heavily on Lootas. Given my playstyle, Lootas would make a bad unit - they don't fit within my table-top strategy or synergy. Lootas are a fantastic unit....depending on your playstyle.

Honestly, looking at the answers posted here to the question play style can be various things. So locking it down to one set of defined guidelines is not possible. It will just make your head hurt wrapping your brain around like what came first? The chicken or the egg?

True. It's something that varies from player to player. But I think the point of this thread was to prove that it's something that exists, which we have done.