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.

Steady rolling pressure. That slow methodical advance across the board. Sure it takes to round 3 to get anywhere, but the feeling of just forcing the opponent back across his deployment zone is so sweet.

And oddly enough it works equally well with swarms of nid gribblies as it does with a marching Tau firebase. In the one there are more bodies than bullets, and in the other the volume of fire saturation just prevents any kind of real advancement on the opponents side.

And probably why my marines armies don't do as well. Marines have to be played more surgical strike.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ductvader wrote:
Right? Tau don't bother my bugs too much because they stay put...but Eldar can put out Tau-like shooting with mixed in AP1 and 2 while staying mobile.

...my adepticon team is half and half Tau Eldar next year.

I think your nid's might get a rude shock from my Tau. Tau are really very versatile. They do not have the same kind of fast independent movement that eldar have, but the Army as a whole can move very steadly around the board, and surprisingly quickly, if it is willing to take snapshots.

I don't have a playstyle. I play aggressive with some lists, and conservative with others. I tend to build lists for maximum efficiency, and i adapt to them rather than adapting them to a specific playstyle. In certain armies passive lists are more efficient than aggressive ones, in other armies it's the opposite. Even though i have to say that the majority of my lists is better suited to an aggressive playstyle, i can play conservative if the list requires, and i don't mind.

I bury my opponents under a swarm of T3 Termagants/Hormagaunts supported by lumbering monsters and a silly number of psychic powers. Aggressive tsunami playstyle, and it fits the Tyranid swarms really well.

My favorite playstyle is the "that looks like a nice deployment zone. I think I'll deploy there too, just give me a turn". My least favorite is gunlines, both to play as and to play against, as it rips away what thin veneer that 40k has that it's more involved than a game of yahtzee.

And yes, playstyle and strategy are nearly synonymous. They're not actually the same, of course, but strategies tend to pair so strongly with playstyles that you might as well consider them part of the same unit.

I rather like "Hero-hammer". I like having individual strong models that cut down everything in their path, be it MCs, Contemptor Dreadnoughts or tooled out ICs.

As I mentioned before I play an aggressive BT list with 2 LRCs and 3 Drop Pods.

Teschio mentioned he adapts and I'll agree that everyone has to in some regard. With the Black Templar list, sometimes I'll bunker up and drop pod my army in a center location in ruins/terrain and have both my LRC pull up in front of them to block LOS of the "vulnerable" squads. Dropping two pods in Turn1 next to the enemy is an option, but not always the only course of action.

It almost forces the enemy to get closer and force their meltas to come to them. At that point, you can assault them out of the LRC, or the rumble that they now stand in. If the LRC survives, then the recently podded squads can hop inside and wait to assault out of them the following turn. The Lock and Reload Method

I tailor my playstyle to the codex and/or I'm playing. I find it boring to play the same style of game day in, day out.

With my Guard I like to sit there there for abit in a solid defence position, whittling him down before launching a counter-attack where he's weakest. My guard infantry very rarely get charged. They tend to be the ones doing the charging against all but the fastest enemy units.

With my Khorne CSM's I like to get in your face as soon as possible. With my Tzeentch list, I prefer to tie up my eneamies units in the middle of the table while my cheap, tough troops units hold onto objectives.

With my Dark Angels I like to figure out my opponents plan and then spoil it. I manouvre a lot in he midfield, string him our and then hit him where he's weakest.

If I had just one play-style, I'd get very bored, very quickly.

Mine is a combination of Herohammer 40k edition and Strike First, Strike Hard.

 Evileyes wrote:
For my daemons, it's hyper-fast alpha-strike style.

For my favourite playstyle overall? Herohammer, having tiny unit's that work as well as huge ones. I love feeling like the underdog and still pulling out a win.

I was planning on explaining mine but pretty much ^

For my daemons I always take 1-2 FMC to fly around and rip apart the foe whilst taking jump pack and beasts to really crush the enemy. I tend to place upgrades to make one 3+ invuln and bring monster spawners to simply crush the foe and then continue adding more and more units to my side as though the foe has been hit by a tsunami followed by a hundred waves.

Personal style, herohammer all the way. If it weren't for the bad fluff (Draigo) and the fact nobody played chaos in our group, I would have gone for them.

IG- Mechguard with an extremely mobile style using a wave tactic hellhounds for alphastrike, chimeras as a defensive wall of plasma and melta, Leman Russes advancing to bring down the thunder and an artillery set or two in the back for support

I like bringing psykers and assaulty units usually with a vast love for fast followed by hq and heavy

I drive my BA mech backwards like a little coward. Hey, sometimes it works. I hate 6th for BA fluff accuracy.

I am the consummate Ultramarine.

I believe above all else in tactical flexibility and adapting to the situation. As such, the extent of my pregame strategy is really understanding what my units are capable of in different situations. Other than that, my table strategy primarily consists of figuring out what my opponent intends to do, and then countering them. Secondarily, I analyze what I need to do to win objectives-wise and keep that as my secondary motivation (Victory for the Emperor through the purging of the Xeno and the Heretic is always the ultimate goal of the Space Marine).

This general balanced approach means I use all sorts of different sub-strategies from game to game. With the same list, I may castle up and shoot against one opponent, then all out rush and close with the next opponent, fight a pitched midfield battle against a third guy, and pick off the troops of the fourth guy while camping my objectives.

 UltraTacSgt wrote:
I am the consummate Ultramarine.

I believe above all else in tactical flexibility and adapting to the situation. As such, the extent of my pregame strategy is really understanding what my units are capable of in different situations. Other than that, my table strategy primarily consists of figuring out what my opponent intends to do, and then countering them. Secondarily, I analyze what I need to do to win objectives-wise and keep that as my secondary motivation (Victory for the Emperor through the purging of the Xeno and the Heretic is always the ultimate goal of the Space Marine).

This general balanced approach means I use all sorts of different sub-strategies from game to game. With the same list, I may castle up and shoot against one opponent, then all out rush and close with the next opponent, fight a pitched midfield battle against a third guy, and pick off the troops of the fourth guy while camping my objectives.

The Ultramarine playstyle (Theoretical, Practical) is how I wish I could play, but alas I'm either too aggressive or too timid to do it properly.

I liked playing a force with lots of mobile firepower that can hit hard in assault too.

I'm having trouble running that in the new edition.

So instead I have some really fast, hard-hitting assault elements backed up by cover-ignoring blastmasters. The idea is to make the enemy spurn cover as useless and come out for better positions, so my assault elements can get to him more easily.

I could never decide between my two favorite playstyles (which is why I play GK's and Eldar). My two favorite are a "Water" style Grey Knight force, and a "Fire" style Eldar army for those of you that know the Way of the Water Warrior tactica. The Water style is fluid and dynamic, moving and reacting with the opponent while I slowly whittle them away and maintain board control. The Fire style is fast and aggressive, seeking to insert a lot of threats at key positions in a single turn with combined arms to maximize damage.