I have been discussing the concept of Play styles with Left of West in the Tau forum and have decided to start a new thread about it rather than hijack the OP's thread further.
Rather than explain the whole thread and the background I have placed a link to the thread here > http://www.librarium-online.com/forums/tau/114820-aggresive-tau.html

Here is my reply and I hope more people will get involved. Beware the posts will be long in this thread

Me? I...have a lot of wierd criteria for creating army lists. Only a handful have anything to do with how good the unit is. In a way, I think this is what you're talking about when you're talking about play-style. People play what they like--regardless of why they like it, and often regardless of how good it is.

The difference is that I suffer from no delusions about how good the units that I like actually are. I don't resort to the weak excuse that they "fit my playstyle and thus aren't bad."

For example, I've played foot slogging ten-man Marine squads with powerfist sargeants, plasma guns, and missile launchers for a long time, now. Are they good? Hell no, but they're cool. I know this.

You might say that my "play style" includes big, overequipped footslogger squads.* This doesn't mean that big squads of overequipped, footslogging marines are good--even for me. I'd win more if I used well constructed squads.
Who said anything about playstyle making a unit 'good'. What I said was a unit may fit the way a player uses his army more than another. Lets take an obvious example a Carnifex equipped to shoot. Now I play a Nid army that has no shooting at all and it is a very fast army. Said Carnifex is a good solid unit but it would not fit the way my list plays, hence in the context of my list the Carnifex is not a good unit. However this does not mean the Carnifex is a bad unit per se.
I have a Playstyle with this list, I have to because it has no shooting,hence the playstyle is get in fast and assault, you also have playstyle, you like to take big units of over equipped Marines

*I would say that army construction and play-style are separate. See more below.
Ridiculous statement, how can the way you play not affect list construction, you just said above you think the Marine unit you use is cool you have 'chosen' to take this unit because you want to 'play' with a 'cool' unit. This is playstyle dude, your playing style is using 'cool; over equipped Marine units, the coolness of the unit has influenced you list construction

To answer the larger question:

Army composition is relavent. As we were discussing before, overloading on units with similar roles is often bad. Stealth suits can be a better or worse pick depending on how many firewarriors the army has, for instance (since they do very similar things).
Do they, not in my army they don't.

Play style, though...not so much. In each situation, a unit is going to have a set of things it can do. Of those, some things are better and some are worse. This can be detirmined objectively. A good player should be able to pick out intuitively which are which.
Yeah of course any unit has set things it can and cannot do, you however are missing the point. Put exactly the same unit in the same scenario in the hands of two players with differing play styles and you will usually see two different results. Depending on how the players are using the rest of the list then these two differing styles of playing the unit can be equally valid.
I am a bit unsure of why you equate playstyle with bad player, every player good or bad (even you) has a playstyle

My play-style is to pick the good ones and enact those. As far as I'm concerned, that should be everyone's play style. I build a list based on whatever criteria. When I play it, though, I always take the action which seems best for each unit. It doesn't matter why I brought the unit, or what I planned to do with the unit. All that matters is what the unit can do at each point at which I have to decide what to do with it.

That is the proper way to play 40k. In essence, there is only one proper play-style. Everything else is either not properly termed a play style, or more properly termed a play-mistake.
Wow you really have an ego dude, you should step back and listen to your self, take the above "there is only one proper play style" and let me guess is that play style per chance yours?
Do you think we other mortals are stupid enough to not realise that taking good units is a good idea?, d you think we do not look objectively at a situation and pick the right course of action for that situation? or do you think we just think "oooh I must attack that full unit of Eldar infantry rather than that vulnerable Farseer because thats what I planned and I must stick to my plan no matter what"? Give people credit
Thank you for stating the painfully obvious. Building a list to fit a play style does not automatically preclude that list from being effective. Take said Nid list, I built it to be massively aggressive and in yer face because that is my preferred play style with Nids (I feel it fis the army), is it less effective because it fits my preferred play style? no it is not, it is indeed the most successful army I have ever used

I don't care what units you play. If you ask, I'm willing to tell you which units are better and which are worse. If you give me a specific context, I'll re-figure my answer for that context. If you want to play good units, you'll listen to what I have to say, cause I'm pretty damn good, actually, at figuring out which units are good and which are not.
Again with the ego, sheesh let me put you straight on something here, I (and every other decent player on this forum) have managed up to now to do pretty damned well at 40K and selecting units without your input. If I want to play good units I will do what I have always done and figure it out for myself. Another thing you need to grasp if you say a unit is good, then it is only your opinion and I have managed to 'play good' without your input so far, sheeeesh.

If you don't want to play good units, that's fine. That's your business. It's not something that's all that high on my own list building criteria.
Again what your meaning here is if I (or anyone else) do not want to play the units 'you' say are not good. The factors that make a unit good can vary wildly from player to player.

Regardless, to play the game well does not involve having plans or a specific style of play. These things are nothing but impediments to good play. Good play results from analyzing board states and projecting those states into the future. It results from picking moves which are the most conducive to eventual victory.
OK, so answer me this then, when you start a game and you roll for scenario, when the scenario is decided how do you decide your deployment? Do you just randomly place units on the table or do you take into account the scenarios objectives, the players possible deployment in response to those objectives etc?. Of course you do and this is planning (even though it is short term planning).
How can making plans to say hold an objective be an impediment to play, the opposite is true, if you have no plans then you are just playing recklessly and that is not conducive to a win.
Also having a specific type of play does not mean that the player is not open to reacting to in game situations and reacting to them on the hoof, so to speak.
Again thanks for letting us mortals know the blidingly obvious key to good play we all obviously missed, "picking moves which are conducive to victory" damn how did I miss that.

It has nothing to do with playing aggressively or defensively, or marching up flanks or in columns, or spearheading, or "psychological warfare." All of these things (and countless others like them) are worthless distractions at best and ridiculous conceits at worst. People would be better players if they'd just learn to set that sort of nonsense aside and just look at the board and figure out what the best moves are based on the state of the board alone.
Heh Ok so you never use flanking moves, or spearheads, you never ever play defensively or aggressively, I would so love to see one of your games, no flank moves at all, well that is slightly restricting, no spearheads either Ok. You must play some very weird very static games is all I can say.
In short, there is no such thing as a 'good move for you' or a 'good move for me.' There are the good moves and the bad moves. The same moves that are good for me are good for you. If you pick a move which isn't good because you like that type of move better, you're making a mistake--pure and simple
Again why are you equating bad tactical play with play style, everyone has a play style and that means you as well. Just because I play a list a certain way it does not mean my brain suddenly stops processing info, if I see a good move then I will play it, thing is though there is often more than one good move for any situation and a move that you may perceive as bad at that given time is often made to ensure a result later in the game. Have you ever heard of the sacrificial pawn in Chess?

As far as I can tell, this is usually what people are saying when they say that particular units suit their playstyles. They're saying that they can't manage to routinely pick the good moves over the moves that they like, and so they can only trust themselves to play with units for which the good moves tend to be moves that they like anyway. Frankly, that approach is pathetic, and I see it all the time. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't help reading, "it's better for my playstyle," in any other way. If you have a different way of looking at it, do share.
No what it means is that is what you ASSUME they mean.
Like I said before Carnies do not fit my play style with my Nid list and that is not pathetic it is a stone cold fact. My play style with MY nids is aggression, full all out assault and speed. The list fits that play style and yes I could make many other lists that fit that play style. However because I choose to use that play style does not mean I am a bad player or a pathetic player, I do damned well with that play style and list thanks and I make many tactical decisions on the spot.

Taking gun drones instead of stealth suits can certainly change what actions the unit ends up taking. It changes what you should expect from the unit, both offensively and defensively, as well as what you can hope for from the unit.

Thinking about these things in terms of a 'play style' though--thinking that, perhaps, such a unit is more aggressive or better suited to an aggressive player (just as examples)--is just an error that can do nothing but get in the way of using the unit properly.
Quite simply wrong, taking Drones can indeed be used more aggressively and can fit into an aggressive players style much easier. I am not saying Stealths (vanilla) cannot be used in an aggressive manner but the Drones help by making the consequences of aggressive action less punishing (losing a Drone is better than losing a Stealth). Drones also do better in assaults.
If you actually believe that individual players do not have differing play styles (be it aggressive, defensive, neutral, tactical etc) then I am actually wondering who you play, robots maybe?


To bring this around to the OP, the Tau aren't really a very aggressive army. What do I mean when I say this? Do I mean that they're bad for an aggressive player? That they can't be played aggressively? No. To think of yourself as an aggressive player is an error. To like playing aggressive armies is something else.
Why is thinking your an aggressive player an error?, are you seriously telling us that 'thinking' your an aggressive player somehow implies your an inferior player. I play many different opponents and every single one can be catagorised broadly into what type of player they are. I play many aggressive players who will attack hard, this does not mean they are reckless or neglect other aspects of the game (defence, objectives etc), it does not mean they are not brilliant tactical players and it certainly does not mean they are in error.
You need to learn some tolerence and to learn to look at things more objectively. You have a real black and white view of the game and this game is grey dude

If you like playing aggressive armies, this aint the one for you. The Tau army is conservative and shooty. What do I mean by that? I mean that, in the vast majority of situations, the correct moves will involve running away and/or shooting at stuff. The correct moves will rarely be ones characterized by aggression. Few Tau units really lend themselves to that type of behaviour.
Tactical retreat (not running away) does not mean an army cannot be used in an aggressive manner. Now by aggressively I mean using units and tactics to force tactical errors from your opponent, not just rushing forward aggressively and recklessly. Tau are wrongly percieved as being a defensive reactionary army, by this I mean they react to what the opponent does more than they dictate the flow of the game. This is untrue, using Kroot to infiltrate, Stealths to infiltrate and flank, using XV8's to stop transports and moving FW's forward to deal with infantry (rather than waiting for them), using Piranhas to out flank units etc all these are aggressive moves in that they force the flow and are not reactionary.
This is what is meant by an aggressive play style Left and it is not the sign of a bad player to claim they play in such a play style.



This is crux-like, so I'm going to edit one last time and pick it out.

Things are better or worse--objectively. If you are selecting a unit because you think it fits your playstyle better, that's fine--but that won't change how good the unit is.
Who said it would? all that was said is that the unit would fit the playstyle better, thus making it a better unit for use in that list. Not a hard concept to grasp really is it?


What you're really suggesting is that people tend to make certain types of moves, regardless of what units they have. That isn't just having a playstyle--that is playing poorly.
No your assuming I suggest that and that is just poor debating on your part. I never said anyone tends to make moves regardless of what units they have, that is you assumption of my meaning. What I actually say is that players will pick 'the best unit' to fit a play style. This is different and is certainly not poor play, not everyone wants the uber optimal, hyper efficient, perfect to the Nth degree, Borg like, non creative list and finally many players just want to have oooh whats that word, oh yeah FUN.

Having a play style would be better characterized as building lists with units which tend to make certain types of moves. An army of assault marines is a good match for a player who likes making aggressive moves. Aggressive moves are routinely the right sort of moves to be making with Assault Marines.
Not always, I have played many games with my Space Wolves where they hardly assaulted at all, sometimes the obvious use for the unit is not always the best.

A player who thinks that he or she is an aggressive player, and who plays every unit aggressively regardless of how it should be played is a bad player, first and foremost. That is why I object to playstyle characterizations.
No you see that applies to every player, regardless of play style. You are doing the old black and white thing again. You are saying you object to play style characterisations because you assume it implies bad play. Why does it imply bad player? If I call myself an aggressive player, then I have characterised mysefl, does that mean I have characterised myself as a bad player? errr no. You seem to have a problem with defining bad players, a bad player is a bad player irrespective of what play style he has.

Assault Marines will be just as good in the hands of any good player, because any good player will make roughly the same moves with those assault marines in any given situation. A player who will make a bad move with a unit because he likes that particular type of move is a bad player. His failure to play the unit well doesn't make the unit worse--it makes him worse.
Again who said it does, a bad player is a bad player and that is the end of it. What you are saying is that claiming a unit fits a play style is wrong and that is simply not correct. Units can and do fit certain play styles better than others, its a fact of the game. Saying a unit is not good for a certain play style does not mean we are saying the unit is bad, only that is does not fit that players list or style of play.

The unit has an objective value. Saying that it doesn't because some people are prone to particular types of play mistakes just doesn't cut any grass.
Nobody said a unit has no value, take my Carnifex example Of course the Carnifex has value no body is denying that, however in my Nid list it has much less value than say a winged Tyrant. Sure I can utilise the Carnifex and get some value out of it, this is the mark of a good player, responding to less then ideal situations; however the mark of a truly good plaayer would be recognising that the Carnifex is a poor choice for the style of list and the style in which I play the list. My play style has affected the list composition and it does not make me a poor player because I tok a list that fitted my play style.

Oh my, you had to bring up this subject didnt you Riki? :)
ok forst let me say I agree with most if not all of your points above. Then let me move swiftly on to "play style"

This term must describe the style someone plays. It is subjective to a given game, for example if I use my Eldar then it is fast and shooting. But if I play with my flesh tearers it is brutal close combat.

But again that is over simplifying, let me add, everyone tends to have (before people jump on the that, I used "tends to have" so your mate Fred that plays every battle differently can happily sit outside this generalisation) a native play style with which they are most comfortable, it is often dificult to articulate and it covers a raft of things, shoot vs assault, static vs mobile, balanced vs unbalanced, agressive vs reactive, cohesive vs random, competative vs friendly, RAW vs RAI, mechanised vs foot sloggers. the list goes on. one set of criteria is not necessarily better than the other, although arguably a static assault army isnt going to win much

this is further coloured by "do I make my list intentionally with how i like to play in mind?", although I think both you and I would suggest that any list is affected, conciously or unconciously by the originators play style.

Also I would state that people can happily and effectively play outside their natural play style, (pretty sure I do)

so for example I am fully aware that my natural play style is fast and shooty, it tends to be characterised by my bikes and fsat skimmers screaming through my opponents rear laying waste to his army by turn 4.

I owuld also add that play style has more impact on the game for the more complex armies, specifically your own native Tau and my Eldar

Now, that is a big area to discus, the reason for my start statement is my children.

I have a son and a step son who are only 2 months appart in age and who both play.

My son plays Eldar (mech Beil Tann), an is pretty effective at it, I would characterise him as a flair player, he tends to produc spectacular effects by co-ordinating his units, or occasionally it goes disasterously wrong because some piece of flare doesnt work and the army is too fragile to recover.

My step son plays Necrons, again he is effective at it, he is a more tactical and dour player, he plays a game, figures out what went wrong, corrects it in his plans and plays the next game with this improvement. this tends to produce an attrition based game that grows, each time you play him it gets harder to beat him, only slightly but over time he becomes damn near unbeatable (at our usual monday night visit to our indie stockists games night he has only lost one game since about september)

Two very differnt play styles with different results. The reason I bring it up is that they occasionally fight and they both discuss their plans with me, it was apparent that play style was the deciding factor, not the army lists, they are coloured by the play style, not the dice, in 3000 points they tend to even out. not terrain nor deployment other than as they are coloured by play style. The game was decided simply by the following:

1. Ross (step son) would play a tactical and solid game of attrition, provided he made no mistakes his performance would be very good, but predictable

2. William (son) would produce moments of flare and brilliance, these had the potential to break Ross's plans if they were good enough, but if they went wrong they could lose him the game.

see what I mean? playstyle governe the game. (in the end Ross made a couple of mistakes and william had a couple of bits of brilliance too many, eldar won.

But the next time they play Ross will be ready for those bits and wont make the same mistakes, this will mean it is harder for william, and more risky, ultimatley, Ross will beat Will consistently unless wills can present so many options that Ross can not mitigate them all at the same time.

two very different play styles and clearly neither is inherantly better.

Now to add one more factor to this, I have fought the two of them together on numerous occasions, will I can beat comfortably, I am a better flare player than him and will anticipate him with ease
Ross gets harder and harder BUT on one occasion I used marines against them and lent Ross my Siam Hann. this is clearly not his native play style, hewas almost completley useless for the entire game.

PS, some thoughts on the above:
Tau - agressive? what is agressive? by modern military parlance, an agressive amry takes the initiative, carrying out actions to which the adversary is required to react, it can be done without leaving your deployment zone, it can be done with a static army, it doesnt gaurentee a win, but that is what an agressive army does, (or rather that is a synopsis of what 9 years of Special intelligence training and studying of Soviet military doctrine for a living instructs characterises an "Ag4ressive army", both FOF and JSJ are the two perhaps best knoe tau tactics, and are clearly agresive in nature.

When LOW claims there is objectively right thing to do in any situation regardless of playstyle he is right but only in the minutae, he needs to look at the bigger picture, there is an objectively right thing to do but only against subjective measures, the play style colours exactly what those measures are.

I'm totally with you on all this, riki. The statements that you have analyzed above have shown what I believe to be part of the worst side of some 40k players; at least to me. Many people seem to be under the illusion that there are universal constants to what is good and bad in the game. These players seem to degrade the game into one of Codex VS. Codex.
This is actually a pet peeve of mine.

For instance, there is a more veteran player at my local hobby shop of whom I am more certain would win a bigger portion of his games if he would just drop all his preconceived notions of how each army should be played. "I don't play GK to win", is a popular phrase of his. Funny, if he wouldn't keep trying to DS everything against Nids and the like, he could take advantage of good shooting and counter-charges; as opposed to allowing himself to be picked apart. Sorry about the tangent, its just a pretty glaring example.

But as I originally tried to tell Left, a unit being able to put down .018 more MEQ's per turn will mean nothing if it doesn't fit well in your general scheme of things.

All I can say Riki, is wow. You so utterly missed the point that I don't think I'm even going to try to respond. I'm a little disappointed in you. I was kind of hoping for an interesting discussion. This amounts to little more than slander.

You so utterly missed the point

So what was the point? Did I miss it as well?

I could have sworn that on the previous thread, you stated to me that using a less optimal load-out for a unit based on play-style was in fact tantamount to "bad play"...

All I can say Riki, is wow. You so utterly missed the point that I don't think I'm even going to try to respond. I'm a little disappointed in you. I was kind of hoping for an interesting discussion. This amounts to little more than slander.

Well I think I can live with your disappointment, however instead of just implying I missed the point tell me how I missed them and in what way did I slander you? given the definition of slander is words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another. Where did I do this?

You made points, I read them and answered them. I do not see where I missed any points, give me examples and I will endevour to provide you with a good discussion.

It is very easy to take the apparent high ground and say I missed a point without backing it up.

Holy crap, rikimaru, you sure can pick your fights. I mean that in the best possible way, of course.
As to missing the point completely, left of west, I have as well. You seem to think that playing something like an aggressive army is demanding that you move at top speed at the opponent. Before Dark Eldar, I played a mechanized Ulthwé list that relied heavily on CC. That does not mean that I did not have the potential to dish it out in the movement phase. That also doesn't mean that when the time came, I didn't say one of the hardest phrases for a mech player to say, "No move."
As to units being inherently better, that statement has some merit. However, a list of the best units in the codex does not assure victory. Stacking multiple squads of terminators and devastators with assault cannons as well as many devastator squads means nothing if your opponent is fast enough to hit CC with minimal casualties. This army does not have as much assault punch or ablative wounds as a more balanced list would.
Now we come to playstyle: I consider myself more of an aggressive player. My army has a great deal of punch in CC. Therefore, I use more units that are conductive to a CC shock attack then units that shoot. I don't use large numbers of troops as a shooting base, nor do I use large amounts of heavy weaponry. I have some of each of the above, but not much, because they are not conductive to the way I play. Sniper squads and large warrior squads are among the most effective units DE have, but they are not conductive to a rapid assault, or to fluid changes of position. That's the same reason I don't use Taloi. They move at 6" a turn. My infantry on foot move faster than that. It's the most effective CC unit DE have, but I don't use it because if does not fit with my list in any remote way other than as a backup plan, which I already have factored in.

I could have sworn that on the previous thread, you stated to me that using a less optimal load-out for a unit based on play-style was in fact tantamount to "bad play"...

I didn't. Looks like you did indeed miss the point.

Well I think I can live with your disappointment, however instead of just implying I missed the point tell me how I missed them and in what way did I slander you? given the definition of slander is words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another. Where did I do this?

Fair enough.

Who said anything about playstyle making a unit 'good'. What I said was a unit may fit the way a player uses his army more than another. Lets take an obvious example a Carnifex equipped to shoot. Now I play a Nid army that has no shooting at all and it is a very fast army. Said Carnifex is a good solid unit but it would not fit the way my list plays, hence in the context of my list the Carnifex is not a good unit. However this does not mean the Carnifex is a bad unit per se.
I have a Playstyle with this list, I have to because it has no shooting,hence the playstyle is get in fast and assault, you also have playstyle, you like to take big units of over equipped Marines

This is sort of interesting, but not really relavent. It does illustrate the fact that we really need to clarify what a play-style is.


Ridiculous statement, how can the way you play not affect list construction, you just said above you think the Marine unit you use is cool you have 'chosen' to take this unit because you want to 'play' with a 'cool' unit. This is playstyle dude, your playing style is using 'cool; over equipped Marine units, the coolness of the unit has influenced you list construction


Once again, this just seems to indicate that we're using the word playstyle differently. I would not say that I hold to a playstyle. (Note that I did say that earlier. That was an error.) There are units that I like and I play those. In game, though, I don't make decisions based on any sense of style, but merely based on what seems most conducive to winning.

I have a certain style of list that I play. I do not play with a certain style. The distinction is important, and you missed it. I can understand why you missed it--it seems like you're using the term playstyle in a different way. The fact remains that this is intrinsic to the point. Thus, you missed the point.


Do they, not in my army they don't.


Yes, they do. The fact that you think they don't seems to indicate that you're labouring under some sort of misconception--something which I think is fairly common. Tell me: what is it that you think your Stealth Suits do which is particularly different from what Firewarriors do?

Before we continue, let's do a little definition. I don't particularly care if you agree with this definition. I expect that, as a rational and intelligent person you can refer to this definition whenever I use the term play-style and respond accordingly. If you want to discuss whether I'm using the term properly, we can do that, but it's a separate issue.
A style of play--or playstyle--is the tendancy to take actions which have certain aesthetic or stylistic characteristics (characteristics which do not bear directly on whether or not the action is actually conducive to winning) on the basis of those characteristics.

Having a playstyle is basing your in-game decisions around an aesthetic consideration. While that's legitimate, it's poor playing basically by definition.

To play well is to take actions because those actions are conducive to winning.

To play with a certain play style is to take actions because those actions have characteristics which you associate with
that certain style.

Clearly, the one is a better approach than the other--if the goal is winning.

Now, if you're not out to win, and playing with a certain style is more important, then that's fine. Go for it. When I'm talking about playing well, I'm talking about playing in a way which is conducive to winning.

Playing with a particular style is only coincidentally conducive to victory--that is, when you're making in-game decisions based on stylistic or aesthetic factors, you might make good decisions, but it would only be coincidental.
Similarly, when I say that an action is good or bad, I mean that it is conducive to victory or not conducive to victory (respectively). A better action is more conducive to victory and a worse action is less conducive to victory. A perfect or best action is the action which is most conducive to victory out of all the possible actions in a specific situation.
So, with that in mind, let's move on.


Yeah of course any unit has set things it can and cannot do, you however are missing the point. Put exactly the same unit in the same scenario in the hands of two players with differing play styles and you will usually see two different results.

I don't disagree. On the other hand, I'm not willing to chalk this difference up to a difference in play styles and leave it at that. If two people take significantly different actions in substantially similar situations, one person's action is better and the other person's is worse.

Their "playstyles" might dictate the actions they take, but it's a play mistake, pure and simple, to take an action which is less conducive to victory on the basis of some stylistic or aesthetic criteria.

If two people find themselves in identical situations and take substantially different actions, it doesn't matter whether they're making those decisions for stylistic reasons or because each honestly thinks that his action is the most conducive to victory. If the actions are different, at least one player is making an error. At least one player is failing to take the action which is most conducive to victory.

Now, that's different from saying that one player is taking an action which is conducive to victory and one is not. Their actions could both be good or bad. The fact remains that either one must be better than the other or they must be substantially similar.


Depending on how the players are using the rest of the list then these two differing styles of playing the unit can be equally valid.
I am a bit unsure of why you equate playstyle with bad player, every player good or bad (even you) has a playstyle


Differeing playstyles can be equally valid. The point remains that playing with a playstyle is an inherently flawed approach (for someone whose goal is to win).

Each action should be taken or not taken on the basis of how conducive to victory it is. Taking other things like stylistic or aesthetic preferrences, into consideration won't necessarily result in a player taking worse actions, but it should never result in a player taking better actions than he would were he to simply figure out the best actions and take those.

Note that I used the word should. People aren't perfect. It seems possible that a player might choose a very good action based on a stylistic or aesthetic preferrence without even realizing that the action is particularly good. This sort of case isn't really relavent. It's coincidental, as I discussed above, and doesn't really vindicate the notion of playtstyles at all.



Wow you really have an ego dude, you should step back and listen to your self, take the above "there is only one proper play style" and let me guess is that play style per chance yours?
Do you think we other mortals are stupid enough to not realise that taking good units is a good idea?, d you think we do not look objectively at a situation and pick the right course of action for that situation? or do you think we just think "oooh I must attack that full unit of Eldar infantry rather than that vulnerable Farseer because thats what I planned and I must stick to my plan no matter what"? Give people credit
Thank you for stating the painfully obvious. Building a list to fit a play style does not automatically preclude that list from being effective. Take said Nid list, I built it to be massively aggressive and in yer face because that is my preferred play style with Nids (I feel it fis the army), is it less effective because it fits my preferred play style? no it is not, it is indeed the most successful army I have ever used


My ego really isn't a factor here. That, basically, is what prompted me to call your post slander. It concerns itself with attacking my position based on the presumption that my ego has somehow played a part in my assertions. It has not. I am offended that you decided to suggest otherwise. Your suggestion is both false and derogatory--thus slanderous. Please refrain from further such inappropriate behaviour in the future.

I have never suggested that any particular person or group of people are stupid or incapable of picking out good units or realizing that good units are conducive to victory.

All I have stated is that adhering to a playstyle is never conducive to victory in and of itself. It might be coincidentally conducive to victory, but if someone wins because he adheres to a stylistically governed set of actions, he has either managed to construct a list which is particularly conducive to that sort of style, or just gotten lucky.

It is never a better idea to act on the basis of stylistic preferrence than on the basis of analysis. When people state that they have a playstyle, I presume that they mean that they make play decisions on the basis of a stylistic preferrence, since that is how I think of the word playstyle.

It is always a fundamental error (even if it doesn't always produce bad results) to take an action on the basis of a stylistic preferrence. Such an action can only be coincidentally conducive to victory.

Further, I never suggested that building a list to fit a playstyle cannot be effective. You simply misread. Sorry.


Again with the ego, sheesh let me put you straight on something here, I (and every other decent player on this forum) have managed up to now to do pretty damned well at 40K and selecting units without your input. If I want to play good units I will do what I have always done and figure it out for myself. Another thing you need to grasp if you say a unit is good, then it is only your opinion and I have managed to 'play good' without your input so far, sheeeesh.


Again, no ego. Simply the truth. I am good at figuring out which units are good and which are not. I certainly never suggested that anyone else was bad at it, or that any particular person needed my help.

I am perfectly willing to accept that you are capable of figuring out for yourself which units are good and which are not. Some people, though, are not--or don't trust their own analysis or intuition. Those people, presumably, are the ones who come to forums like this and ask for advice--which I provide. That's an appropriate response to a query for advice.

Finally, a unit is good if it is good. My opinion of the unit is irrelavent. That is something which you need to grasp. Units are not good because I think they are good. I certainly don't believe that to be the case.

Rather, I believe that certain units are good, and I have found that my beliefs on such issues have a high rate of correspondence to reality. I routinely believe things to be good which are actually good. So, I tend to trust my beliefs.
I trust them sufficiently to profer to others advice based on them. This isn't an error in reasoning.

I want to say that you, in fact, have committed an error in reasoning by attempting to discount my advice on the basis of the fact that it is just my opinion. I suspect that, were I to say that, you would object and state that you were meaning something else by this passage. So, let's just skip that part and have you tell me what you mean by this?
I haven't committed an error. I have never said or implied that my own beliefs mold reality to match themselves. At every juncture where the point has been raised, I have agreed that my statements are, essentially, my opinions (which I routinely back up with evidecence and accepted fact).

So, Rikimaru, what are you getting at here? Are you just lying? Stating that I need to realize something which I obviously already realize? Are you, as I suspect, trying to assert that my opinions are of lesser value for being opinions? What are you trying to do, besides insult me?

I suggest you think long and hard about this. You have insulted me here. If you were trying to do something else, that's fine. If you can't think of a good reason for this, then it is, once again, no more than slander.


Again what your meaning here is if I (or anyone else) do not want to play the units 'you' say are not good. The factors that make a unit good can vary wildly from player to player.


No, that's not what I mean. I never said anything which remotely resembles that. Once again, this is nothing but slander.

Further, the factors which make a unit good vary wildly from list to list. Within a given list, the factors are identical.

You're mistaking the context of the list for the context of the player. The two are different.

Nothing about a player can make a unit better or worse. That conclusion is simply an error.


OK, so answer me this then, when you start a game and you roll for scenario, when the scenario is decided how do you decide your deployment? Do you just randomly place units on the table or do you take into account the scenarios objectives, the players possible deployment in response to those objectives etc?. Of course you do and this is planning (even though it is short term planning).
How can making plans to say hold an objective be an impediment to play, the opposite is true, if you have no plans then you are just playing recklessly and that is not conducive to a win.
Also having a specific type of play does not mean that the player is not open to reacting to in game situations and reacting to them on the hoof, so to speak.
Again thanks for letting us mortals know the blidingly obvious key to good play we all obviously missed, "picking moves which are conducive to victory" damn how did I miss that.


Perhaps. It's still nothing more than analyzing the board state and taking actions accordingly.

I probably used the wrong word when I used planning. I specifically mentioned projecting the board state into the future. This is what I was talking about.

What I meant by planning is planning which happens before the game starts--before there is a board-state to analyze.
For the record, I would count undeployed units as part of the board state.

If you make a plan before there is a board to analyze, decisions made on the basis of that plan, like decisions made on the basis of aesthetic or stylistic preferrence, can only be coincidentally good. Such a plan will never form a better basis for your decisions than simply analyzing the state of the board.

And yes, analyzing the state of the board necessarily includes considering how that state will change in the future. This is what I meant by projecting the state of the board into the future.

Finally, having a playstyle necessarily involves making moves on the basis of something other than whether they are conducive to victory. If you only make decisions on that basis, your play has no inherent stylistic element. It has no style. That seems straight forward. You say that my advise is blindingly obvious, yet some people still think in terms of playstyles--yourself included. Considering play in terms of stylistic elements is an error. It is inherently not conducive to victory.


Heh Ok so you never use flanking moves, or spearheads, you never ever play defensively or aggressively, I would so love to see one of your games, no flank moves at all, well that is slightly restricting, no spearheads either Ok. You must play some very weird very static games is all I can say.


I never think about my moves in terms of flanking or spearheading. These are not game mechanics. There is no inherent benifit to flanking moves. I make the moves which are best.

Thinking about the game in terms of flanks or spearheads or whatnot is nothing more than introducing concepts which bear no direct relavence to the game. They're flawed metaphors for the actual mechanics of the game. If you play the game the way I suggest, your decisions will always be well founded. If you play the game based on flawed metaphors, your decisions might be well founded, but they might not.

I'm not saying that I never move my units in a big block towards the center of the enemy's side of the board, merely that I never think about it in terms fo spearheading. I occasionally move along the side of the board towards one of the sides of their army. I never think about it in terms of flanking. The terms don't help. They only get in the way of thinking about the game properly.


Again why are you equating bad tactical play with play style, everyone has a play style and that means you as well. Just because I play a list a certain way it does not mean my brain suddenly stops processing info, if I see a good move then I will play it, thing is though there is often more than one good move for any situation and a move that you may perceive as bad at that given time is often made to ensure a result later in the game. Have you ever heard of the sacrificial pawn in Chess?


Not everyone has a playstyle, as I define it. I would say that I do not. I allow stylistic and aesthetic considerations to enter into my army building decisions, but not my in-game decisions. I don't have a certain set of stylistic characteristics that I emphasize in my actions for their own sake.

Making decisions based on stylistic decisions is a worse way or playing the game than making decisions based on analysis. It is inherently less conducive to victory. When it does produce good results, those results are coincidental. That is why I equate (to use the term very loosely) play style to bad tactical play. Playing with stylistic considerations cannot help your tactics, and it is more than capable of hurting your tactics.

There are often more than one good move in a game. It is virtually impossible for there to be two moves of equal value. That, though, is sort of tangential to the point. The point is that making your decisions based on stlyistic preferrences is not conducive to victory.

Having a playstyle is not a good way to play the game.


No what it means is that is what you ASSUME they mean.
Um...yeah. That's what I said. It's a good thing to know that you're literate. Once again, what's your point?


Like I said before Carnies do not fit my play style with my Nid list and that is not pathetic it is a stone cold fact. My play style with MY nids is aggression, full all out assault and speed. The list fits that play style and yes I could make many other lists that fit that play style. However because I choose to use that play style does not mean I am a bad player or a pathetic player, I do damned well with that play style and list thanks and I make many tactical decisions on the spot.


List building is a separate issue and not one that I ever really addressed. I never stated that building less than optimal lists is pathetic.

What I stated is that building a list because you can't trust yourself to make good decisions instead of stylistically-based decisions is pathetic. I stand by that. If you don't do that, well, bully for you. Why do you act as though I said that you do?


Quite simply wrong, taking Drones can indeed be used more aggressively and can fit into an aggressive players style much easier. I am not saying Stealths (vanilla) cannot be used in an aggressive manner but the Drones help by making the consequences of aggressive action less punishing (losing a Drone is better than losing a Stealth). Drones also do better in assaults.


Yes. Taking drones lets the unit fit into an aggressive player's style much more easily. Once again, you utterly dodge the point.

My point is this:

A player who does not let aesthetic considerations dictate his decisions does not need to play unit which fit his playstyle. He doesn't have a playstyle to fit.

If a player takes a specific unit because it fits his play style, it indicates that that player allows aesthetic considerations to dictate his decisions. This is an error.

I build lists with units that I like. Then I play them properly. I don't play them with a style--stylistic considerations never enter into that decision-making process.

It is simply not a good idea think about a unit as fitting your playstyle. If you have a playstyle to fit, you're not playing the game the right way. You're allowing stylistic considerations to dictate your in-game decisions, and that is always an error.


If you actually believe that individual players do not have differing play styles (be it aggressive, defensive, neutral, tactical etc) then I am actually wondering who you play, robots maybe?


I do believe that most people do. I think that they shouldn't.

I know that people tend to prefer certain types of armies. I think that this is both fine and something entirely separate.

What I am saying is that, if you allow stylistic or aesthetic preferrences to affect your in-game decisions, you are making an error. This has nothing to do with preferring defensive or aggressive armies. It has everything to do with taking the right factors into consideration when making in-game decisions--and refraining from taking into consideration those factors which are irrelavent to the goal of winning the game.


Why is thinking your an aggressive player an error?, are you seriously telling us that 'thinking' your an aggressive player somehow implies your an inferior player. I play many different opponents and every single one can be catagorised broadly into what type of player they are. I play many aggressive players who will attack hard, this does not mean they are reckless or neglect other aspects of the game (defence, objectives etc), it does not mean they are not brilliant tactical players and it certainly does not mean they are in error.
You need to learn some tolerence and to learn to look at things more objectively. You have a real black and white view of the game and this game is grey dude


Catagorizing players isn't necessarily an error, but if a player can actually be catagorized like that, it's indicative of a failure on his or her part. It means that he or she tends to take actions based on criteria other than the correct ones.
Catagorizing armies is something else. Armies can be aggressive by including units for which aggressive actions are usually the correct ones.

Further, I need to learn tolerance? Look at the game objectively? I'm doing nothing different from what you're doing. I have a way of looking at the game. I'm firmly convinced that if others looked at the game the same way, they'd be better players. I'm trying to help. What are you trying to do, besides insult me?
Also: learn grammar. Then, perhaps, we can move on to more important things like tolerance or objectivity.


Tactical retreat (not running away) does not mean an army cannot be used in an aggressive manner. Now by aggressively I mean using units and tactics to force tactical errors from your opponent, not just rushing forward aggressively and recklessly. Tau are wrongly percieved as being a defensive reactionary army, by this I mean they react to what the opponent does more than they dictate the flow of the game. This is untrue, using Kroot to infiltrate, Stealths to infiltrate and flank, using XV8's to stop transports and moving FW's forward to deal with infantry (rather than waiting for them), using Piranhas to out flank units etc all these are aggressive moves in that they force the flow and are not reactionary.
This is what is meant by an aggressive play style Left and it is not the sign of a bad player to claim they play in such a play style.


You can never force tactical errors from your opponent. That sort of claim is absurd. Who do you play against that you can force them to make mistakes? Three year olds whose arms you can twist until they agree to make bad moves? Seriously.

The rest is basically tripe.


Who said it would? all that was said is that the unit would fit the playstyle better, thus making it a better unit for use in that list. Not a hard concept to grasp really is it?


If you didn't, why do you care? Selecting units to fit a playstyle is a fundamental error. I addressed that earlier.


No your assuming I suggest that and that is just poor debating on your part. I never said anyone tends to make moves regardless of what units they have, that is you assumption of my meaning. What I actually say is that players will pick 'the best unit' to fit a play style. This is different and is certainly not poor play, not everyone wants the uber optimal, hyper efficient, perfect to the Nth degree, Borg like, non creative list and finally many players just want to have oooh whats that word, oh yeah FUN.


Says the guy who has made so far made almost nothing but ridiculous and erroneous assumptions, not just about my points but about my character?

Don't make me laugh.

All this shows is that either you have a fundamentally different view of what a playstyle is, or you just have no idea what you're talking about.

Perhaps you should share with us what you mean by playstyle? Perhaps we're just talking across each other.


Not always, I have played many games with my Space Wolves where they hardly assaulted at all, sometimes the obvious use for the unit is not always the best.


Space Wolves don't even have Assault Marines. Nice try, though. If you actually have a point, here, perhaps you should try to make it in a manner that actuall works.

No you see that applies to every player, regardless of play style.

Yes, yes it does. Congratulations. Why preface your statement with a "no" when you're not disagreeing with me?

You are doing the old black and white thing again. You are saying you object to play style characterisations
because you assume it implies bad play. Why does it imply bad player? If I call myself an aggressive player, then I have characterised mysefl, does that mean I have characterised myself as a bad player? errr no. You seem to have a problem with defining bad players, a bad player is a bad player irrespective of what play style he has.


I've covered this above.


Again who said it does, a bad player is a bad player and that is the end of it. What you are saying is that claiming a unit fits a play style is wrong and that is simply not correct. Units can and do fit certain play styles better than others, its a fact of the game. Saying a unit is not good for a certain play style does not mean we are saying the unit is bad, only that is does not fit that players list or style of play.


What do you mean when you say that a unit does not fit a player's style of play? I know what I mean when I say it: that the player is inclined to make moves which are not usually good ones for that unit.

My suspicion is that you really don't know what you mean. I'm willing to give you the benifit of the doubt, though, and presume that somewhere there's a reasonable explanation for what you're spouting, here. Care to share?


Nobody said a unit has no value, take my Carnifex example Of course the Carnifex has value no body is denying that, however in my Nid list it has much less value than say a winged Tyrant. Sure I can utilise the Carnifex and get some value out of it, this is the mark of a good player, responding to less then ideal situations; however the mark of a truly good plaayer would be recognising that the Carnifex is a poor choice for the style of list and the style in which I play the list. My play style has affected the list composition and it does not make me a poor player because I tok a list that fitted my play style.


Er, actually you did say that a units don't have objective values.

Better is totally subjective

How can better be totally subjective if things have objective values? The simple answer is that it can't. Either things don't have objective values, or betterness isn't totally subjective.

A player who allows stylistic considerations to affect his list building or his in-game decisions is a worse player than one who doesn't, all else being equal. Having a play style means allowing stylistic considerations to affect your in-game decisions. Thus, having a play style is a mark of a bad player.

Personally, I allow stylistic considerations to affect my list construction. This makes me a worse player. I would win more if I did not. I don't allow stylistic considerations to affect my in-game decisions. This makes me a better player.
What about you? What do you consider when making decisions?


You seem to think that playing something like an aggressive army is demanding that you move at top speed at the opponent.

I don't think that. I'm not sure what I wrote that lead you to believe that I think that, but I do not. Sorry.

Hopefully, my responses to Rikimaru above will help you all to understand what I'm trying to get across.

Crap, I've been playing WarHammer wrong all these years =(.

The notion that there are 'right' and 'wrong' moves or that it's not possible for a move that's good in my context to be bad in your context is flawed because the outcome of a particular move is not deterministic in Warhammer. The game is dice based! Any move has an associated 'risk vs reward' factor. Any player has an inherent risk aversity that will influence decision making. To say that any move that doesn't have at least a 50% chance of a favorable outcome is a 'mistake' is short sighted at best. The magnitude of the potential outcome will be weighed against the chance of success. There is no magical ratio that will win every game. I'm not a risk averse player, and spectators often tell me "you should have done X" based on a higher chance of a favorable outcome, but they are rarely considering the magnitude of the potential outcome if I succeed in my less likely endeavor, and how the relative potential losses on each side would influence subsequent turns.

e.g., I frequently make extremely risky assaults with my HQ. But I've had.... a plan.... from the beginning wherein I fully expect that model will die in an assault and nothing else in my army is depending on her for support or operating under the assumption that she will succeed. On the occassions that she does succeed, it is generally an unexpected blow of such tremendous magnitude that the only, so to say, correct response would be run and hide and play for draw.

It's very difficult to use words like 'aggresive' or 'defensive' without some kind of glossary. They mean something different to everybody. To some people 'aggresive' means running toward the enemy and 'defensive' means turtling, to others aggresive play is risky play and defensive play is predictable play.

Left of West, just one quick question: If there are two moves in a game which were both tacticly equal and viable, would a player deciding between these two moves because of his playstyle, or preference, make him a bad player?

I think that as long as having a playstyle dosnt blind a player to a better move, that player can still be a good player. I think Cheredanine example of the two boys who have very different playstyles is a good example : two equaly viable tactics, but played differently.

The notion that there are 'right' and 'wrong' moves or that it's not possible for a move that's good in my context to be bad in your context is flawed because the outcome of a particular move is not deterministic in Warhammer. The game is dice based! Any move has an associated 'risk vs reward' factor. Any player has an inherent risk aversity that will influence decision making. To say that any move that doesn't have at least a 50% chance of a favorable outcome is a 'mistake' is short sighted at best. The magnitude of the potential outcome will be weighed against the chance of success. There is no magical ratio that will win every game. I'm not a risk averse player, and spectators often tell me "you should have done X" based on a higher chance of a favorable outcome, but they are rarely considering the magnitude of the potential outcome if I succeed in my less likely endeavor, and how the relative potential losses on each side would influence subsequent turns.

Dice do certainly make the outcomes non-detirministic, but it's an error to go from that premise to the conclusion that identical moves can be good for one person and bad for another.

We might have different aversities to risk, but if that difference is causing us to make substantially different moves, it probably just means that one of us either has too little or too much aversity to risk.

No, I've seen, "the game is random," argument tossed out there too many times in response to my position. It just doesn't cut it. It's interesting in its own right, but it doesn't change the fact that if we're making substantially different moves, one of us is making a worse move and one of us is making a better one.

Left of West, just one quick question: If there are two moves in a game which were both tacticly equal and viable, would a player deciding between these two moves because of his playstyle, or preference, make him a bad player?

No. On the other hand, I have premised my position on the notion that substantially different different moves are never of equal tactical viability.

I'd be willing to concede that there may be rare cases where two such moves are actually equally viable, and that a player who has come to the conclusion that the two moves are equally viable--and that there is no more viable move--and decides between them based on a criterion which should otherwise not be considered is not making a mistake. I'm willing to accept that as a caveat to my position.

Points are easy to miss when posts are over 1000 words and there are no conclusions.

May I suggest people add conclusions to their long posts.

It doesn't matter how you play, assaultcannons are better on terminators than cyclone missile launchers, lascannons are better in tactical marine squads than missile launchers.

LOW, whilst I do, as I said, tend to agree with Rikis points, Ithink you are right, we do seem to have a general misunderstanding of the term playstyle, I think the way most of us are refering to it is slightly different from how you are using it, specifically the term "aesthetic" in your definition, Play style as how I consider it, and how riki seems to be suggesting, is a prediliction to a certain type of action (I am strugling here a little) or actions, the use of style here has nothing to do with "felt hats and cravates" (A little simplistic I know, but most games can be characterised in this definition, I did try and give you an example)

The other point was "good" - the reason I sugesting this is a subjective measure, is any single action can be considered to be objectively good if the right thing is chosen, but the definition of what the right thing is is the problem, by considering acts in isolation you can play a fragmented game that results in you loosing, we have all seen it too many times, and I am sure you have, where particularly a new or young players has some elite unit, faced with an enemy, he steps forwards, and destorys them ,only to find another unit sweeps in and what seemed the right decision in isolation is effectively a trap when the picture opens up, or more appropriately more varriables are added, this expans to the point of the game which encompasses too many variables for a clear and perfect, and objectively "Good " series of actions is almost impossible and undefinable, not least because of the dice

Conclusion: an agreed common definition of play style needs to be established before we can debate its effect

I'd agree to that. Just so that people don't have to dig through my monster reply to Riki's post, (and to take your objection to the word aesthetic into consideration) I'd retender my suggestion. This is basically how I think of playstyles.

A playstyle, or a style of play, is manifested as the tendancy to make in-game actions with specific stylistic characteristics on the basis of the fact that they have those stylistic characteristics.


I would posit this definition as being accurate and being such that it supports my conclusion.

Further, I don't think that this is very different from the defition, "a predilection to a certain type of action." A predilection to a certain type of action, for the sake of that action's stylistic characteristics (which I think must be necessarily implied by the fact we call it a play style) is not an element of good play.

I'd be interested to hear your suggestion.

Also, I wasn't talking about considering moves in isolation. I know that considering moves in isolation can result in bad moves. The fact that you have to consider moves holistically--consider the entire board state and the possible permutations of that board state does not mean that there aren't good moves and bad moves--it just means that it might be harder to pick out the good ones than it might seem at first glance.

ok will probably let riki confirm he is happy with the definition you gave, seems ok ish, still wory a little I think I was trying a little to cover the subconcious as well as concious decision, but in the interests of common ground would be happy with it as it stands

on the other point, yes ok agree to a point, but once again, how are you characterising"good"? Forgive me if I have this wrong, becuase it is predicated on selective quotes riki has included in his first post and may well be taking you out of context, but you seem to define a "good" move as being the right move that contributes to winning the game, as in some sort of Critical Path to use a project management planning term, am I understanding that correctly

Tentatively, I'd say yes. A good move is one which is conducive to victory. It contributes to winning the game. It doesn't contribute to losing the game.

That means that killing lots of enemies or staying alive or any other set of short term goals is not the sum and total of what it takes to be a good move.

Further, luck isn't really a factor in the consideration. It can't be. A move which ends up flopping because of bad luck isn't a bad move by extension. It's value doesn't change depending on what actually happens.

Tentatively, I'd say yes. A good move is one which is conducive to victory. It contributes to winning the game. It doesn't contribute to losing the game.
Hmm ok I think this is partly where riki, I and for that matter some others are misunderstanding you, so you re not saying there is a single right move, but a number all of which are conducive to victory?

That means that killing lots of enemies or staying alive or any other set of short term goals is not the sum and total of what it takes to be a good move.
yes see, I think we rather asusmed this was what you were saying, clearly we misunderrstood

Further, luck isn't really a factor in the consideration. It can't be. A move which ends up flopping because of bad luck isn't a bad move by extension. It's value doesn't change depending on what actually happens.
aha, ok a few points here, would agree luck is not a good notion, chance is better description however, no real issue in this, other than clarifying that your definition of a good move is that it is, in potentia, contributing to the victory, despite the fact that ensuing dice rolls reulted in catastrophy because you rolled outside the statistical mean?
is the reverse true? a move that has little or no potential to win but by some fluke of dice, happens to contribute is a bad move?
and the third clarification that I think there was misunderstanding on, I interpreted your earliers statements quoted by riki to infer there is a single good, or possibly best, move (action) for a given unit in a given situation (clearly coloured by that "isolation" thing, I can see how you can ascribe to multiple good and a single best if those definitions above are true, is that what you meant?

Hmm ok I think this is partly where riki, I and for that matter some others are misunderstanding you, so you re not saying there is a single right move, but a number all of which are conducive to victory?


Not quite. There are a number which are good--which are conducive to victory. I would further posit that there is a scale. An action which contributes to victory more or, perhaps, which is more likely to contribute to victory is a better move. So, in each given situation there is almost certainly a 'best' move, which has the highest expected return in terms of likelihood of victory (or something along those lines--I'm not going to sit down and tell you how to calculate a move's 'goodness'--if I knew that, I'd have posted the Ultimate Tactica of Utter Winningness a long time ago. That doesn't really change the fact there there ought to be one and that you ought, as a player, to be trying to figure out what it is.)

So, sure. There are multiple good moves. Among those moves, though, there are better and worse moves.


aha, ok a few points here, would agree luck is not a good notion, chance is better descriptiong however, no real issue in this, other than clarifying that your definition of a good move is that it is, in potentia, contributing to the victory, despite the fact that ensuing dice rolls reulted in catastrophy because you rolled outside the statistical mean?
is the reverse true? a move that has little or no potential to win but by some fluke of dice, happens to contribute is a bad move?


Basically. Let's say I'm playing a standard Imperial Guard gunline army against an army of Blood Angels. I decide that I'm not going to shoot. Instead, I'm going to charge my command squad, by itself, across the board and assault those Marines. I do it and, lo! My dice are perfect. Nothing but sixes and my opponent gets nothing but ones. My command squad sweeps through his whole army in combat and wins the game flawlessly. Go me.

Would that make my decision to charge my command squad across the board a good one? No. It was still a stupid move. The fact that I got lucky and won anyway doesn't change that.


and the third clarification that I think there was misunderstanding on, I interpreted your earliers statements quoted by riki to infer there is a single good, or possibly best, move (action) for a given unit in a given situation (clearly coloured by that "isolation" thing, I can see how you can ascribe to multiple good and a single best if those definitions above are true, is that what you meant?


I think so, yeah. In any given situation there is a set of moves, and they each have a value which is, essentially, how much they contribute to winning the game. The one with the highest value is the best move, the one with the lowest value is the worst move. At some point there's probably a split between the good moves and the bad moves.

That make a reasonable amount of sense?

Not quite. There are a number which are good--which are conducive to victory. I would further posit that there is a scale. An action which contributes to victory more or, perhaps, which is more likely to contribute to victory is a better move. So, in each given situation there is almost certainly a 'best' move, which has the highest expected return in terms of likelihood of victory (or something along those lines--I'm not going to sit down and tell you how to calculate a move's 'goodness'--if I knew that, I'd have posted the Ultimate Tactica of Utter Winningness a long time ago. That doesn't really change the fact there there ought to be one and that you ought, as a player, to be trying to figure out what it is.)

So, sure. There are multiple good moves. Among those moves, though, there are better and worse moves.

yeah, wasnt actually trying to "catch" you with measuring a moves "Goodness", just understand what you are saying, I don't think riki will balk at this either.
But, and I may be wrong, this does seem predicated on the theory that there is a single, or atleast best path to victory, that there are not multiple paths with different pros and cons EG doing series of actions we call "A" is likely to produce a huge win, but moves by the opponent 3 turns from now stand a reasonable chance of derailing it (not suggesting this is actualy a defined thought path), but doing a different series of actions, we will call "B" is likely to produce a victory by a smaller margin, however is less prone to interference by the opponent. now in that scenario, which has to be very common, how would you ascribe one move to be your (aceptedly unkown) utter winningness move?

asically. Let's say I'm playing a standard Imperial Guard gunline army against an army of Blood Angels. I decide that I'm not going to shoot. Instead, I'm going to charge my command squad, by itself, across the board and assault those Marines. I do it and, lo! My dice are perfect. Nothing but sixes and my opponent gets nothing but ones. My command squad sweeps through his whole army in combat and wins the game flawlessly. Go me.

Would that make my decision to charge my command squad across the board a good one? No. It was still a stupid move. The fact that I got lucky and won anyway doesn't change that.
ok fine with that. to put this into context of play styles for example though, we have an ork player at our local and he started with speed freaks, the new codex has hampered him slightly but it is still a load of trucks withorks in them - fine, so we know what he will do right? but no he has a cautious "play style", he tends to try and hide his trucks and creep up on you, this goes wrong 11 times out of 10, he gets caught and shot to shreds, half his army has to foot slog from dispersed possitions and gets shot up or killed peacemeal, just trying to get a feel, would you accept then that this is his playstyle (although admitedly a very bad one)?



I think so, yeah. In any given situation there is a set of moves, and they each have a value which is, essentially, how much they contribute to winning the game. The one with the highest value is the best move, the one with the lowest value is the worst move. At some point there's probably a split between the good moves and the bad moves.

That make a reasonable amount of sense?[/QUOTE]

I like breaking things down into less than one minute posts.

I've played two IG players recently with rough riders. One of them went straight for my battlesuits and lost them. The other hid the rough riders and denied me room for my stealths (I had to keep them >24" away from them).

Two different play styles, clearly the second one is better.

I like breaking things down into less than one minute posts.

I've played two IG players recently with rough riders. One of them went straight for my battlesuits and lost them. The other hid the rough riders and denied me room for my stealths (I had to keep them >24" away from them).

Two different play styles, clearly the second one is better.

Hmm yes this is like the example I gave in the point above, I dont think LOW is disputing that players may play in a certain style, I think the point he is trying to make is that if you are giving advice to players either on their lists or playing the game, the play style has no place there, he is proposing that there is, albiet considered against a holistic backdrop and interlinked with all variables, with the exeption of chance, a theoretical "optimum" selection or action with no unifying theme other than victory. That this is the correct thing to do (where it can be identified)

therefore in your example mate, his arguement is that the second play style happens to encompas the most good or best actions, but that this is coincidental and when giving advice on both unit selection and action, playsyle is not a valid concept

is that a fair statement of your stance?

yeah, wasnt actually trying to "catch" you with measuring a But, and I may be wrong, this does seem predicated on the theory that there is a single, or atleast best path to victory, that there are not multiple paths with different pros and cons EG doing series of actions we call "A" is likely to produce a huge win, but moves by the opponent 3 turns from now stand a reasonable chance of derailing it (not suggesting this is actualy a defined thought path), but doing a different series of actions, we will call "B" is likely to produce a victory by a smaller margin, however is less prone to interference by the opponent. now in that scenario, which has to be very common, how would you ascribe one move to be your (aceptedly unkown) utter winningness move?


I don't usually think of victory in terms of a scale. I'm not usually playing tournaments, so winning is winning and losing is losing. Degrees of winning and losing aren't really all that important.

But, in some situations they are--tournaments are an obvious one. Also, your goal might be just to win or to win in an utterly crushing way.

In a tournament scenario, I'd say you should be looking at the goal of winning the tournament. Is it worth risking a loss to get more points towards winning the tournament? It might be. If it is, route A in this proposed game might be more important.

Perhaps it would be better to state that the value of any given action is governed by how much it contributes to your overall goal, whatever that goal may be. When giving people advice on forums, I tend to hold the goal to be 'winning' in a binary, win-or-lose sense. Other goals could be relavent.

I don't think, though, that introducing other goals or even a sliding scale of winning really changes the conclusion.


ok fine with that. to put this into context of play styles for example though, we have an ork player at our local and he started with speed freaks, the new codex has hampered him slightly but it is still a load of trucks withorks in them - fine, so we know what he will do right? but no he has a cautious "play style", he tends to try and hide his trucks and creep up on you, this goes wrong 11 times out of 10, he gets caught and shot to shreds, half his army has to foot slog from dispersed possitions and gets shot up or killed peacemeal, just trying to get a feel, would you accept then that this is his playstyle (although admitedly a very bad one)?


I'm not sure that I would. Is his playstyle to move forward and hide? That doesn't seem to reflect the use of the word style very accurately at all. A playstyle is more than just what you tend to do.

I mean, if I had exactly one army, and I played exactly the same army every time I played, and I only really played against one opponent with a similarly limited army, my play would be very similar in almost every game.

Would that be my playstyle, though? Not really. What if I were handed a different army and a different opponent. I might play that army against that opponent very differently, and it would become immediately clear that the manner in which I was playing my old army wasn't really predicated on any stylistic preferrence or dependency, but rather was dictated by what I was playing and what my opponent was playing.

A play style is more than just a tendancy to do certain things, and it isn't demonstrated simply by playing one particular army the same way multiple times. Particular armies will tend to play the same way even when played without stylistic considerations.

Having a playstyle, I think, must involve considerations that are stylistic. Your ork guy might be displaying a playstyle, but there just isn't enough evidence to say for certain.


edit:

And yikes. I think you have actually managed to sum up the important bits very nicely, Cheredanine. Wow. Thanks. Why can't I do that?

.......

Perhaps it would be better to state that the value of any given action is governed by how much it contributes to your overall goal, whatever that goal may be. When giving people advice on forums, I tend to hold the goal to be 'winning' in a binary, win-or-lose sense. Other goals could be relavent.
hmm but in that example. where there are multiple paths to winning, which has to be common, and mutiple risks, even ignoring the element of chance from the dice, the actions of your opponent must introduce risk, then people will choose a path that they judge gives them the best chance of winning with a level of risk, they personnaly feel comfortable with will they not? I mean given you statement that the "ultimate winning path" can not really be identified (I would not dispute it is there)

I don't think, though, that introducing other goals or even a sliding scale of winning really changes the conclusion.

hmm this goes to that point, and answers to a degree, are you still aspiring that people should take the ultimate winning path? or given you acept it can not be easily identified, would you accept that people take a subjective choice here? (good players, I would suggest, select from the best paths others will make poor selections)

I'm not sure that I would. Is his playstyle to move forward and hide? That doesn't seem to reflect the use of the word style very accurately at all. A playstyle is more than just what you tend to do.

aha, but that is back to the definition of playstyle, I think that this is really how most of us are considering play style, it is the type of move people tend to do, he tends to hide, I could accuse him of being over cautious or even cowardly, but that would be unfair, I suspect he is intimidated or undecisive, either way, his actions are consistent and..
I mean, if I had exactly one army, and I played exactly the same army every time I played, and I only really played against one opponent with a similarly limited army, my play would be very similar in almost every game.

Would that be my playstyle, though? Not really. What if I were handed a different army and a different opponent. I might play that army against that opponent very differently, and it would become immediately clear that the manner in which I was playing my old army wasn't really predicated on any stylistic preferrence or dependency, but rather was dictated by what I was playing and what my opponent was playing.

A play style is more than just a tendancy to do certain things, and it isn't demonstrated simply by playing one particular army the same way multiple times. Particular armies will tend to play the same way even when played without stylistic considerations.

Having a playstyle, I think, must involve considerations that are stylistic. Your ork guy might be displaying a playstyle, but there just isn't enough evidence to say for certain.

.. he plays the same way despite an array of opponents, commonly up to 12 with some with several armies, he play is stylistic, the style is one of caution, excessively so, again I think this is partly where we have a misunderstanding, I think riki, and most others would agree he has a play style, it is a naff one, and completely inappropriate for his army, but most people would consider it a play style.

Putting that asside, would you agree he is playing in an over cautious manner? (for the army he has)

hmm but in that example. where there are multiple paths to winning, which has to be common, and mutiple risks, even ignoring the element of chance from the dice, the actions of your opponent must introduce risk, then people will choose a path that they judge gives them the best chance of winning with a level of risk, they personnaly feel comfortable with will they not? I mean given you statement that the "ultimate winning path" can not really be identified (I would dispute it is there)

It might be fair to say that identifying the ultimate path is impossible--or at least so wildly difficult as to not be worth considering.

Further, it is certainly fair to say that there are multiple paths to victory and people will choose different ones.

Neither of those assertions, though, really changes the fact that identifiable or not, one of those paths will be better than the others. It behooves us to at least strive to identify the best moves--to play the best that we can.

Certainly, when someone is asking for advice, it does no good to say, "Well, we all just make subjective decisions anyway. Just do whatever fits your playstyle best."

That's bad advice. Plainly and simply. Saying that a unit might be worthwhile for person X because his playstyle supports it is only reasonable if you presume that person X has some set of tendancies which makes him more likely to use unit X properly. By extension, it is only reasonable if you presume that person X is making decisions based on poor criteria. It's insulting, frankly. I would be insulted if someone ever responded to my query for advice by saying, "this unit might fit your playstyle." I'd think, "What playstyle? Are you trying to imply that I can't use other types of units well? That I can only make moves which tend to work well for this type of unit?"

If your tendancies are making it more likely for you to use a unit properly, you're giving your tendancies too much sway over your decision-making process. The fact that you tend to make a certain type of move or that you prefer a certain type of move in general is never a good basis for making a decision.


hmm this goes to that point, and answers to a degree, are you still aspiring that people should take the ultimate winning path? or given you acept it can not be easily identified, would you accept that people take a subjective choice here? (good players, I would suggest, select from the best paths others will make poor selections)


People should make the best decisions possible. Whether or not people can routinely decide on the move which is actually the best isn't really relavent.

I would accept that people do make subjective decisions, and that those decisions are often reasonable.


aha, but that is back to the definition of playstyle, I think that this is really how most of us are considering play style, it is the type of move people tend to do, he tends to hide, I could accuse him of being over cautious or even cowardly, but that would be unfair, I suspect he is intimidated or undecisive, either way, his actions are consisten and..
.. he plays the same way despite an array of opponents, commonly up to 12 with some with several armies, he play is stylistic, the style is one of caution, excessively so, again I think this is partly where we have a misunderstanding, I think riki, and most others would agree he has a play style, it is a naff one, and completely inappropriate for his army, but most people would consider it a play style.


Maybe it is his playstyle. It's certainly possible. Playing cautiously can be a stylistic decision. A person isn't a 'cautious player' just because he plays cautiously, though. That, I guess, is my point. He could just be a good player who is routinely playing in situations where caution is correct.

He could (and by your account is) a bad player who routinely and erroneously concludes that caution is correct.

Neither of those would be indicative of a playstyle, really. Even if they were, though, what would be the upshot?

So, he's a cautious player. His style is to play cautiously. He does so even when it isn't the right thing to do, and he loses because of it. Wouldn't that just serve to support my point?

Maybe that's what you were trying to do. I'm not really sure.


Putting that asside, would you agree he is playing in an over cautious manner? (for the army he has)

I guess. By your account, it certainly seems so. I'm not really sure what you're getting at, though.

I'm abit unsure what Left of West is referring to by a good move.
Yes, I've read the thread and the definition seems to be "a move that contributes to winning".

But a goodness of a move is surely measured in hindsight. I think a better word for it would be how "risky" is a move. Your example of a command squad charging in and killing everyone would clearly be a risky move but since it payed off it was, in hindsight, a good move.
If just analyzed on the spot, it's a bad move. In hindsight its good. See what I'm going on about?

It matters at what point you evaluate a move. Is it before or after you see what happens? In LOW's case he's clearly referring to the former. To evaluate the potential risks of a move and pick the ones with the lowest risk, highest gain. What I think the confusion for alot of people (was for me atleast) was to take FOW's meaning to apply after the fact as well as well as the use of the words "good" & "bad".

In terms of playstyle this is my view on the whole thing.
To pursue an "idea" of a unit, even in the face of tactical inviability is not a good move. An example:

"Yeah! My Kroot are like totally the eaters of the dead man! So they just jump in and assault these guys *some time later, after kroot flee* Ok. Like, since they ARE the eaters of the dead and stuff they'll just run right back in. They wouldn't fall back or wait for some ranged support man they're KROOT! CHARGE!" :D

As for the viability of different playstyles it gets trickier.
Since there's not a single list for each army a measure of preference has to come in play when you put together your army list and then use it. There can be a list that Theoryhammers the best, but it may not be the case on the actual board.
Again, I wouldn't use "good" or "bad" since those words are very loaded. Risk vs. reward is much more appropriate and I think carries the meaning across better.
Taking alot of infantry and little in the way of heavy armor in a Imperial Guard list is not a "bad" or "good" army composition. It's a risky army composition, or can be, given the opponent, terrain etc.

That's another thing that seems to be missing from alot of these points/counter points is that there's also an opponent or opponents sitting across from you. Your army selection can be pretty solid against one opponent and utterly useless against another. Some armies will have an easier time against other armies.

And this is just a thing of mine, but is it really so hard to answer someones post with a post of your own instead of this surgical nitpicking back and forth? A reference to what you are referring to is nice, but it can get very silly if overused. :|

Edit:
Started writing this before Onlainari's post. Just a quick heads up there while I read through the posts.

Wow, there are some very long and well thought out posts in this thread. It is a good discussion topic too.

@LoW: Reading all this in one go can make it a little confusing, at least for me (it's like information overload) so I want to make sure I am on the right track, so I have a number of questions.
1)Are you saying that there is no such thing (or should be no such thing) as a variation in playstyle? Or more specifically the only 'real' playstyle is playing to win the game?
2) That inclusion in any given list should not take into consideration any particular method that said player prefers to use when the play? But should merely be soley focused on how 'good' a unit is?
3) What is your definition of a 'good' unit? Is it one that makes it's points back by destruction of enemy units?

If this is what you are saying, albeit in a simplified and condensed manner, than I think that you may be over-simplifying the concept of a play style. Generally speaking everyone plays their best to win, the tactics that they use in conjunction with the units that they included and the method in which they play are something that they see as the best path to victory. Where play style comes into it is in, for want of a better term, the variation on the theme.
For example, there are two players in two diferent games. Each one has to achieve an objective to win, and they each do so through various means. They make different moves/plays/whatever. Who is to say which one is better? How can you define what is the higher path?
I know from personal experience, unfortunately something that can't be conveyed accurately over this medium, that I have several different play styles depending on a great number of variables - What system I'm playing, what army I'm using, the terrain, mission, opponent etc. I don't think anyone will argue that it isn't a good idea to play each game differently.
However, I do have common lists for all my armies that I am confident will be able to handle most situations, and when I put these lists together I do so with a general plan in mind, one that suits my playstle for that army.
A couple of examples:
My Imperial Guard list contains 1 Leman Russ, only 1 chimera, no deep striking plasma filled veteran squads - in fact there is only one plasma weapon in the entire list. I include mortars in the list and they work wonderful. My list is largely infantry, but I don't play a static gunline, i mix it up and do things that opponents don't expect. Is it a gamble? At times yes, does it pay off? More often than not.
My Eldar army is almost entirely footslogging and there isn't a harlequin in sight, likewise it isn't maxed out in falcons, nor are there any fireprisms. I rely on close ranged support and using the units in cohesion in a manner that works for me - and yet when somebody else uses my list they aren't able to get it to work properly. Why is this? Because of differing play styles.

It might be fair to say that identifying the ultimate path is impossible--or at least so wildly difficult as to not be worth considering.

Further, it is certainly fair to say that there are multiple paths to victory and people will choose different ones.

Neither of those assertions, though, really changes the fact that identifiable or not, one of those paths will be better than the others. It behooves us to at least strive to identify the best moves--to play the best that we can.

yeas OK agree with this, although I would say that given the varriables involved in the varrious paths, it is extremely common for people to use a subjective judgement there, it is not the less a judgement and they are endeavouring to identify the best path

Certainly, when someone is asking for advice, it does no good to say, "Well, we all just make subjective decisions anyway. Just do whatever fits your playstyle best."

hmm I dont think anyone was suggesting this

That's bad advice. Plainly and simply. Saying that a unit might be worthwhile for person X because his playstyle supports it is only reasonable if you presume that person X has some set of tendancies which makes him more likely to use unit X properly. By extension, it is only reasonable if you presume that person X is making decisions based on poor criteria. It's insulting, frankly. I would be insulted if someone ever responded to my query for advice by saying, "this unit might fit your playstyle." I'd think, "What playstyle? Are you trying to imply that I can't use other types of units well? That I can only make moves which tend to work well for this type of unit?"

dont jump the gun, I hadnt advocated using play styles at all in this part of the discusion, at best I would suggest the common ground for everyone is that when putting together an army, or offering advice, one has (for good players, not necessarily in all cases), some idea of what the prefered paths would be and should select untis condusive to those paths, is that a fair statement?
If your tendancies are making it more likely for you to use a unit properly, you're giving your tendancies too much sway over your decision-making process.

ah careful, I think we (you included) would agree that there are usually multiple ways to use a given unit, depending on what the prefered path of play is, for example, my son often uses small squads of harlequinws not to rip opponents appart in combat but as bait to lure out units which can then be masacred by things like his shining spears, the harleys clearly therefore have atleast 2 good uses, given his win rate, the best path must cover both uses, and I would acept that he predicates this on the assumption that his opponent chooses to go after the harleys, whcih may be a good or bad path
The fact that you tend to make a certain type of move or that you prefer a certain type of move in general is never a good basis for making a decision.
lets put that on hold, you are moving the discusion on a huge amount, whilst we were still on common ground, raise it later yes?

People should make the best decisions possible. Whether or not people can routinely decide on the move which is actually the best isn't really relavent.

agreed that is simply the differenciator between a good player and a bad one

I would accept that people do make subjective decisions, and that those decisions are often reasonable.

again, fair enough


Maybe it is his playstyle. It's certainly possible. Playing cautiously can be a stylistic decision. A person isn't a 'cautious player' just because he plays cautiously, though. That, I guess, is my point. He could just be a good player who is routinely playing in situations where caution is correct.

He could (and by your account is) a bad player who routinely and erroneously concludes that caution is correct.

Neither of those would be indicative of a playstyle, really. Even if they were, though, what would be the upshot?

So, he's a cautious player. His style is to play cautiously. He does so even when it isn't the right thing to do, and he loses because of it. Wouldn't that just serve to support my point?

Maybe that's what you were trying to do. I'm not really sure.
ok I think this illustrates simply the difference between the meaning of playstyle, I think the others would describe what he does as a playstyle, as in a general "sterio type" of how he plays his games. I agree he looses because he consistently makes bad decisions, his sunjective decision for any move tends to be poor, he is risk averse and hence opts for a more cautious course of action which is ultimatley bad. that is your point yes?
I think that part of the problem stems from the fact that boards use the term "play style" as a sterio type description with a loose set of criteria . To use terminology against which you are arguing, he has a cautious, reactive playstyle wheras his army is more suited to an agressive assualt based playstyle. That I think would be how Riki or I or onlainari would surmise the situation wheras (not trying to trap you here hence acepted there are variables which may mean these are simply statistical anomalies etc) you would describe it as he is frequently making poor choices either putting together his army or on the table top, he would simply need to fix one or the other

is that fair?

Protocon:

While the value of a move can be measured in hindsight, The measurement of a move in hindsight is, in and of itself, not very valuable. It doesn't help inform future decisions. The actual outcome of a particular action is not particularly relavent in a discussion of worthwhile actions. I0 could say, "Wow, that was great! My command squad just killed everything!" I be right. It was great. It was a great move--in a manner of speaking.

But that manner of speaking isn't useful or relavent in a forum discussion on tactics or advice. It doesn't matter than I got lucky once--it still would be wrong of me to suggest that Command Squads are good at running into the teeth of close-combat-centric space marine armies.

What you're doing is suggesting a different type of valuation. It isn't wrong, but it's also not what we're talking about. It's not applicable to the type of discussion in question, here. The type of value that is important within the context of deciding which moves to make, or deciding what advice to give on a forum, is more along the lines of the expected value of the action. The actual value of the result is irrelavent because, by the time we can measure that value, we will have already given the advice or taken the action or whatever. At that point, it's too late.

So, what I was saying is accurate. The value that I am talking about--the type of value that is relavent to this discussion--is static. It does not change after the dice are rolled. The type of value you're talking about is something else entirely, and it is something which is not relavent to the discussion at hand.

A few more points before I wrap up:

First, I think that anyone unable to put aside the 'loaded' element of the words good and bad really and treat them as they are intended has larger concerns than whether playstyles are worth having. If you're getting hung up on that, you might consider finding yourself a psychiatrist--or a linguistics professor--instead of hanging around here. Good and Bad are fine. Risk and Reward don't carry the intended meaning nearly as well.

Second, it is true that one's opponent affects the value of decisions. I'm fairly certain I've made that quite clear in the past. It isn't really relavent. The fact remains that for any given situation, there is a set of possible actions and those actions should be evaluated on scale based on how much they contribute to victory (or whatever the goal is). What is true is that advice becomes less and less useful as the context of the question becomes less and less specific. Advice about in-game decisions or army construction without the context of a specific opponent is inherently less accurate than similar advice with a more detailed context. If that's all you were trying to say, I agree. What I don't agree with is the implication that it invalidates anything I've been trying to get across. If you weren't trying to imply that, then I'm sorry. It appears to me that you are.

Third, it is certainly possible to write in a more essay-esque format. I simply prefer the other way because it's easier to keep my thoughts straight and remember everything that I want to say. I'm happy to respond to you like this if you prefer it.

Let me see if I can answer some of these for him:

@LoW: Reading all this in one go can make it a little confusing, at least for me (it's like information overload) so I want to make sure I am on the right track, so I have a number of questions.
1)Are you saying that there is no such thing (or should be no such thing) as a variation in playstyle? Or more specifically the only 'real' playstyle is playing to win the game?
no, his assertion is simpler than that, that when giving advice to someone, either on unit selection, or on tactical decision, something as esoteric as Playstyle has no place, but rather advice should be strictle based on how to win, again given that is the goal of the person requesting it.

2) That inclusion in any given list should not take into consideration any particular method that said player prefers to use when the play? But should merely be soley focused on how 'good' a unit is?

yes in terms of Good (see next point)
3) What is your definition of a 'good' unit? Is it one that makes it's points back by destruction of enemy units?
covered earlier, "good" in this sense means conducive (the element of chance in the form of dice aside) to an overall sucessful (game winning) series of actions. The nature of the specific action is not constrained to destruction of enemy units

I hate to be blunt, but: So by this point the argument is solely based on differing definitions of playstyles, and from there, once a definition is agreed upon, it is whether or not playstyles are conductive to a game of tactical and strategic thought. Which leaves us right where we started.

Cheredanine:

Two things before I begin.

First, I think you have my position down very well. Your responses to Exarch Thomo seem spot on.

Second, I did get a little ahead of myself. I'm excitable like that. =P
Just know that not everything which you picked out was posted because I took you to be espousing a contrary position. I'm not really sure what you're getting at, but I know you're proceeding slowly. I sort of have a long-standing beef with the world on some of these issues, and I sometimes just start spouting off about them, even when no one is actually explicitly discussing them. It's not personal. It's just me. Sorry.

Moving on...there's not that much to say, really. I can't pick out anything in your post to which I disagree. I'm still not sure where you're going, but feel free to press on with the presumption that I am with you 100%. If something strikes me as being off at any point down the road, I certainly won't hesitate to point it out.

I'd be willing to tentatively accept your suggested 'standard' use of the word playstyle as being standard. I'd be interested to see where that definition leads you.

I hate to be blunt, but: So by this point the argument is solely based on differing definitions of playstyles, and from there, once a definition is agreed upon, it is whether or not playstyles are conductive to a game of tactical and strategic thought. Which leaves us right where we started.

talk about stealing my thunder! yes this (partly) my point I was working towards LOW

I agree with most if not all your points, they are basically the application of chaos theory and its analysis to the game, the mathematician in me agrees with them.

But, I think the point I was aiming for in a few posts, is that it is common for a players subjective judgements to be able to be steriotyped for whatever reason, in that example I was working on, in terms of cautious play. the term Play style is conventionally used, within the game to describe such sterio types.

The reason it has value in review of lists or explanation of tactics is one of expediance, if I try to explain to him his faults specifically using your suggestion, sure it is valid and more accurate, but it would be hugely time consuming for me and he wouldnt bother taking it all in (case in point the number of people that have asked how you defined "good" when it was clearly defined and acepted earlier)

Far better to explain that he is being over cautious (this is how the term playstyle is used through common ussage on this and other boards), he can take this in, if he acts on it it wont resolve all his problems but will address the majority of them in a simple statement, the remainder he can figure for himself or I can cover at a later date using a more specific comunication of the type you are suggesting, which, because of the change he would have already implemented to his "play style" would be far shorter and thus he would be more likely to read (using a 6-sigma approach to Quality control rather than attempting a single perfect grasp at perfection)

The common ussage of Playstyle on this and other boards (B&C, warseer, EOL, TOL, ATT etc etc) is this steriotype of a ill defined set of criteria, it is used, not because of its accuracy to the nth degree but rather because it collectively addresses or describes a trend, which whilst not absolute, does cover a critical mass of issues, not because your points were wrong, but because of the point so aptly demonstrated by the definition and use of the word "good" in this thread

is that making sense? (rather had to jump to it earlier than I intended)

I'd personally define "play style" as the particular approach that someone takes to playing the game, irrespective of what units they use - although certain styles might influence unit selection more than others.

As an example, my friends and I play Warmachine every week, and we've all observed that we have unique approaches to gameplay despite Privateer Press encouraging us to "play like you've got a pair".

I'm a very cautious, reactive player. I'm generally loathe to charge in and be agressive until I've minimised as many threats to my forces as I can. I try to take my opponent's army appart piece by piece, moving onto the next target of opportunity once the first has been destroyed, or at the very least made a lot less scary. I also prefer to adapt my battle plan on the basis of what my opponent does, rather than coming up with any specific plan at the start of the game. As a result, I tend to try and pick "balanced" list with no particular specialty (close combat/shooting/magic etc.) in mind. I'll always run my warcaster, two warjacks (one heavy and one light, preferably with an arc node), a unit of infantry and a solo - hopefully achieving a combination which stands a reasonable chace of dealing with any enemy.

Yoshi is a very bold, agressive player. He tends to charge everything across the table as fast as it can move, and get everything into a position where it can wreak maximum havoc as soon as possible. If Yoshi sees an openning to go for the jugular, he will. His strategies aren't stupid, they're just simple and (usually) not very subtle. He'll vary his list drastically from week to week, but ultimately it will still be geared towards killing the enemy fast - albiet in a particular way depending on his mood. Karchev the Terrible with two Kodiaks; The Old Witch with Assassins, Widowmakers and Manhunters; Sorscha with hordes of Winter Guard infantry; or Irusk and crack troops like Iron Fangs and Man-O-Wars are just some of the delightful combinations Yoshi's rammed down his opponent's throats.

Louise, on the other hand, is quite calculating, agonisingly planning every move, every allocation of Focus, and just generally taking way too long to make any decision. It seems to work for him, since he's got the highest victory count of all of us (leading to mumbled accusations of "cheese" and "powergamer" under people's breath). Louise likes to think of himself as a real strategist, and likes an army that has a lot of "synergy", with units that work well together. His play style involves spending the first several turns setting everything up for a coupe de grace which either fails miserably or, more often than we'd like, yields spectacular results.

The other guys are a lot harder to categorise, so I won't bother writing about them. I just thought I'd throw out my ideas on what 'play style' is. Bear in mind I'm not disagreeing with what anyone's said (at least not intentionally), just trying to help come up with a clear definition of what is meant by 'play style'. I hope this helps.

Nechriah

Thanks for the clarification.

Let me see if I can answer some of these for him:
no, his assertion is simpler than that, that when giving advice to someone, either on unit selection, or on tactical decision, something as esoteric as Playstyle has no place, but rather advice should be strictle based on how to win, again given that is the goal of the person requesting it.

But doesn't playstyle then dictate an acceptable and effective use of a unit or tactic within a certain army, and hence should be taken into consideration? If unit x performs well in a given situation, but the players method of play is something non-conducive to the 'correct/advised/suggested' usage and goes against the rest of the armies style, wouldn't this then be detrimental and more of a liability to the army and game as a whole? Instead of the army being a cohesive unit their are several disharmonius elements that work at odds to each other.


covered earlier, "good" in this sense means conducive (the element of chance in the form of dice aside) to an overall sucessful (game winning) series of actions. The nature of the specific action is not constrained to destruction of enemy units

Ok, that makes sense. A pet peeve of mine is when people limit the definition of a 'good' unit to a solely destructive role and measure it by how many VP's it earns back.
I still can't see, however, how a unit can be classed as good without some thought given to play style. Sure, there are units out there who blatantly are better in given situations, but to get the absolute effectiveness out of them they must be used in conjunction with numerous other elements - whether it is other units, target priority, moving strategy etc. All this comes under the umbrella heading of playstyle. What tactics and tricks one uses in a given situation is the essence of their playing style, and as such I believe it should be included in any advice given - with the disclaimer that this is what works for you and your playstyle.

That does make sense, Cheredanine, but the purist in me still objects.

Expediency is something worthwhile. On the other hand, my inclination, based on experience and observation among other things, is that this particular expedient has a tendency to breed a laziness in thought which is ultimately detrimental. It's not criminal, it's not incomprehensible. It isn't even all that bad. But, here we are on a forum specifically for making people better players. We've an ample amount of time and a dearth of specific context. Is it really appropriate, in a forum such as this, to use an expedient which is known to create confusion and misunderstanding? I don't think so. Maybe you do, and that's fine, but I don't--and I'm inclined to keep pointing it out for the misrepresentation--useful though it may be--that it is.



But doesn't playstyle then dictate an acceptable and effective use of a unit or tactic within a certain army, and hence should be taken into consideration? If unit x performs well in a given situation, but the players method of play is something non-conducive to the 'correct/advised/suggested' usage and goes against the rest of the armies style, wouldn't this then be detrimental and more of a liability to the army and game as a whole? Instead of the army being a cohesive unit their are several disharmonius elements that work at odds to each other.

Exarch Thomo, I hope you won't mind my borrowing your post for a demonstration of my point. I have nothing personal against you, but this illustrates precisely the type of error I see as the result of discussion of play styles in tactical advice.

Simply, no. Playstyle does not dictate an acceptable or effective use of a unit or tactic within a certain army. Playstyle has nothing to do with what is acceptable or effective. In none of the ways it has been defined has playstyle correlated with effective decision-making.

A player's method of playing should never be non-conducive to making the best moves.

How can that not leap out and grab you by the shirt and shout, "I am an error! I am a fantastic example of an obvious play mistake!"

How can it possibly be anything but an error to hold on to a method of playing which is not conducive to making the best moves?

That is my point. Thank you for making it for me.

Each possible action in a given situation has a value based on how conducive it is to victory. This is the value which every player should be trying to ascertain. Every time. For every action. This value does not change based on the player making the decision.

Some players are more or less able to detirmine that value. This is the same thing as being a better or worse player. Some players have the tendancy to assign greater values to moves based on criteria other than the state of the board. Pla