I really don't understand why you think we're playing so aggressively. Last year, there were many objectives that started off in control of one of either Order or Disorder:
1.) The bridge started off Imperial control
2.) The factory thing that was to your right started off in Imperial control
3.) The huge Boot Hill started off more or less in Disorder's control
4.) My section of the board started off in Disorder's control.
In fact, very few of the objectives started off in no man's land.
Those objectives that started play already in control by one side would naturally encourage defensive play for the side that started off in control of them.
I'm going to ramble at length about how I see 40K strategy. There are no doubt other ways to perceive it. Sorry if I get tedious, but I figure I'll give my perspective then shut up. Others clearly view the game differently.
There are three 'one trick pony' styles of play I encountered a lot during the V3 and V4 era. Fast assault was over represented with rhino rush marines. Necron and Imperial Guard would do stand and shoot. Orcs would do slow assault. Given the right scenario and terrain, one trick pony armies could be very formidable. If the scenario, opponent and terrain were right, they could be overwhelming. If the scenario, opponent and terrain were wrong, they could go down hard.
I saw a paper scissor rock relationship between the three extreme styles. Stand and shoot armies could eliminate slow assault armies before contact was made. Fast assault armies could get into the face of shooty armies. Slow assault armies outnumbered fast assault armies.
I didn't care for the one trick army approach. One often knew just how the game would go once the first move dice was rolled. Games were repetitive. Once one has been rhino rushed the first hundred times, the second hundred was anticlimactic. I also saw people get discouraged playing the same tactic over and over. After playing a one trick pony force for a month or a year, it was too common to see the army retired.
I preferred a mixed force. I would spend half my points on fast assault, and half on stand and shoot. If my opponent was stand and shoot, I would play aggressively and put my fast assault elements in his face. If he specialized in assault, I would hang back, hurt him as much as I could for as long as I could with my shooting, then jump him with my fast assault just before he hit my shooting forces. If he was balanced, it was a matter of creating the right match ups. I'd strive to have my shooting forces pick off his assault elements while they were still distant, while getting my assault elements in the face of the enemy shooters.
To me, much of the game is about using your forces as they were intended to be used, while denying the opponent a chance to use his forces as they are intended to be used. Thus, I want to shoot the swordsman and stab the rifleman.
Straight 40K is balanced for armies starting about 24 inches apart. Start armies further apart than that, and shooting forces start to have an advantage. Start them closer together, and assault armies start having an advantage.
The default Apocalypse scenario has a one foot wide no man's land. Two assault armies, if both commanders want to use swords, can be in close combat in turn one. However, Apocalypse is commonly played on large tables. A stand and shoot army can be deployed well back away from no man's land. Stand and shoot tactics involves trading time and space for the opportunity to kill an attacking enemy. On a big table, in a six turn game, one might have considerable time and space to give away.
However, the default Apocalypse scenario is an objectives scenario. If one deploys too far back, if one gives away too much time and space, one is going to have difficulty taking the objectives at the end of the game.
The BG mega battles differ from the default Apocalypse scenario in at least two important ways. First, we seldom get in more than four game turns. This effects the equation of how much time and space a shooty force can give up before it has to start advancing into the teeth of an assault force to seize the objectives.
Second, score is kept on objectives frequently, not just at the end of a battle. Thus, if a shooty force trades time and space for opportunities to kill, it is also giving up victory points. The unique BG scoring method demands a land grab every turn. Again, this makes a shooter's approach of trading time and space for opportunities to shoot people harder.
Of course things like flank march, deep strike and troop carrying flyers provide alternate ways of taking objectives. The newer codices also tend to encourage more diverse armies. One doesn't see pure stand and shoot or pure rhino rush as often as in the old days.
Obviously, as Order has won the last couple of years, we can't whine and cry very much. Last year, score was taken at the end of the Order turn. This gave Order lots better opportunity to accumulate victory points than Disorder. When Disorder did managed to claim an objective, Order had a chance to push them off before the score counted. This scoring bias made Order's last turn push possible.
This year's proposed policy of scoring every player's turn rather than only in the second player's turn should balance the scoring considerably. If what I described above reflects advantages assault forces have over shooters, last year the force that moved second had an equally strong advantage in accumulating victory points. The result last year was a very even game, with Order coming from behind to steal a tight one. I'm a bit concerned that we are fixing a big advantage given to Order last year, while we might be keeping the balancing advantages given Disorder.
I raised similar points last year. Perhaps as a result, there was considerable variety in placement of objectives and deployment zones. There ought to be points on the various battle fields where a stand and shoot force gets to do its thing. There ought to be other places where swords and claws clash early and often. I don't think there is a need to push panic buttons. I'd just like to raise my usual warning flags.
