Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Okay, so I stole from Bushido; I figure I can get away with it, here.

For now, my interest in 40k is less about playing, than about exploring the meta surrounding the game. This includes fluff, and game dynamics.

So I end up posting some weird threads on Dakka Dakka, and this is likely to be another one.

I've long maintained that every combat simulation game is a mix of armor, firepower, and mobility, and this makes sense, since those, along with communication, are the virtues of real-world militaries. Communication is less important in 40k because your vantage point is really good, as a player.

Yes, tactics play a role, but tactics depend on the "three virtues" of a given army. An Eldar player would use his units differently than a Necron player, to achieve the same goal.

I'm almost at the actual question. Feel free to grab a coffee and come back.

To me, each army seems to prioritize the three virtues in a slightly different way, leading to the different play styles of each army.

Space Marines, for example, seem to put armor first, then firepower, then mobility. There are exceptions, but this seems to be the overall theme.

Okay, it's actually two questions.

1) In your personal opinion, how would you say these three virtues are ordered for the various armies? Pick a favorite, or list a couple.

2) Is there an army that you believe balances the three virtues better than the others?

If you disagree, please be polite.

This concept is baked into the FOC. While different armies might handle it in various ways, the elite, fast attack, and heavy support are frequently firepower, mobility, and armor. Pretty much every codex can put together viable lists focusing on each virtue, so we can just make sweeping generalizations.

There is some discrepancy in the game/fluff for marines. They are a pretty good balance of all 3 in the fluff. A lot of their mobility is strategic, rather then tactical. A surgical, precision strike, with enough firepower to obliterate the target, and enough armor to survive. Also, the power armor of the fluff is much better then the table.

On the tabletop, they still have a hefty dollop of mobility. Drop pods and deep strike can deploy most of the army exactly where it is needed. Fast attack choices keep the mobility alive on the field. This is for a generic TAC list. Gunlines sacrifice maneuver for firepower. LRs and terminators boost the armor. Bike armies are mobility based. There is a lot of flex, but I think at the core, all three are in harmony.

Eldar focus on maneuver, with firepower and armor being closely tied. Which is more last depends on the build. generically, I'd put craftworld Eldar at M-A-F, and DE at M-F-A

IG are normally F-A-M. Although if you are dropping vets out of flyers, rather then a wall of tanks, you can swap the last two.

Tau
1: Firepower, they can put out amazing shots against you
2: Mobility, They can outmanuver your army with JSJ, relentless models and skimmers.
3: but our armor is weaksauce, so we must use our mobility to our advantage.

Tyranids.
1. Om
2. Nom
3. Nom

Every army will have its own virtues in prioritization but you need to balance them in order to perform well. I'd argue that Imperial Guard emphasizes Firepower, then Armor, then Mobility.

Despite the fact that IG lacks mobility, in the final game of a tournament yesterday, I ended the game with my HQ and a scoring unit holding my opponent's deployment zone in addition to holding my own 2 objectives. My opponent was running a Farsight bomb list. I made sure to spread out and hit the vulnerable Fire Warriors hard behind his ADL with Manticores - do as much damage in the first turn as possible before that bomb comes in and starts wrecking face (Firepower). In addition, I needed to spread out (Mobility). Heavy Flamers on the Veterans' rushing Chimera cleaned out the final squad, and a unit of Pathfinders. By spreading my army relatively slim (something that I'm very reluctant to do typically...I usually castle), I forced my opponent to engage one target at a time with the Farsight bomb (split fire isn't so great when you can only get range to one target anyway!). Comparatively, my maneuverability was quite good with Chimeras and Vendettas delivering my scoring units.


I guess my point is this: It's easy to argue that you should ONLY play to your strengths. I would argue that you must play to your strengths AND minimize your weaknesses.

 -Loki- wrote:
Tyranids.
1. Om
2. Nom
3. Nom

Exaulted! Man, I laughed so hard I spilt my coffee.

I've long maintained that every combat simulation game is a mix of armor, firepower, and mobility,

I would rather have called it endurance, firepower (at a distance and at close range/CC/templates) and presence on the field.

Orks do not have many high vehicle armour (battle wagons aside) nor personal armour (mega Nobz aside), but they have higher then normal toughness and a cheap price for the average boy allowing a lot of bodies to be deployed. This gives them an endurance on the field comparable to those models who are smaller numerically but have large armour. The Mob size rule which affects their leadership also gives them great tenacity.

Orks have some high speed units that are worth taking and they can field a LOT of bodies on the field. That large amount of bodies gives them a presence on the field which can allow Orks to move towards many objectives/targets, and their speed allows them to move around. However, I think that kind of mobility misses something: The ability to show up by surprise, as Orks have few out flankers, scouts and drop/deep strikers that are worth taking.


I would define Orks as being an army of Endurance, with mid range fire power and limited presence/mobility.