Mobile v Static Warfare

[Schultzhoffen]

I'm a firm believer in a mobile (preferably mechanised) form of warfare. Static Firepower seems reminiscent of WW1.

If you can force your opponent to react to you, he is struggling to enact his plans. The idea is to dominate the middle of the board, harass the flanks, sow disruption, move, move, move.

Sitting still or marching your men rather blindly up the board to their deaths (think Waterloo) just won't cut it.

Could IG be the exception? Then why Valkyries or Chimaeras? At some stage the army needs to move, swiftly and decisively.

What are the best methods for this board domination, movement? Vehicles, Deep Strike, Overwhelming Firepower, numbers?

Ideas? Thoughts?

[zanzibarthefirst]

If you look at one of my threads, I'm trying to construct a CC based guard army which certainly cannot be static.

THis debate is mainly doiwn to the player to be honest. IMO, the better the general the more mobile you are because you are able to take calculated risks. Poeple who do not know the game so well will tend to just sit back and blast away

[MajorSoB]

Mobile vs Static is dictated by the rules now. Under 4th edition, static gunline armies were the nutz since victory was based of killing, and who in their right mind was going to give up range and cover saves to advance when they didnt have to. Now under 5th edition if you cant move to capture or control objectives you really are fighting an uphill battle. Transports benefited under the new vehicle damage chart and made mech armies much more viable. Some armies move better than others but in 5th edition I have yet to see a sit back and shoot army without any movement since they will lose in most of the newer style missions.

[Xas]

It really depends on player skill.

against competent oponents mobility is important because it can give you easy advantages.

against incompetent oponents sitting back, shooting and ending it quickly rather than wasting time, moving your models around is more convenient :)

[Lord Azaghul]

Oddly enough one army I've seen successfully sitting back and shooting is markerlight transport heavy tau toteing lots of rail guns.

The sit back in cover, blasting armour for turns 1-3, then jump the fire warriors into the transports to sit on the objectives just 4 and 5.

I think it depends on the army. SM should never sit back and start a shooting war, their just aren't enough of them. Guard however can, but can also bring the sheer volumn of scoring units into the game (and thus be mobile even without a skimmer!)

[DoctorEvil]

Here's the thing.....while 2 of the 3 standard missions are objective based, you have some control over where those objectives are placed in both missions. Ideally somewhere with cover, where you can set-up a static firebase and attempt to make your opponent come at you in order to claim that objective (assuming he decides to not to just concede the objective to you). So having an element of your army be static for this purpose is not necessarily a bad thing. I believe IG probably has the best options for a static element in their army lists at an affordable cost.

But you still need to go and claim or contest other objectives which means mobility, more often than not it means mechanized mobility. Mechanized has an advantage over other methods of mobility in terms of flexiblity. Drop Pods & Outlfanking....you're at the mercy of reserve rolls. Deep Strike leaves you at the mercy of mishaps or scatter. A Chimera, Rhino or other transport leaves you at the mercy of your own decision making :)

[ggg]

I have always been mad about agressive, in your face armies - in 2nd Ed I ran a horde army of goff orks that took bags of casualities while storming across the battlefield. I then ran a deep striking Terminator army with infitrating scouts. I then had an all infantry light infantry guard army (viet Kong theme) which infiltrated and had surpirsing speed. For 5th I ran a drop pod, and deepstriking space marine list. I am now working on a fast Imp G army - valks, chimeras and Russ's that move and shoot.

I have never liked static armies-
I have increasingly looked for armies that come from more than one direction / angle and are not 2D 17th /18th Century line up and shoot affairs.

The changes in the rules have had a noticable impact on my success levels. In 5th ed, I am having more success and this approach is more viable and more common.

As this forum and site has taught me - the gunline is very possible, particularly with guard and marines with sufficient allies. But for me, I want to be Genis Khan, Alexander the Great, Napoleaon - guys who won big and with elan by using mobility, speed, surprise and breaking the usual lines battle. There lies the glory.

I agree with everything that Doctor Evil says above - spot on, but personaly, my play personality and taste dictates my playing style far more than my analsis.

[Just_Me]

While I actually don’t get a chance to play very often, so I can’t speak to actual tabletop effectiveness, my philosophy has always been a mixture of the two. Heavy stationary firepower units to pin enemy elements, and high mobility units to take advantage of weaknesses thus generated. I think we all tend to characterize warfare as either “static” (primitive) or “mobile” (advanced), when the reality of true combined arms is a seamless blend of the two.

[Chumbalaya]

Mobile vs Static is dictated by the rules now. Under 4th edition, static gunline armies were the nutz since victory was based of killing, and who in their right mind was going to give up range and cover saves to advance when they didnt have to. Now under 5th edition if you cant move to capture or control objectives you really are fighting an uphill battle. Transports benefited under the new vehicle damage chart and made mech armies much more viable. Some armies move better than others but in 5th edition I have yet to see a sit back and shoot army without any movement since they will lose in most of the newer style missions.

This is a big factor. 5th encourages mobile armies now with tougher and cheaper vehicles, increased importance of objectives, and the boost to melta and assaults. 4th was a snooze fest because it encouraged static shooty armies.

Tau, IG, even Orks can do static shooty pretty well. IG have tons of firepower down range, Tau have railguns and markerlights, and Orks can just pour on the dakka. It's kinda hard to hold objectives when everything is dead :P

Static armies do need some mobile units to capture objectives, preferably held in reserve for later turns.

[DarkLink]

Right, now with how tough vehicles are, meltas are needed to kill them (they really need to increase the points value of meltaguns, as they are crazy cheap for what they can do) and with the brutality of assaults, 5th ed revolves around close range firefights.

[Nabterayl]

In general mobility is a good capability to have, but it's not good for anything unless it allows you to place another unit within your zone of control or an objective under your feet. You don't have to be standing on something to control it - in fact, many armies don't control what they're standing on. Most Tau units, for instance, actually only control a donut-shaped circle around the ground they're occupying - if an enemy actually reaches the ground they're standing on, they're so likely to win the ensuing combat that they are effectively out of the Tau unit's zone of control.

If mobility lets you bring your objectives under your zone of control, then great. But not all units need mobility to achieve that, in which case mobility is only necessary to the extent it allows you to score.

[Schultzhoffen]

Interesting comments. Agreed that it depends a lot on 4th - 5th Edition. Also, playing style.However, I like the idea of movement and energy across the board.

I'm 100% in agreement with ggg.

A static games seems boring to me, anyway. I'd rather lose an exciting game than win a boring one, in any case, I prefer narrative-driven games over tournaments where I play and make decisions based on coolness rather than simply with the aim to win (although winning is obviously better than losing and I play pretty hard to do just that but winning is not all that matters).

The real key, I think, is to support each unit. Just having troops screaming around willy-nilly is going to get them to pursue new careers as smoking compost. ie, no unit moves alone, every unit has back up, etc.