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.

I tend to prefer the latter, however many players seem to believe WAAC lists are the only way to go. Just wanted to see what dakkanauts prefer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also love that you can't edit poll options because my auto correct went to town on this one...

I much prefer the tactical list, though I suck at running them, my mind just doesn't work that way...

Your definition of tactical list assumes your opponent is bad to work. 40k has no hidden information, so confusing or distracting your opponent only works if your opponent isn't good enough to see through your bluff. You push a rhino full of tacticals ahead full speed, it doesn't matter why. You've still overextended a scoring unit and the best opponents will punish you for it. Mind games only work when you can hide information.

I would assume a truly tactical list would be one set for utility and flexibility.

Also, I'm yellow flagging this because this belongs in general 40k discussions.

Valid point on the general discussion comment, apologies.

I would describe those lists differently:

WAAC list = good list
Tactical list = gimmick list

I'm not even sure what the OP means by those definitions.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
I would describe those lists differently:

WAAC list = good list
Tactical list = gimmick list

Kind of what i meant... I was implying that a WAAC list is one that is as good as possibly according to math hammer, and a tactical (gimmick) list is one designed to manipulate rules and or your opponent. Actually it is oddly difficult to describe what I mean by a tactical list... Oh well most people seemed to catch my drift.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I meant to type survivability instead of suitability, but my phone vetoed my word...

Isn't a waac list same as tactical list?

Under his own definitions it certainly seems so...

FR33Kandy wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
I would describe those lists differently:
WAAC list = good list
Tactical list = gimmick list

Kind of what i meant... I was implying that a WAAC list is one that is as good as possibly according to math hammer, and a tactical (gimmick) list is one designed to manipulate rules and or your opponent. Actually it is oddly difficult to describe what I mean by a tactical list... Oh well most people seemed to catch my drift..

I dislike gimmick lists - they greatly exacerbate the rock-paper-scissors that 40K already suffers from.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

FR33Kandy wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
I would describe those lists differently:
WAAC list = good list
Tactical list = gimmick list

Kind of what i meant... I was implying that a WAAC list is one that is as good as possibly according to math hammer, and a tactical (gimmick) list is one designed to manipulate rules and or your opponent. Actually it is oddly difficult to describe what I mean by a tactical list... Oh well most people seemed to catch my drift..

I dislike gimmick lists - they greatly exacerbate the rock-paper-scissors that 40K already suffers from.

Um...Warhammer is essentially an RTS on a table. Rock-paper-scissors is a game of pure hard-counters, so I'm assuming that's what you mean. Considering RTS's fun comes from micromanaging your hard-counters to maximum effectiveness, the Rock-paper-scissors is what makes the game good.

It's why we have meltaguns, they hard-counter armor.
And it's why we have armor, because they hard-counter anti-infantry.
And, you guessed it, anti-infantry is what kills those meltaguns.

Yes, I've oversimplified it, but it's because i'm too right to warrant much explanation.

From a competative standpoint, the problem with gimmick lists (current ones I can think of would be Epidemius Demons, and Air Cron) is that often a single FAQ ruling or an opposing army's new codex completely nulifies it. Unless you have a lot of disposable time and income to buy, assemble, and paint a new army whenever the wind changes, you are better off building an army based around solid coverage of the basics. We have enough problems with GW writing rules designed to keep us buying models, why make the situation worse?

Now from a fun standpoint, run what you like as many min-max armies end up being spam lists that can get very boring to play. It really comes down to finding what you want out of the game and what your local players like.

I don't get those definitions at all.

A tactical list should be a list that works as a cohesive force, units compliment and support each other more than a random sampling of units from the codex. For example, a fast moving tactical list wouldn't take slow units unless they helped the fast moving part somehow. An army that has fast and slow, but which cover each other effectively. A tactical list would still have flexibility in how it is used.

A gimmick list would be something else entirely, a list that only works as one approach. All drop pod, non-moving gunline, and other setups that have only one way to be used and if the opponent has the paper for the gimmick list's rock then it fails because of the lack of flexibility.

A WAAC list is commonly used to describe a list that uses as many of the most effective units for their points and is really based on the metagame. If the main rules change, WAAC lists can become ineffective, and to be honest it is a poor description because it is entirely subjective. Personally, I hate the term because it is used like 'cheese' which is often based on misinformation and perception.

I strongly disagree with the OP's definition of tactical. My personal definition of a "Tactical" army list is one that is built to adapt to all comers. It may consist of a sampling of all the FOC slots to accomplish this, but it generally not too heavy in any one area (except maybe basic troops). A jack of all trades list if you will. I typically bring this kind of list when I don't know what I'm playing against.

While I prefer to field my version of a Tactical list over a WAAC list, I readily admit that I'm guilty of fielding the occassion WAAC army (as I think we all are). Its often hard to resist when you know exactly what you are up against (especially if you know your opponent is a WAAC guy).

I've always disliked when people start applying unnecessary labels to things like list building. Also, the proliferation of 'WAAC' and how it is used incorrectly more often than not.

Furthermore, I don't understand why people make such a big fuss over their opponent's list (whether its too hard or too soft). I'd be far more concerned with my opponent as a human being and how that affects my gaming experience. Then again, I haven't played in over a year, so I'd just relish any kind of 40k game.

Funny enough, by OP's definition, my list would be "WAAC", I play MSU, but my list is so faaaaar away from what is commonly considered the WAAC list for DE. My list has 1 venom and 2 ravagers at 1500pt, that is waaay below the average amount you'd see at that point level.

I'm only new to the game so I know my strategies are still in prototype. Because of this, I either play with the intent to mind flip, (lot's of crypteks and bull shike abilities), or with the intent to develop support tactics.
I usually have a doomsday ark in a forgotten useless corner that fires blasts into any thing that walks into the open. If no one is in the open, I fire into buildings full of units to remind them of the power. My warriors
take objectives and pick off anyone getting to close objectives and key units, like the doomsday ark. My lychguard with an HQ protect him, while my HQ has a tachyon arrow. I wouldn't use it unless necessary,
but it sure scares the enemy into keeping there vehicles back. Lychguard alone are good at stalling an advance but are usually replaced by praetorians who can jump behind enemy lines and stir up havoc.
This effectively weakens the opposing force before my immortals, heavy support, and scarabs all come in under support of recently deployed melee jump infantry and deathmarks.

WAAC: 6+ nercon flier list
Tactical: 2 or less nercon fliers in a nercon list that isn't spamming wraiths.

WAAC: Dragiowing with cortez
Tactical: an actually fking GK army

WAAC: Long fang and jaws spam SW
Tactical: SW drop pod list

So to define:
WAAC: Bringing all the broken in your codex
Tactical: Playing the game.

 juraigamer wrote:
WAAC: 6+ nercon flier list
Tactical: 2 or less nercon fliers in a nercon list that isn't spamming wraiths.

WAAC: Dragiowing with cortez
Tactical: an actually fking GK army

WAAC: Long fang and jaws spam SW
Tactical: SW drop pod list

So to define:
WAAC: Bringing all the broken in your codex
Tactical: Playing the game.

You're confusing "Tactical" with Fluffy.

Tactical implies you're using all your resources available to the best of their ability in the best application possible. IE. Flyerspam, Draigowing, etc.

WAAC's is basically a list that's designed to be as big of a donkeycave as possible to your opponent and leave them absolutely no chance of even putting up a fight. All the while the guy plaing said list is being a TFG in his attitude to add insult to injury.

WAAC's: taking the likes of 6 Valkyries + 3 Vendettas vs. Tyranids
Tactical: Either asking your opponent if they'd like to face a pure air cav, or else tonning it down a notch by taking fewer planes because those poor 'Nids only have 1 Fortification & a handfull of expensive FMC's to take down flyers!

WAAC's: Taking your ultra competitive Tournament 'Ard Boyz type list vs 'The New Guy'.
Tactical: Bringing a competitive and well rounded 'all comers' list that isn't just 'spam unit X' vs 'The New Guy.

WAAC's: List Tailoring!!!
Tactical: Bringing multiple lists to a gaming night and/or arranging with your opponent if you guys want to tailor to eachother's armies.

WAAC's: Exploiting shaddy loopholes in the rules to only benifit your army.
Tactical: Playing RAW while using a modicrum of common sense!

Experiment 626 wrote:
WAAC's is basically a list that's designed to be as big of a donkeycave as possible to your opponent and leave them absolutely no chance of even putting up a fight. All the while the guy plaing said list is being a TFG in his attitude to add insult to injury.

WAAC's: taking the likes of 6 Valkyries + 3 Vendettas vs. Tyranids
Tactical: Either asking your opponent if they'd like to face a pure air cav, or else tonning it down a notch by taking fewer planes because those poor 'Nids only have 1 Fortification & a handfull of expensive FMC's to take down flyers!

WAAC's: Taking your ultra competitive Tournament 'Ard Boyz type list vs 'The New Guy'.
Tactical: Bringing a competitive and well rounded 'all comers' list that isn't just 'spam unit X' vs 'The New Guy.

WAAC's: List Tailoring!!!
Tactical: Bringing multiple lists to a gaming night and/or arranging with your opponent if you guys want to tailor to eachother's armies.

WAAC's: Exploiting shaddy loopholes in the rules to only benifit your army.
Tactical: Playing RAW while using a modicrum of common sense!

You're confusing "Type of list" with "Type of play"

List tailoring is neither a WAAC list or a Tactical list. It's something WAAC's do, yes. Same goes for the others. I agree with your points; but the idea is more about lists rather than "how you take on opponents." Actually, your second example (The 'Ard Boyz list one) Touches it nicely, nevermind.

I play tactical, Mixedwing Dark Angels (fingers crossed Dark Angels dont get hosed with the upcoming dex). I can handle small groups of power, but any type of spam will undoubtedly table me.

I did not mean to start a semantic argument... but sadly I have... I guess ignore my question as 50% of people failed to capture the essence of what I meant...

My question was intended to be meta gaming vs everything else, but sadly I failed to type that appropriately in my tired state... apologies.

Just edit your question

What is a 'Meta' list?

77%?
Interesting.

I play whatever the heck I feel like playing, forget the meta and WAAC gaming. Still win often enough, and that works for me,

 TheCaptain wrote:

FR33Kandy wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
I would describe those lists differently:
WAAC list = good list
Tactical list = gimmick list

Kind of what i meant... I was implying that a WAAC list is one that is as good as possibly according to math hammer, and a tactical (gimmick) list is one designed to manipulate rules and or your opponent. Actually it is oddly difficult to describe what I mean by a tactical list... Oh well most people seemed to catch my drift..

I dislike gimmick lists - they greatly exacerbate the rock-paper-scissors that 40K already suffers from.

It's why we have meltaguns, they hard-counter armor.
And it's why we have armor, because they hard-counter anti-infantry.
And, you guessed it, anti-infantry is what kills those meltaguns.
Yes, I've oversimplified it, but it's because i'm too right to warrant much explanation.

yeah right and then your playing in the 3ed with eldar star cannon spam or in the 4th against IW spam or in the 5th against GK spam or in the 6th against necron scyth spam and those armies crumble .

armies are good because designers want them to be so . If the design team has no idea how to make an army good [case of nids ] then the army sucks . If the design team wants OP , then they get WFB chaos demons killing an edition of playing or necron scyth wing not doing the same to w40k , only because marines make up 60%+ of the game community.

All the realy WAAC armies were both ignoring the opposing army or what the opponent does and had a undercosted weapon options which ended with their armies getting better results durning math hammer testing.