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.

Hello all

I have been lurking on and off for several months, but I finally have a question I hope is worth asking. Last month I played a game at my local game shop, I was using my Blood Angels against some White Scars and I got my rear end handed to me. I got to thinking about how to balance against unknown foes. How do I build an army so that it can stand a chance against a melee foe or a mech foe, this combined with mass enemies versus fewer units each with much higher armor values.

Is it better to build an army to deal with one specific threat, like tanks or mass assault, or is it better to do a little bit of everything?

Ah what you are referring to is a TAC list. These kinds of lists can be near endless in their amount of options for all races as opposed to more focused lists with much less options for individual races and thus more predictable for what's going to come to the table especially if it's a racial weakness. But before I digress for too long, use TAC in your searches for ideas.

Thank you for the tip!

TAC lists are by far and away the hardest to write. There really is no perfect list and it is something that is an elusive goal.

Part of the fun is trying to create the perfect list.

 Stone81 wrote:
Hello all

I have been lurking on and off for several months, but I finally have a question I hope is worth asking. Last month I played a game at my local game shop, I was using my Blood Angels against some White Scars and I got my rear end handed to me. I got to thinking about how to balance against unknown foes. How do I build an army so that it can stand a chance against a melee foe or a mech foe, this combined with mass enemies versus fewer units each with much higher armor values.

Is it better to build an army to deal with one specific threat, like tanks or mass assault, or is it better to do a little bit of everything?

Don't believe the hype with TAC. There is no list that will counter every army 100% of the time. What you can do is have tools to deal with most threats.

For example, with Blood Angels, you should have enough Melta to handle tanks, enough grav/plasma to handle terminators/MC's/ light vehicles. and enough bolters to cut through hordes.

Yea tac lists that are perfect is a holy grail that will never be found. Fact is you can't account for everything. Too many factors.

The above vein said there are ways to make a tac work like cutting out armies you never play as factor to consider. Don't play eldar ever? Less of a problem to worry about dealing with magic use and jet bikes.

Don't play against crons ever? The idea of fighting a persistent enemy with incredible durability isn't much of a factor anymore.

This can help cut down the need for considerations. At my local circle of players I don't play against eldar or de all that much that's a whole aspect of play I don't need to worry about fast moving magic armies, bam out of sight and out of mind. I can make a tac list to focus on other things like imperial guard vehicle parks and daemon flying circuses.

Utility (the ability to "take all comers") is important in a list, but I think that an army with a heavy focus tends to defeat TAC lists. Armies that put all their strength into one kind of tactic or ability, while lacking in versatility, can often put more pressure on that part of the TAC army than it can bear.

I know it's difficult, but I like to try to make sure all of my units are C students in every subject at least. It's fine (and even preferable) for them to make A's when it comes to anti-tank or anti-horde roles, but if they can make A-'s in that role while still pulling high C's or low B's against other roles, that's even better. If all my primary anti-tank units break, I want to be able to mop up what's left with my third-stringers.

A unit with no capacity for a given role is one I try to avoid, when possible.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Utility (the ability to "take all comers") is important in a list, but I think that an army with a heavy focus tends to defeat TAC lists. Armies that put all their strength into one kind of tactic or ability, while lacking in versatility, can often put more pressure on that part of the TAC army than it can bear.

I know it's difficult, but I like to try to make sure all of my units are C students in every subject at least. It's fine (and even preferable) for them to make A's when it comes to anti-tank or anti-horde roles, but if they can make A-'s in that role while still pulling high C's or low B's against other roles, that's even better. If all my primary anti-tank units break, I want to be able to mop up what's left with my third-stringers.

A unit with no capacity for a given role is one I try to avoid, when possible.

exactly,
This is how I play things though it's fun to add in a single minded drone once and a while like a tank destroyer or a flakk battery.