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'll start off by saying Don't put your Khorne Bezerkers in a rhino 2' away from the enemy...

When going second and playing against tau. Dont put a bare 20man squad of boyz right at the edge of deployment expecting them to be able to charge across the field and get in a fight.

Things to avoid in 6th edition: 6th edition.

~Vryce

Don't get caught up in killing your opponent's models and forget about winning the game on objectives.

Don't start thinking about objectives on turn 5. You should start thinking about how your going to control them on turn 3.

Don't try to shoot at anything with a 2++ rerollable save. It's just not going to work.

Don't park your vehicles close to infantry that can hurt them. This 14" in most cases.

Don't expect one quad gun to be "Your answer to AA"

Don't hide behind an ADL all game. Its hard to win when your castling.

Don't try to build an all-comers list. In 5th edition it was possible. In 6th edition there are to many army types to make that possible. You will have bad matchups.

Don't get to attached to your models. In chess you trade pieces. The same happens in 40k.

Objectives matter
Objectives matter
Objectives matter

Remember to use terrain, it will help you against shooty armies. For some reason in my area people completely just throw a few pieces of terrain on the table and call it done, not rolling for it at all. It is a massacre when Tau or Imp Guard are involved.

Don't take forum complaints to heart. Just because you read people saying your army is crap, doesn't mean you should stop enjoying your army.

Don't spend half your list on one model, especially in lower point games. People won't like you.

 labmouse42 wrote:
Don't try to build an all-comers list. In 5th edition it was possible. In 6th edition there are to many army types to make that possible. You will have bad matchups.

Fantastic post, but I disagree with this. While it is true that there will always be bad match-ups for any list, having a TAC list means you usually will have less of them. It of course depends on the army you are playing as some armies struggle with a good TAC list in the current environment (GK come to mind), but in general if I can build a top notch TAC list I will do that over a gimmick. This is also dependent on meta as well though admittedly, as how well your ability to overcome the RPS element of 6th relies partly on how people are giving into it.

Dont take Mandrakes

Just dont

Don't shoot the Wraithknight all game long. Go for his/her troops instead.

But there is very little overlap between weapons I fire at wraithknights and weapons I fire at troops. Shoot both of them.

Avoid shooting the riptide. Its a fire magnet and a strong one at that.

shoot pathfinders instead.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:
Don't try to build an all-comers list. In 5th edition it was possible. In 6th edition there are to many army types to make that possible. You will have bad matchups.

Fantastic post, but I disagree with this. While it is true that there will always be bad match-ups for any list, having a TAC list means you usually will have less of them. It of course depends on the army you are playing as some armies struggle with a good TAC list in the current environment (GK come to mind), but in general if I can build a top notch TAC list I will do that over a gimmick. This is also dependent on meta as well though admittedly, as how well your ability to overcome the RPS element of 6th relies partly on how people are giving into it.

Agreed. I ONLY build TAC lists, and I do quite well.

Don't rely heavily on just one unit.

Always have a backup plan

This was true in previous editions too, but:
Don't overspend on killy upgrades for a unit that dies just as easily as a cheaper, more basic one (fully-kitted Vanguard Vets and Chosen, I'm looking at you).

Dont get butt hurt if you loose! This game has come down to who can play better tactics then the other. If you think you have an awesome list and your opponents hasnt got a chance, remember you had best pray to the dice gods that your arrogance wont be your undoing.

If you're not having fun, stahp, step back, look at what you're doing, and change it so that you'll have fun.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
Fantastic post, but I disagree with this. While it is true that there will always be bad match-ups for any list, having a TAC list means you usually will have less of them.

Right. That's not a TAC list. That's a TMC list (Take Most Comers) list.
That's what I build today.

There is a big difference between a TMC list and a TAC list. With a TAC list you will be asking yourself "How can I stick in 5 melta guns to take down LR spam. Oh wait, how do I take down FMC builds. Hey, how can I deal with ork hordes at the same time".
When you try you wind up with a list that sucks at everything.

The way you build lists is to now just ask yourself "What am I likely to run across? Can I address more or all of them?" Your going to have to leave some bad matchups -- its just how you address them.

We both are thinking the same thing, but describing it differently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chaos Santa wrote:
Don't rely heavily on just one unit.

Agreed. Navigating around a deathstar can be rather easy. Depending on your army's mobility and the deathstar's mobility.

Commander OB wrote:
Dont get butt hurt if you loose! This game has come down to who can play better tactics then the other. If you think you have an awesome list and your opponents hasnt got a chance, remember you had best pray to the dice gods that your arrogance wont be your undoing.

I have to chime in here on this one, the game is 40% tactics and 60% dice rolls. You can be as tactical as you want but if you cant roll higher than a 2 your pretty much screwed in all aspects.

In practice, I think most TAC lists are indeed actually TMC lists.

Matt2429 wrote:

Commander OB wrote:
Dont get butt hurt if you loose! This game has come down to who can play better tactics then the other. If you think you have an awesome list and your opponents hasnt got a chance, remember you had best pray to the dice gods that your arrogance wont be your undoing.

I have to chime in here on this one, the game is 40% tactics and 60% dice rolls. You can be as tactical as you want but if you cant roll higher than a 2 your pretty much screwed in all aspects.

I'd have to disagree...I once played a 2500 point game and did 70 pts of damage to my opponent...he killed all but 200ish pts and I massacred him because I kept the objectives in mind the whole game. His amazing dice rolls meant nothing to my superior tactics.

Just like a thunderhammer can have amazing rolls killing termagants...and die to the horde he isnt suited to fight.

Tactics ensure dice rolls are as good as they're supposed to be...this whole game is about maximizing your chances of success. That's why you see spam lists...the law of large numbers states that they'll be more likely to achieve the goal you're hoping to achieve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
In practice, I think most TAC lists are indeed actually TMC lists.

I presume you don't mean Tyranid Monstrous Creature lists.

No I meant Take MOST Comers, as opposed to Take All Comers. Of course for BA, we generally strive for Take One Comer.

He meant Take Most Commers lists.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
Fantastic post, but I disagree with this. While it is true that there will always be bad match-ups for any list, having a TAC list means you usually will have less of them.

Right. That's not a TAC list. That's a TMC list (Take Most Comers) list.
That's what I build today.

There is a big difference between a TMC list and a TAC list. With a TAC list you will be asking yourself "How can I stick in 5 melta guns to take down LR spam. Oh wait, how do I take down FMC builds. Hey, how can I deal with ork hordes at the same time".
When you try you wind up with a list that sucks at everything.

The way you build lists is to now just ask yourself "What am I likely to run across? Can I address more or all of them?" Your going to have to leave some bad matchups -- its just how you address them.

We both are thinking the same thing, but describing it differently.

Technically speaking you are correct. Realistically there is no such thing as a take-all-comers list, but I think that's why when we build a list that can handle most things we can it take-all-comers, because TMC as you call is as close as you possibly can get.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
Realistically there is no such thing as a take-all-comers list, but I think that's why when we build a list that can handle most things we can it take-all-comers, because TMC as you call is as close as you possibly can get.

I think in 5th edition it was more feasable of a thought to bring a true TAC list.

In 5th edition, a lot of the meta revolved around building vehicle spam lists. So when building a TAC list you only had a few things to really worry about.
* Do I have the tools to take down light armor ... rifleman dreads.... check
* Do I have the tools to take down heavy armor ... melta guns .... check
* Do I have the tools to take down infantry hordes ... flamers ... check.
I got this!

6th edition has changed this up by adding a --lot-- more army types. Allies alone has increased the variety of armies exponentially. Then we add in flyers and swooping FMCs. Psychic powers change things up as armies can now get a variety of different disciplines previously unavailable. The variety of army types has exploded.

This is what caused the death of the TAC list IMHO. Now we just have "Take Most Comers" lists. It's really been like that for a while in 6th edition. I kind of like it, as it means that there is a lot more varity at big events. I remember at the heart of 5th edition going to a tourney and seeing 80%+ of marines.

5th edition had most armies still running on 3rd or 4th edition lists. Marines were played because they got updates early. And they have the rifleman/melta/flamer trinity.

Matt2429 wrote:

Commander OB wrote:
Dont get butt hurt if you loose! This game has come down to who can play better tactics then the other. If you think you have an awesome list and your opponents hasnt got a chance, remember you had best pray to the dice gods that your arrogance wont be your undoing.

I have to chime in here on this one, the game is 40% tactics and 60% dice rolls. You can be as tactical as you want but if you cant roll higher than a 2 your pretty much screwed in all aspects.

I have to disagree. Its more like 100% tactics +/- 50% due to probability.

A good player will wind more often and more consistently, but there are no guarantees.

Zagman wrote:

Matt2429 wrote:

Commander OB wrote:
Dont get butt hurt if you loose! This game has come down to who can play better tactics then the other. If you think you have an awesome list and your opponents hasnt got a chance, remember you had best pray to the dice gods that your arrogance wont be your undoing.

I have to chime in here on this one, the game is 40% tactics and 60% dice rolls. You can be as tactical as you want but if you cant roll higher than a 2 your pretty much screwed in all aspects.

I have to disagree. Its more like 100% tactics +/- 50% due to probability.

A good player will wind more often and more consistently, but there are no guarantees.

How could a game be 150% tactics?

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:

Zagman wrote:

Matt2429 wrote:

Commander OB wrote:
Dont get butt hurt if you loose! This game has come down to who can play better tactics then the other. If you think you have an awesome list and your opponents hasnt got a chance, remember you had best pray to the dice gods that your arrogance wont be your undoing.

I have to chime in here on this one, the game is 40% tactics and 60% dice rolls. You can be as tactical as you want but if you cant roll higher than a 2 your pretty much screwed in all aspects.

I have to disagree. Its more like 100% tactics +/- 50% due to probability.

A good player will wind more often and more consistently, but there are no guarantees.

How could a game be 150% tactics?

Just...

............

...because!

 labmouse42 wrote:
Now we just have "Take Most Comers" lists. It's really been like that for a while in 6th edition. I kind of like it, as it means that there is a lot more varity at big events. I remember at the heart of 5th edition going to a tourney and seeing 80%+ of marines.

I agree. It really showcases the game a lot better too, and I find this is more helpful for tournament players like ourselves as we get to learn more instead of just going through the motions.

Martel732 wrote:
No I meant Take MOST Comers, as opposed to Take All Comers. Of course for BA, we generally strive for Take One Comer.

That last part about BA made me laugh out loud! Too funny.