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.

With the amount of tactical discussion that's been generated by the amount of new and upcoming releases from GW (and one release in particular...), I have been pondering the question of whether the concept of the "Take All Comers" list, which is to say an army that stands a reasonable chance of countering any opposing army build, is still applicable and relevant to the current state of Warhammer 40k.

I would argue that it no longer applies, because of the amount of armies and strategies that are currently present in the game.

On of the reasons that armies like Eldar, Tau, and Necrons are considered top-tier is because of their ability to provide counters to multiple army builds from various other factions. I would argue that instead of this greater "TAC" ability, these armies instead possess other factors that take advantage of favorable rules and game conditions, such as very strong shooting, heavy specialization and MSU ability, or intense durability that allow armies from these factions to achieve so many victories.

Instead of focusing on making a list that can beat anything else, I would argue for building lists that are focused on playing to a faction's particular strengths. For example, there is no way that a Blood Angel army could beat out a Tau army in a purely shooting game. But Blood Angles have much greater assault capability due to their army's particular traits. Therefore Blood Angel armies should play to their strengths and focus on getting as many powerful units into close combat as possible.

Do any other Dakka members have any opinions on whether "Take All Comers" lists are still viable in 40k?

TAC is a fallacy, it's TMC a Take Most Comers that most Stevie for. For something to be truly TAC it'd have to me immensely overpowering compared to the rest of the armies out there. Not even the new Eldar can pull off TAC, because you could mono hike an Eldar list that would render your TAC list worthless.

TMC is all we can strive for, TAC doesn't exist, more can it truly.

 Zagman wrote:
TAC is a fallacy, it's TMC a Take Most Comers that most Stevie for. For something to be truly TAC it'd have to me immensely overpowering compared to the rest of the armies out there. Not even the new Eldar can pull off TAC, because you could mono hike an Eldar list that would render your TAC list worthless.

TMC is all we can strive for, TAC doesn't exist, more can it truly.

I understand that there will occasionally be a "hard-counter" to certain army builds. But if an army cannot build a list that cannot respond to every threat, would that army not be better off simply focusing all of its resources into one particular strength?

It used to be a thing, but not anymore.

It is still a thing, but armies with a strong focus in one area will give TAC lists a hard time.

How do you simultaneously prepare for an army of nothing but superheavies, an army of nothing but flyers, and a "green tide" army? True TAC disappeared when GW put flyers and superheavies into "normal" games, and then removed any limits on how many of them you can take.

I don't think TAC disappeared with the introduction of Flyers in 6th and super heavies in 7th. I would say that apart from a few lists (Cron air, Adlance) flyer spam and super heavies are relatively rare in most games.

Then again, I didn't play in any editions before those. Did TAC ever exist, or was it a figment of the community's collective imagination?

 TheNewBlood wrote:
I would say that apart from a few lists (Cron air, Adlance) flyer spam and super heavies are relatively rare in most games.

That's probably because most groups ban/restrict superheavies and there's social pressure to limit how many flyers you bring outside of really competitive events. But if you have to limit what people can take (whether through bans or social pressure) then it's a pretty clear concession that TAC is an impossible goal.

Did TAC ever exist, or was it a figment of the community's collective imagination?

It did, back when the number of unit types was small enough that you could reasonably expect to bring enough counters for all of them, and when the FOC actually meant something and limited the ability to make one-dimensional spam lists.

TAC is dead. GW took it out back, made it look at the flowers and shot it in the back of the head.

Yeah, I think the final nail in the coffin for TAC lists was when the Imperial Knights came out.....

Mass infantry game, not a problem. heck even flyers can be hit with the right mysterious tactical objective roll.

Just those knights are so tough!!

AND I can't get one :(

(Where's my chaos knights damnit!!!)

Spam lists are at the point where a TAC list can’t keep up. The more competitive lists are going to spam the good stuff. Which is why we see a lot of deathstar of gimmick lists, that do one thing really well and just ram it down your opponent’s army. This leads to a lot of rock/paper/scissors play.

But if people bring TAC lists, and play against other TAC lists, they still work. Obviously this is going to be meta dependent. If your FLGS doesn’t play that way, your TAC list will probably get steamrolled. But gameplay is generally more enjoyable for both sides when you leave the R/P/S spam behind.

IMHO, YMMV, etc.

Grumzimus wrote:Yeah, I think the final nail in the coffin for TAC lists was when the Imperial Knights came out.....

Mass infantry game, not a problem. heck even flyers can be hit with the right mysterious tactical objective roll.

Just those knights are so tough!!

AND I can't get one :(

(Where's my chaos knights damnit!!!)

I personally don't have much of a problem dealing with Imperial Knights. They are only really scary in close combat.They simply require at least two sources of dedicated Anti-Tank, and some careful positioning.

However, this all goes out the window when dealing with more than one Knight, which no one should ever have to. Knights are just as much of a superheavy as a Baneblade, and most people wouldn't want to play against more than one Baneblade variant either.

Nevelon wrote:Spam lists are at the point where a TAC list can’t keep up. The more competitive lists are going to spam the good stuff. Which is why we see a lot of deathstar of gimmick lists, that do one thing really well and just ram it down your opponent’s army. This leads to a lot of rock/paper/scissors play.

But if people bring TAC lists, and play against other TAC lists, they still work. Obviously this is going to be meta dependent. If your FLGS doesn’t play that way, your TAC list will probably get steamrolled. But gameplay is generally more enjoyable for both sides when you leave the R/P/S spam behind.

IMHO, YMMV, etc.

I agree that this approach does seem more balanced, but the appearance is deceiving. Like the examples I gave, some armies are simply better at the sort of list that the "TAC" strives for.

Some armies, like Tyranids, Orks, and Chaos can't build to the same TAC standard as Space Marines, so they build lists away from that standard that better suit their army-wide rules and abilities.

If you're worrying about people spamming certain units, simply limit the number of multiple units certain armies can take. It's not like everyone isn't already playing with some sort of house rules, so why not go further?

From what I've experienced, TAC is something for an Ork army to strive for. So instead of "TAC", an Ork list in the 1500+ pt range tries to turn it into "how many threats" role in that losing a particular unit or lots of casualties doesn't cripple your list. So I'll have one big blob to absorb wounds and present threat and multiple smaller ones to tie them up.

When we face Spammy lists though it's an uphill battle.

I think I could still do it. Weather or not it would be fun however is another thing.

Take fleshtearers with min HQ and troops, for at least 5 drop pods. Fill drop pods with vanguard, probably 4 10 man squads with arc rifles, and 1 or 2 with plasma. rest of the points in AA dunecrawlers and ground vanguard to taste. Honestly cant think one one army I wouldnt at least have a fair shot at beating with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
should clarify "skitarii" vanguard not marine vanguard.

I only play the game with close friends and buddies at my local store, in which case we agree beforehand about what we're playing and make lists accordingly.

I will never join my other local store's league ever again, and will never play against those people if my life depended on it. Take that as you will.

 Orock wrote:
I think I could still do it. Weather or not it would be fun however is another thing.

Take fleshtearers with min HQ and troops, for at least 5 drop pods. Fill drop pods with vanguard, probably 4 10 man squads with arc rifles, and 1 or 2 with plasma. rest of the points in AA dunecrawlers and ground vanguard to taste. Honestly cant think one one army I wouldnt at least have a fair shot at beating with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
should clarify "skitarii" vanguard not marine vanguard.

Yay, My codex is nothing more than a taxi service for better armies. feth this game.

 Nevelon wrote:
But if people bring TAC lists, and play against other TAC lists, they still work. Obviously this is going to be meta dependent. If your FLGS doesn’t play that way, your TAC list will probably get steamrolled. But gameplay is generally more enjoyable for both sides when you leave the R/P/S spam behind.

Why are you assuming that TAC and "spam" are mutually exclusive concepts? TAC refers to the ability to beat any potential opponent, not to having a diverse mix of units. For example, a tank army that has anti-infantry vehicles, anti-tank vehicles, anti-aircraft vehicles, scoring vehicles, etc, is still a TAC list even though it could be accurately labeled "tank spam". In fact, spam lists are often the closest you can get to a true TAC list because the things people tend to spam are the overpowered units that are capable of effectively dealing with a wide variety of potential targets.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
If you're worrying about people spamming certain units, simply limit the number of multiple units certain armies can take. It's not like everyone isn't already playing with some sort of house rules, so why not go further?

You can do that, but then you're conceding that TAC is an impossible goal.

Sure there are some spam lists that are going to dominate and/or eat a TAC list alive, but in most cases, I think it really depends on two things:
1: Knowing your list and capabilities
2: Knowing your opponents list and capabilities

There's quite a lot more depth to 40k then a lot of gamers lately seem to give it credit for. A fairly experienced player is gonna go into a tournament with a good idea of how he's gonna handle certain units. Most of the time though the problem is not the Codex your playing against, but a failure to know how your opponent is going to use it.

There's such a huge variety to tactics and units across the board, my lack of detailed knowledge of my opponents lost is generally what causes my TAC list to fail, not an Imperial Knight or Stompa.

It's a game you have to know how to play in order to win, not how to list build... That sure helps though haha

TAC vs TAC is fun

The second you hit a skew it becomes a blood bath

so take skews

 Peregrine wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
But if people bring TAC lists, and play against other TAC lists, they still work. Obviously this is going to be meta dependent. If your FLGS doesn’t play that way, your TAC list will probably get steamrolled. But gameplay is generally more enjoyable for both sides when you leave the R/P/S spam behind.

Why are you assuming that TAC and "spam" are mutually exclusive concepts? TAC refers to the ability to beat any potential opponent, not to having a diverse mix of units. For example, a tank army that has anti-infantry vehicles, anti-tank vehicles, anti-aircraft vehicles, scoring vehicles, etc, is still a TAC list even though it could be accurately labeled "tank spam". In fact, spam lists are often the closest you can get to a true TAC list because the things people tend to spam are the overpowered units that are capable of effectively dealing with a wide variety of potential targets.

You are correct, I was overgeneralizing. There are “spam” lists that can also TAC. Part of my personal definition of a TAC is not only to be able to take all comers, but to not have a hard counter itself. This avoids the R/P/S style of play. While I’m sure an all-tank list could do well against all sorts of threats, it is still a mono-theme list, and someone spamming AV units/abilities would be the rock to its scissors.

 Peregrine wrote:
You can do that, but then you're conceding that TAC is an impossible goal.

My point is that TAC is an impossible goal, even in casual gaming. No one list can have an answer to everything in the game, so it is better from a strategic standpoint to focus on what each army does best at.

For example, Space Marines have viable means for strong MSU builds involving drop pods, rhinos, bikes, and even Assault Marines. It would be better to focus on these individually than to try to incorporate elements from more than one in an attempt at "TAC".

I don't know. I personally believe that TAC is possible especially with allies.

Taking Space Marines for example:
We have a cheap source of infiltrating units with relatively high toughness for infantry to win through scoring.
We have great anti-horde through the use of Thunderfire Cannons.
We have cheap psyker HQs to buff units.
We have the tools to build nasty bike melee or shooting units.
We have fairly good AT through Devastators and great anti-tank through drop-melta, devastator centurions.
We have access to AA fortifications, as well as cheap flyers.
We have access to the Allies matrix for whatever your not satisfied with.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
You can do that, but then you're conceding that TAC is an impossible goal.

My point is that TAC is an impossible goal, even in casual gaming. No one list can have an answer to everything in the game, so it is better from a strategic standpoint to focus on what each army does best at.

For example, Space Marines have viable means for strong MSU builds involving drop pods, rhinos, bikes, and even Assault Marines. It would be better to focus on these individually than to try to incorporate elements from more than one in an attempt at "TAC".

Did you read my list a few posts back? I'm confident there isn't a list I couldn't at least have a 40 prevent chance of winning against.

DoomShakaLaka wrote:I don't know. I personally believe that TAC is possible especially with allies.

Taking Space Marines for example:
We have a cheap source of infiltrating units with relatively high toughness for infantry to win through scoring.
We have great anti-horde through the use of Thunderfire Cannons.
We have cheap psyker HQs to buff units.
We have the tools to build nasty bike melee or shooting units.
We have fairly good AT through Devastators and great anti-tank through drop-melta, devastator centurions.
We have access to AA fortifications, as well as cheap flyers.
We have access to the Allies matrix for whatever your not satisfied with.

This is true. However, last time I checked, a Space Marine player cannot bring everything (i.e. every one of your examples) you listed to an effective degree in games under 2000 points.

Orock wrote:Did you read my list a few posts back? I'm confident there isn't a list I couldn't at least have a 40 prevent chance of winning against.

That list is an excellent example of a Skitarii player making the most out of their shooting, and compensating for their lack of mobility with drop pod taxis. I will admit that my OP does not contain any references to player skill, because it is too much of a variable factor. A good player can make wins out of a bad list.

However, there are probably lists that even your suggestion would struggle against. Tau alpha-strike with lots of interceptor comes to mind. Also, what happens in dual null-deployment situations? Therefore, your otherwise very strong list will not beat 100% of enemy lists, so it can not be a true "TAC" list.

I played Guard in 6th. I had a TAC style that I played and won all but 2 games. I had a wide variety of opponents. I feel that TAC was viable up until I ran into Knights. :(


It included a Vendetta, with a Unit to bail out and sneak an objective. It included Captain Al, which gave me highly mobile infantry with Chimera support. Those mobile infantry carried a variety of weapons to deal with a variety of targets. It included Russes with loadouts good against most targets. It included a block of infantry to hide behind an ADL to provide fire support.

As armies were limited to CAD / Allied "Detachments" you could have a very good idea of how much Armour, infantry, flyers and such that you'd potentially face. You could create a winning list with a variety of units, capable of dealing with a variety of units.

Now, armies can be built of one "type" of target. You could play 150+ Boyz, or 4 Knights at 1500 points. You can't build a list that can deal with both 4 Knights [Tons of Anti-Tank] and over 100 chumps [Tons of Lasguns] so it's not so much that spam lists exist... but you can now COMPLETELY spam a unit type. Used to be you had to take troops. Those troops topped out at a 3+ save. Then Termies started to be Troops. Things started moving faster...

So while TAC did exist... I loved playing it for the ability to take on most anything, thus my painted models could be used against anyone... it's gone. Built out of the game. The closest thing is the most broken of broken codices right now. Eldar.

They can spam S6 on their "Troops" which lets them tackle all but the toughest of models. Not AV 13+ or T 10. So.... 95% of models? What they can't harm, they have D-Scythes for. Scatter Lasers are good against hordes, elite troops, mid AV or less. D-Scythes are good against super-elite infantry, and high AV Vehicles.

I suppose Farsight Enclaves could also do it, with Suits equipped with Missile pods strong enough to hurt anything, backed up by other suits capable of harming the toughest of the tough.

Neither of which are exactly "friendly" lists. So the spirit of TAC has been slain, even if the shell still can be animated.

I disagree with your assumption that I would have no chance against tau or a second deep strike army. I fight these both regularly. For the drop pod army castle in a corner and bubble wrap with whatever is most disposable against them. For the tau its easy-just drop the pods empty and use scout to close. Broadsides have a bad day when there is a wall of empty drop pods blocking their los. And as much as I hate them there is about nothing you could take that is skew one way or another that eldar could not deal with given their new codex.

 Orock wrote:
I disagree with your assumption that I would have no chance against tau or a second deep strike army. I fight these both regularly. For the drop pod army castle in a corner and bubble wrap with whatever is most disposable against them. For the tau its easy-just drop the pods empty and use scout to close. Broadsides have a bad day when there is a wall of empty drop pods blocking their los. And as much as I hate them there is about nothing you could take that is skew one way or another that eldar could not deal with given their new codex.

Only one problem with that: empty drop pods don't block line of sight, but instead confer cover saves as normal.

It's pointless to go into continued arguments over specific lists. I will concede that with the combination of a strong list and a good player, such as the examples you provided, a given army can be extremely hard to beat. However, that is a matter of the individual army and player playing to that faction's strengths.

I still don't believe that anyone, barring very highly-placed tournament players, would say that their list is unbeatable, and truly could "Take All Comers".

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
I don't know. I personally believe that TAC is possible especially with allies.

Taking Space Marines for example:
We have a cheap source of infiltrating units with relatively high toughness for infantry to win through scoring.
We have great anti-horde through the use of Thunderfire Cannons.
We have cheap psyker HQs to buff units.
We have the tools to build nasty bike melee or shooting units.
We have fairly good AT through Devastators and great anti-tank through drop-melta, devastator centurions.
We have access to AA fortifications, as well as cheap flyers.
We have access to the Allies matrix for whatever your not satisfied with.

But the problem is that in order to have all those things, you can't have them in large enough quantities to matter against a spam list due to point limitations. There are simply too many things that can be spammed and are immune to certain kinds of damage including flyers, high AV vehicles, and high toughness MCs; heck I did pretty well spamming GK terminators before the 6th ed eldar and SM codices dropped. Things also do more damage these days, so a specialized list will not only be immune to half your firepower but also have enough to kill you in response over the course of 6 turns.

This is IMO why the 6th and 7th ed Eldar codices are so good, because they have units that are almost TAC due to high strength and ROF who can be supplemented by units which more than fill the gaps and are all cheap enough to take in the same list. If you read the early posts by Eldar apologists when the rumors started coming out the first defense was "well elder players can't have it all", only to find out once the codex dropped that they in fact can.

 greyknight12 wrote:
But the problem is that in order to have all those things, you can't have them in large enough quantities to matter against a spam list due to point limitations. There are simply too many things that can be spammed and are immune to certain kinds of damage including flyers, high AV vehicles, and high toughness MCs; heck I did pretty well spamming GK terminators before the 6th ed eldar and SM codices dropped. Things also do more damage these days, so a specialized list will not only be immune to half your firepower but also have enough to kill you in response over the course of 6 turns.

This is IMO why the 6th and 7th ed Eldar codices are so good, because they have units that are almost TAC due to high strength and ROF who can be supplemented by units which more than fill the gaps and are all cheap enough to take in the same list. If you read the early posts by Eldar apologists when the rumors started coming out the first defense was "well elder players can't have it all", only to find out once the codex dropped that they in fact can.

Which is why 7th Edition Eldar should be comped, FAQ'ed, and house ruled to the point where they cannot.

Eldar, like Space Marines, have a variety of tools available that can handle virtually every threat in the game. The problem is that, outside of spam/cheese armies, Eldar lack a lot in terms of durability and staying power on the board.

In my experience, Eldar can have something approximating TAC until they start taking incoming fire. Then they have the durability of wet cardboard. And that's just the shooting phase.

 greyknight12 wrote:

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
I don't know. I personally believe that TAC is possible especially with allies.

Taking Space Marines for example:
We have a cheap source of infiltrating units with relatively high toughness for infantry to win through scoring.
We have great anti-horde through the use of Thunderfire Cannons.
We have cheap psyker HQs to buff units.
We have the tools to build nasty bike melee or shooting units.
We have fairly good AT through Devastators and great anti-tank through drop-melta, devastator centurions.
We have access to AA fortifications, as well as cheap flyers.
We have access to the Allies matrix for whatever your not satisfied with.

But the problem is that in order to have all those things, you can't have them in large enough quantities to matter against a spam list due to point limitations. There are simply too many things that can be spammed and are immune to certain kinds of damage including flyers, high AV vehicles, and high toughness MCs; heck I did pretty well spamming GK terminators before the 6th ed eldar and SM codices dropped. Things also do more damage these days, so a specialized list will not only be immune to half your firepower but also have enough to kill you in response over the course of 6 turns.

This is IMO why the 6th and 7th ed Eldar codices are so good, because they have units that are almost TAC due to high strength and ROF who can be supplemented by units which more than fill the gaps and are all cheap enough to take in the same list. If you read the early posts by Eldar apologists when the rumors started coming out the first defense was "well elder players can't have it all", only to find out once the codex dropped that they in fact can.

I guess your right.

At the most common point levels it is impossible to bring enough of everthing to be scary to any type of build
BTW, is it just me or does anyone else find it weird that half the games of 40k are now basically Opponent brings super x OP $%$! unit which you cannot damage meaningfully, so the game basically becomes "sit on objectives and roll saves" until the game is over in order to win. I mean it gives a "semblance" of a chance at winning, but its still NOT fun.

Oh, you might want to add imperial knights household formation to the potential TAC armies: Can fit up to 5 different types of knights into 1850 with upgrades, and they all have objective secured, and the warlord rerolls his warlord trait. Its basically a CAD but with knights, and stupidly OP.