# Why is it frowned on to tailor a list against a specific opponent?



## venomlust (Feb 9, 2010)

Just wondering what you all think about this:

Recently, I was criticized (albeit in an extremely benign way) for trying to tailor lists against certain opponents, and got the impression that this is the prevailing attitude. I was told that I should be building armies capable of fighting "all comers."

I can see no problem with creating a list for all comers, but why wouldn't I adapt my army to suit the situation?

Aspiring Champion: I don't know, m'lord. Last time we fought these guys, we had no way of dealing with all their heavy armor. We have plenty of badass close combatants, but very little in terms of firepower. Perhaps we should revise our strategy?

Chaos Lord: NONSENSE! Send in the cultists! Blood for the blood god!

In case you wonder, I don't intend to "bring to cheese" against any of my friends. However, it could be the difference between being tabled and actually having some options against a certain list. I'm not bringing 3 heldrakes to the table, or even 2.

What do you think? Do most 40k players really frown on this? I think it's rather silly, myself.


----------



## Archon Dan (Feb 6, 2012)

It's more overt list tailoring that is really disliked. Adjusting a list can be useful. But if you are playing Dark Eldar and your opponent fields a mostly foot army, it would be unfair for all your Dark Lances to suddenly become Disintigrator Cannons. If you face the same person frequently and want to bring something to answer a challenge they have you trigger an arms race of sorts too.

Among my gaming group, we generally make a list without knowing what army our opponents are using. This ensures the list cannot be set to eliminate a specific threat. It makes you learn to work with what you have at hand too.


----------



## Iraqiel (May 21, 2008)

As with everything, I think it has grown from a combination of tournament 'best practice' and indivuals who list build with the intention of winning regardless whether their opponents are having fun. 

So long as you are playing each other in a fun, social way it shouldn't be a problem. If you're being consistently tabled and have decided to change your list, that's fine. This should see your opponent change his list in response. That, after all, is the essence of the game. This isn't chess. It's a game set in a well developed background where tactical flexibility is one of the crowning virtues. The other one is having a good time - and not only enjoying playing, but letting the other person enjoy it too. 

In summary, list tailoring is part of the game, if your opponent can't deal with it, ask them why they won't change their list too.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

If you've written a good list then to a certain extent you shouldn't need to tailor it at all, unless you're playing someone with a completely unbalanced list - e.g. all Flyers, foot horde Guard, Green Tide and so on. Whenever I write a list I run through a mental checklist:

- Can this list routinely get First Blood and Linebreaker?
- Can this list deal with multiple AV12 vehicles?
- Can this list deal with Flying MCs/Flyers?
- Can this list deal with at least one horde unit?
- Can this list deal with at least one large Terminator unit?
- Can this list crack AV14 on turn 2?

If the answer to more than one of those questions is "No" then I revise the list. This means that I normally have an answer to most common archetypes I see across from me, with only the rare completely unbalanced army that forces me to rethink how to play against it.

From your first post I assume someone is accusing you of list tailoring because you're getting a single Heldrake? That's not tailoring. That's writing a list which includes the best unit in the codex, and there's nothing wrong with that. The day you take multiples of them though, then your casual opponents might have a basis for complaint...


----------



## Chaplain-Grimaldus (Aug 4, 2013)

It's sort of unrealistic too. In a real war you may know the type of enemy you face favours mass infantry or heavy armour and may include certain weaponry to counter that but you don't KNOW they will use the tactic they are known for so you will include things to counter anything.

It would be an "all comers army" that leans slightly towards the enemy. Swapping a few weapons out ere and there and maybe swapping a unit is cool and realistic but a total overhaul is a little unfair and not realistic.


----------



## neferhet (Oct 24, 2012)

venomlust said:


> Aspiring Champion: I don't know, m'lord. Last time we fought these guys, we had no way of dealing with all their heavy armor. We have plenty of badass close combatants, but very little in terms of firepower. Perhaps we should revise our strategy?
> 
> Chaos Lord: NONSENSE! Send in the cultists! Blood for the blood god!


This made me laugh!

Besides, what is your pal expecting if he always shows up with the same list that tables you? That you just play to be tabled or that you adjust your list to have some chances. Some basic "list tailoring" is just ok. I'd be more pissed off to have a friend who always shows up with competitive tourny level cheese lists rather than some taylored anti-me lists. He knows the way i play, the models i have, so he prepares accordingly. I know the same stuff and do the same! it is just logical. All comers lists are good in tourney scene where you do not know who are you going to face. But, mind you, if you'd be in atourney with your usual gaming group...you'd know the armyes and the game styles of people and you could and would taylor! Don't be cheesy, but don't be stupid either! :grin:


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

It's just one of those unspoken rules, I've found it to be prevalent in every gaming circle I've come across. Tailoring to a specific opponent is a nono. Writing a list that fares well against a certain army configuration is okay though. 

For example, during 5th edition I favoured xenos lists heavily, primarily tyranid and necron. My preferred list build was always in favour of numbers, so I ran a swarm of gaunts and a horde of necron warriors in each respective list. My opponents knew this, and most of their armies adjusted by carrying more flamer weapons, and two of my marine player opponents went from fielding one vindicator to two. 

It gave them a sporting chance against the numbers I fielded without being a complete counter. 

So all in all, I would say tailoring to a specific army typeset is okay, tailoring to a specific army list is not.


----------



## kiro the avenger! (Nov 8, 2010)

:goodpost:
Yeah, if I heard you had gaunts one game so I ditched my las and took all frag missiles, you would be a bit of a dick
But of you were being tabled by fliers, by all means take more AA, your opponents the dick!


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Iraqiel said:


> In summary, list tailoring is part of the game, if your opponent can't deal with it, ask them why they won't change their list too.


I think you're misunderstanding the difference between list "tailoring" and simply adjusting a list.

Tailoring a list would go like this:

I play against you one week SM vs Nids. I notice you run a horde style army, just loaded down with cheap units. I lose the game because I'm not equipped to handle the large number of models due to limited flamers and template guns.

Next week I show up with a new list composed of several Vindicators, all special weapons are flamers and 1 or 2 Land Raider Redeemers lead by Vulkan. I proceed to table you in 2 turns, as I now know your tactics and your list build. You get upset as I've meta gamed the hell out of your list.

Adjusting my list in the same instance would be me showing up to the second game with some flamers on my marines and 1 vindicator.

In short:

Tailoring a list means I built it to be a hard counter to another players list.
Adjusting a list means I saw weaknesses in my list and changed a few models to compensate for it.


----------



## kiro the avenger! (Nov 8, 2010)

:goodpost:
This, exactly this!


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

I would have to say I would be fine with totally tailoring your list ,I would and have in the past and if I were gaming to win I would do it again, its totally part of the game isnt it? Its part of war for that matter, if you get knowledge of your opponents force and have the capacity to call up some hardware to help you crush him to a pulp as a general thats your job isnt it? Likewise if billy bob turns up every week with tje same force and you dont make any changes and loose again your not really taking the game seriously,I say if you have the chance to tailor your force for an opponent to help you win you should take it.

as for it being an unspoken rule ?you must have read that in the unwritten rules volume 1


----------



## kiro the avenger! (Nov 8, 2010)

In a friendly game, just no
In a competive game then thats the point, winning
You tailor to win, tweak for fun


----------



## King Gary (Aug 13, 2009)

bitsandkits said:


> I would have to say I would be fine with totally tailoring your list ,I would and have in the past and if I were gaming to win I would do it again, its totally part of the game isnt it? Its part of war for that matter, if you get knowledge of your opponents force and have the capacity to call up some hardware to help you crush him to a pulp as a general thats your job isnt it? Likewise if billy bob turns up every week with tje same force and you dont make any changes and loose again your not really taking the game seriously,I say if you have the chance to tailor your force for an opponent to help you win you should take it.
> 
> as for it being an unspoken rule ?you must have read that in the unwritten rules volume 1


I've got to agree with this. With no 'unspoken' rules and in an over-simplified example, you turn up one week with a (so called) tailored list, over the following weeks your opponent should then tailor theirs right back and theoretically the process continues, with a back and forth until you have 2 players playing games with some very powerful but balanced forces that cannot be 'tailored' against. That would be the theory anyway. By simply bowing to pressure to build a list that is 'fair' or 'balanced' without knowing exactly what you're doing, you're missing out on valuable learning experience.

If you're playing a game that's that friendly then you should be coming up with some crazy ass, balls out nut job of a home brew scenario or mission or something down those lines.


----------



## Varakir (Sep 2, 2009)

In my gaming group we all tailor our lists to high heaven vs each other, we've actually managed to get quite a fun meta game going on between the actual games themselves.

We have a facebook group to organise matches and discuss things, and we've started dropping fake hints on the units we're bringing to throw each other off.

One of our guys has CSM and Tau, but announced he was selling his Tau off to get some spare cash for his car - the auction didn't reach the reserve, but he neglected to tell anyone that and brought a massive gun line Tau army, much to the annoyance of everyone who'd tailored for CSM.

Anyway, back on topic - i think tailoring is fine as long as it's good natured and everyone is enjoying the games. If you table your opponent on turn 2 then maybe you've gone too far, but if it forces them to adapt their playstyle and gives an even-sided game then what's the harm. I can't see why you'd want to bring the same 'all comers' list every week, sounds kinda boring


----------



## whittsy (Feb 8, 2013)

In my group of friends/players (about 5 of us) our "friendlies" are always competitive. It's how we play. We play to win, and we give eachother shit for losing, but at the end of the battle we discuss how we could have bettered our armies, our tactics and our play style. But the matter is, we tailor the hell out of our armies to win. We remember what we each took the battle before, think if they have anything new in their army (so there is still a little surprise element there) and we make accordingly. Its fine, people who cry about tailored lists need to pucker up.


----------



## notsoevil (Nov 30, 2010)

Recently played in a WHFB campaign. Order vs Destruction. Plenty of players on both sides. Ran a Forgeworld campaign with lots of scenarios, not all of which were even balanced or meant to be.

Each team ended up creating private groups on Facebook to talk about what the other players normally fielded so we could adjust our armies accordingly. Both sides ended up doing it.

If I know I'm facing lots of warmachines, I take the magic item that gives my main unit a 6+ ward save vs warmachines. Why wouldn't you? I know he's asking his team mates what to take against Ogres. Part of the fun to me.

If I know I'm playing against Space Marines, I'm taking more AP3/2.

If I know I'm playing against a horde type army, I'm taking more flamers.

But he knows I know this, and will adjust too. Try to out-meta each other.

To me it is the spirit in which you're doing this that determines whether it is right or wrong.


----------



## Ryu_Niimura (May 1, 2013)

As some people already stated before me; tailoring your list to counter your opponent is what makes this game so much fun, if you're opponent isn't a sore loser he will do the same. As I've seen someone mention before it takes the game to a whole new level; suddenly the battle itself plays only a small part in the grand scheme of things as people begin to think like real generals and start spreading false rumours around about what they will be bringing to the table. The greatest strategist will be victorious and it forces people to be creative instead of just bringing more Cheese to the table. I.e. what are your 3 Heldrakes really worth when your Tau opponent has missiles comming out of his ass?:grin:


----------



## Frostbite (Oct 17, 2007)

Changing up your list a bit in response to who you are playing doesn't seem like list tailoring to me. I generally take all comers, but there's no reason to feel bad if somebody brings out AP3 weapons to fight my MEQ's, or brings along flamers and meltas if they know I am bringing my (mechanized) guard. On the other hand, I have played against people (One Tau player in particular stands out in my mind) who would wait until they had seen your army list, then choose from one of several lists specifically designed to trash yours. That is what I think of when somebody says "list tailoring."


----------



## Ryu_Niimura (May 1, 2013)

^This is what I consider being a asshole, not tailoring xD


----------



## venomlust (Feb 9, 2010)

Thanks for all the responses. I by and large agree with the sentiments expressed.

I have 3 lists: 1 tailored to fight a specific player whom I'd have no chance against, unless tailoring for him. 1 is an anti-Space Marine army, which includes veterans of the long war, which is totally useless against any other armies, and the 3rd is for everyone else.

I don't feel so bad, because I've only won 1/4 against the Iyanden army I'm tailoring against.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

I think there's another dimension to this. In many editions of 40k the actual sequence of the game was 
- choose points
- determine mission/scenario
- build army list
- set up terrain
-etc.

So the expectation on paper was that most players would be able to write their army knowing who and what they were playing. In practice this rarely worked. Most often players would arrive at a club or FLGS with a list written. Because we only have so many models and we can't carry everything with us all the time.

So when you can't build your army for the scenario, players are forced to try to build an all-comers list not knowing what they will be up against.

In this context we have the stigma against list tailoring because it suggests that one player knows their opponent's army before the game but the opponent doesn't know theirs. Which is less sporting.

There are problems with list tailoring here.
First, a tailored list matches your units up 1:1 to counter a specific player as you expect them to play. As Vaz pointed out if they change their list you may be screwed. Second, if your list is tailored against one player then you are typically helpless against any other player.

Friends of mine had something of a vendetta going against one another, Orks vs Eldar. And the ork player tailored the heck out of his list to kill the Eldar player. However my friend with the Eldar player brought an assault focused space marine list (and drew the guerrilla war mission, for those of you who are unfamiliar it awarded 1 victory point for every 3 models killed in close combat. Can you say, "hello gretchin!") 

The check-proof to this logic problem is the well built all comers list vs the tailored list. This style of list ideally will handle any event fairly still regardless of the situation. As you pay and realize your list is lacking things, when you rebalance you are moving towards a solid all comers list.

In other words a good all comers list should typically beat a tailored list without too much trouble, all things being otherwise equal.


----------



## Nordicus (May 3, 2013)

As others have stated, I have no problem with list tailoring - To an extend.

If people make a special "Ok this is going to crush Daemons" list, I'm totally fine with it. Bring your worst and I will adapt for the next fight. However, the golden rule (as I see it) is that both lists are locked before they are shown to the enemy. You are not able to change it based on what the enemy has brought.

As long as the above is true, then I see no problem in list tailoring. Hell, I even expect it when facing opponents.


----------



## Ryu_Niimura (May 1, 2013)

That is exactly the way I see it, you don't know for sure what your opponent is bringing to the table. You think of what your opponent might be using to counter your units and try to think of a way to counter those. That way even the worst units in a codex could potentially become gamebreaking and thats what I'd like to see^^.


----------



## falcoso (Apr 7, 2012)

I don't understand how people can not tailor to some extent when they know what they are facing, but I don't understand how people CAN tailor in a competitive setting.

Generally in competitive settings you are at a tournament playing against people you haven't met before - how can you tailor to an army you nothing about? Especially when you are going to be playing other people who will have completely different armies.

If you are playing someone you play regularly and you know that they bring lots of terminators, why would you then decide to continue with your list that that is only equipped to details with a unit or two, you are knowingly putting yourself at a disadvantage.

But as people said there is a limit to how much is acceptable, a list shouldn't be tailored to wipe out an ary turn two (albeit that is quite a hard thing to do). I think tailoring is fine and actually very hard not to do if it is against someone you play refularly - in my gaming group we buy units all the time to deal with specific armies *cough* 2 mortis dreadnoughts and quad gun to get rid of a helldrake *cough*


----------



## Iraqiel (May 21, 2008)

Wusword77 said:


> Tailoring a list means I built it to be a hard counter to another players list.
> Adjusting a list means I saw weaknesses in my list and changed a few models to compensate for it.


I don't think I'm misunderstanding, and I can see how it could be frustrating. However, it just seems sensible. If I am playing my friends, I'll build a list towards either defeating whichever army they play or making the game enjoyable. I very rarely bring the same list twice in a row, and neither do they. If one unit gets dominated by a counter, they either change it or change how they play it. If one of them figures out a list that will dominate one of my armies, I'll look at how I can reconfigure to offset his tactics and wrongfoot him.

I'm rambling, but essentially I feel that there is nothing wrong with list tailoring unless you are also not being sportsmanlike in your general behaviour and entering into the spirit of the game.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

falcoso said:


> I don't understand how people can not tailor to some extent when they know what they are facing, but I don't understand how people CAN tailor in a competitive setting.


Simply by tracking the latest releases. When 6th came out and flyers were obviously overpowered, Necron Air-Cav was all you saw. When the Tau codex came out then everyone was like "Tau plus ally with a decent Troops choice" and then when the Eldar hit the shelves it was "Serpent Spam 101".

Just by watching what the competitive blogs and forums are talking about, you can get a pretty decent handle on what's going to arrive at your next tournament.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

The really impressive thing to see isn't an army tailored to kill necron air cav (just an example), but an army that can cope with that as well as other power builds.


----------



## lokyar (Apr 24, 2011)

Nordicus said:


> If people make a special "Ok this is going to crush Daemons"


meet every GK list ever made


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

My armies are always well rounded imo, I always have a versatile amount of troops, I always have some ranged fire power with atleast some form of blast weapon and I always have a unit that can contend ok in melee if needs be. I don't like tailoring lists, I don't like annoying my opponent, I want a friendly competitive game. 

If I wanted I could max lists out to be utterly destructive, but then it would be a false sense of victory, I'd rather barely triumph or lose using a balanced list than win out right with an obviously bias and imbalanced list.

I bring lists of different levels to the store with me, sometimes I'll make alterations but only after the game and if I've learnt something, most of the time though I'll just figure out I need to use them in a different way.

So to put it plainly, building lists to face specific opponents makes the game false as it basically means you've cheated, since you've stacked the deck against your opponent.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Iraqiel said:


> I'm rambling, but essentially I feel that there is nothing wrong with list tailoring unless you are also not being sportsmanlike in your general behaviour and entering into the spirit of the game.


See that's the rub. To actually tailor a list you have to be unsportsmanlike in your behavior to this game. Your are literally meta gaming against another player who has either no idea you're going to do it or the resources to counter it.

It comes down to the extent of how you're changing your list for whoever you're playing. List tailoring is not swapping out a few special weapons, or changing one squad for another. Tailoring is literally building your army around crushing one specific players list because you know that's what they play every week.


----------



## Grokfog (May 4, 2009)

^this. Even the word "Tailoring" really gives it away. If you tailor a suit, you're not making it to "sort-of" fit any man of about 6 foot tall, with a waist around 34", and so on. You're making it to fit ONE man, perfectly. It won't be a waist around 34", it'll be an exact 34.3". So as I see it, when it comes to tailoring in 40k, it's not just, "I'll take a few more flamers to help against orks", it's more "every squad will have a flamer, each sergeant will have a combi flamer, he runs X unit so I'll specifically run unit Y to deal with that, he has minimal trukks so I don't need as much anti vehicle weaponry..." As I see it, adjusting your list to help deal with a certain codex is ok. Adjusting a list to make hard counters to one specific persons army, is not ok.


----------



## Silens (Dec 26, 2010)

Wusword77 said:


> See that's the rub. To actually tailor a list you have to be unsportsmanlike in your behavior to this game. Your are literally meta gaming against another player who has either no idea you're going to do it or the resources to counter it.
> 
> It comes down to the extent of how you're changing your list for whoever you're playing. List tailoring is not swapping out a few special weapons, or changing one squad for another. Tailoring is literally building your army around crushing one specific players list because you know that's what they play every week.


Not neccesarily. Nobody said that the person had no idea or didn't have the resources to counter it; you seem to have pulled that out from your rear. 

I have a few friends who I play 40k with and with one we discuss our lists rather underhandedly before the game. I'm taking flyers? I'll try to give him the impression I'm running a horde army or something. He does the same and we both know this so it becomes a game of poker list-building. 

Some groups of friends will tailor against each other. Some won't. In the group that do, it forces your lists to evolve into something really powerful in the end. If you play against, say, a 'nid player, a space marine player and a tau player then tailoring yourselves to fight one-another will leave you, eventually, with a list that can deal with hordes, CC armies, shooty armies, varied armies, probably flyers and FMCs. 


In my opinion, tailoring is bad sportsmanship IF the other player isn't fine with it.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

im not really getting how its un sportsman like to build a list to try and counter your buddy who has turned up week after week with the same army and handed your ass to you??would not tailoring your force to give you a fighting chance just eventually kill the game for you? and hasnt your buddy essentially done the same either by design or by chance? taking out ineffectual units and replacing or arming them to deal with the force they face is an absolute must if you want to be anything like competitive isnt it?


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

If you continually play the same guy then yeah at a point it's worth shaking it up. If you're in a large group at the local store or club and you've arranged to play a guy who has a specific army and then you tailor it to face that army, then that's a bit low. I played Empire a week or so ago and tomorrow I'm facing lizardmen, but I'm not altering my list with it in mind.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Words_of_Truth said:


> I played Empire a week or so ago and tomorrow I'm facing lizardmen, but I'm not altering my list with it in mind.


why not? given that you know your opponents army and possibly know what he may field against you? it makes sense to look at your list and your options does it not? i can see the sense of not tampering if your happy with what you have in your list and how it works, but to dismiss the idea that you shouldnt because of some notion that its some how low or unsportsman like seems well a bit silly.

dont get me wrong i can see loads of different sides to this, i myself have fielded loads of different "fluffy" weak as shit armies and been slaughtered, but for me the fun was turning up with stuff i wanted to see on the field( im a sucker for swooping hawks so shoot me), but at the same time i was also accused of not taking the game portion of the hobby seriously enough, by people who wanted me to put up an actual fight using units they knew i had access to but wasnt using because i had a pretty looking, well painted models, mincing around the battle field.

What im saying is given that your opponent next week knows hes facing you and may know your army he may well be tailoring his to meet you, you show up with the same old list you play week in week out he might think you are not taking him seriously ?

I dont know im just chucking out ideas, i just dont see altering your list for different armies and opponents as anything other than part of the game, i dont see it as low,if anything its part of the preparation for the game, tweaking and trying new stuff against people has always been something i quite liked about the game of 40k, but since the advent of fan forums there seems to be a culture of building one killer list and sticking to it.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Well he's using an army new to him, completely brand new 1k lizardmen, my army is Dark Elves and it'll only be my second game. The first game I faced Empire which had a steam tank in 1k, suffice to say the steam tank single handedly won the game, taking my hydra out in the first turn without me doing anything and then running rampage through everything else. 

So perhaps I'm using the same army as the first time I never got a good run out with it, both my hydra and doomfire warlocks were unable to do anything, but the other part of my army, my shades with great weapons, my sorceress with a big unit of spearmen and my bolt thrower did do quite well. Equally I'm inexperienced with my army since, as I said, it's only my second game with them, I'll alter it for my next game if things don't work again, for example I'm thinking of replacing the hydra with some cold one knights.


----------



## Grokfog (May 4, 2009)

I think you're kinda missing the point. Evolving an army to make better, more challenging games isn't what I'd consider tailoring. I'd consider changing your entire army to hard counter little timmys space marines and utterly crushing him as tailoring.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

So do you think I should alter my list then in a 1k game to face the lizardmen? I wouldn't know what to do anyway as I've never faced them and only know they are hard to break. It still seems wrong to me even altering my list because I know what army I'm facing. I have other lists I made before I knew I was facing the lizardmen, so I guess I could use them but the idea of altering my list because I know I'm facing lizardmen makes me think it's unsportsmanlike and unfair.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

Silens said:


> you play against, say, a 'nid player, a space marine player and a tau player then tailoring yourselves to fight one-another will leave you, eventually, with a list that can deal with hordes, CC armies, shooty armies, varied armies, probably flyers and FMCs.
> 
> 
> In my opinion, tailoring is bad sportsmanship IF the other player isn't fine with it.


I certainly agree that tailoring is bad sportsmanship if the other player doesn't know and have an opportunity to do the same back.

To your first point which I quoted, and to what Bits had been saying, I think there is a reasonable difference between rewriting your army to handle new situations or problems. That's part of learning and growing as a player and building an army.

Tailoring looks like bad form when it results in a list which is really useful against its intended victim but of less use against others. When I have an army which is exactly what I need to beat my friend's Eldar army, but would get stomped by most marine lists or ork lists then I might be guilty of tailoring.

If by contrast I analyze the tau, nids, and marines in my group and write a list that can handle all of them, then what I really have is the makings of an all-comers list. I haven't written a list especially for those tau at the expense of my ability to fight the bugs or marines.

Along this line of thinking we eventually get to a point of maximum utility for the army book. Where a list is about as effective as it can be at a given points range within the choices available. And then we're in competitive territory that @MidnightSun can speak more eloquently about than I. 

There is a difference between writing the most competitive possible list and tailoring your army.

To the OP's point, revising your list to better cope with a difficult enemy is not necessarily tailoring.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Kreuger said:


> Along this line of thinking we eventually get to a point of maximum utility for the army book. Where a list is about as effective as it can be at a given points range within the choices available. And then we're in comparative territory that @MidnightSun can speak more eloquently about than I.


You don't need to tailor your CSM list when you have 3 Heldrakes, kids!

But seriously, if you optimise your list, there's very little point in tailoring. That's the point of optimisation. The units in a really good list should always be able to engage something effectively, rather than being bad at fighting a certain army. Ask a Leafblower Guard player if he list tailored. Or a Venomspam player. I'd use Draigowing as an example too, but they don't even have the option to tailor (10 Paladins, 4 MC Psycannons, Apothecary, 2x Hammer, 4x Halberd, Brotherhood Banner. Options: May add Warding Stave).

Midnight


----------



## SonofVulkan (Apr 14, 2010)

It's not fun playing against a tailored list. Back during 5th edition the last couple of pick-up games i've played in a gaming store i've turned up with a pre-made list (all comers, fun list). Then found an opponent who proceeds to sit down and write a list based on what army i'm playing. I've ended up losing both times. There is only so much you can do tactically if your opponent is set up to crush you. When I finally get around to learning the latest rule set I think i'll just blatantly lie what i've brought along.


----------



## venomlust (Feb 9, 2010)

Wusword77 said:


> See that's the rub. To actually tailor a list you have to be unsportsmanlike in your behavior to this game. Your are literally meta gaming against another player who has either no idea you're going to do it or the resources to counter it.
> 
> It comes down to the extent of how you're changing your list for whoever you're playing. List tailoring is not swapping out a few special weapons, or changing one squad for another. Tailoring is literally building your army around crushing one specific players list because you know that's what they play every week.


I suppose it's one thing when you're making a list that will totally grind the opponent into dust, knowing beforehand exactly what they'll have and making sure they stand no chance.

From my experience, the list I tailored against is an army with toughness 6 or higher, strength 10 ap 2 shooting, and instant-kill power weapons against all but my HQ. If I didn't tailor my list, I would have continued to be tabled against this opponent. Yesterday I played him with this tailored list and it was a really close match. I killed his wraithknight, wraithlord, and the vast majority of his wraithguard. He killed every mini in my army except for my Heldrake. I rolled like shit with my Daemon Prince. Got grounded on turn 1 and failed the save. Then he lost 2 more wounds to shooting. Then he killed himself with his Black Mace. I bet I would have won the game if he survived long enough to kill anything, rather than being a total waste of points that game. The point being if I didn't change things up for this specific opponent, it would have been a waste of time.


----------



## lokyar (Apr 24, 2011)

venomlust said:


> I suppose it's one thing when you're making a list that will totally grind the opponent into dust, knowing beforehand exactly what they'll have and making sure they stand no chance.
> 
> From my experience, the list I tailored against is an army with toughness 6 or higher, strength 10 ap 2 shooting, and instant-kill power weapons against all but my HQ. If I didn't tailor my list, I would have continued to be tabled against this opponent. Yesterday I played him with this tailored list and it was a really close match. I killed his wraithknight, wraithlord, and the vast majority of his wraithguard. He killed every mini in my army except for my Heldrake. I rolled like shit with my Daemon Prince. Got grounded on turn 1 and failed the save. Then he lost 2 more wounds to shooting. Then he killed himself with his Black Mace. I bet I would have won the game if he survived long enough to kill anything, rather than being a total waste of points that game. The point being if I didn't change things up for this specific opponent, it would have been a waste of time.


that is called adapting, not tailoring. if you get repeatedly crushed by someone and you tailor your list slightly to compensate for the fact that you're getting tabled (within the limits ofcourse) thats ok, you also wanna have fun.


----------



## venomlust (Feb 9, 2010)

Fair enough, I suppose you're right about the terminology. Definitely right about wanting to have fun. I'm a new player, and even if I wasn't I wouldn't mind losing. But just watching everything ineffectually bounce off your enemy's troops and squad after squad of your own get vaporized... gee, what a pleasure.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

It depends on what we define "list tailoring"

like the "asshole" that is mentioned on page 3 - the guy who sees what you have and THEN chooses a list. That is pretty low IMO.

against the "competitive list" that is being the dominate list and remains unchanged, and you are losing all the time against it? That's fine, that is making progress.

if in a group of players and where everyone brings a generic list, and your the only one who switches up the combi-weapons from plasma against DW to flamer vs foot orks. You should probably stop doing that.


----------



## d3m01iti0n (Jun 5, 2012)

Around here if you get together for a specified game, we always tailor against the army were up against. Thats for in stores and beerhammer. Trick is trying to fake them out; ie you bring Orks and your opponent will most likely try and pieplate you, so dont run hordes! 

For tourneys if you dont run all comers youre dead. Thats it.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Silens said:


> Not neccesarily. Nobody said that the person had no idea or didn't have the resources to counter it; you seem to have pulled that out from your rear.


If you're tailoring a list against somebody they most likely won't have any idea you're doing it unless you tell them up front "Hey, I know you play Nids so my new army is gonna be loaded with flamers and anti horde."



> Some groups of friends will tailor against each other. Some won't. In the group that do, it forces your lists to evolve into something really powerful in the end. If you play against, say, a 'nid player, a space marine player and a tau player then tailoring yourselves to fight one-another will leave you, eventually, with a list that can deal with hordes, CC armies, shooty armies, varied armies, probably flyers and FMCs.


That's not tailoring, that adapting your list to handle weaknesses it has. The two concepts are not the same.




> In my opinion, tailoring is bad sportsmanship IF the other player isn't fine with it.


So if I'm not fine with you running anti MEQ, as I play SM, it's bad sportsmanship if you do?


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Fallen said:


> if in a group of players and where everyone brings a generic list, and your the only one who switches up the combi-weapons from plasma against DW to flamer vs foot orks. You should probably stop doing that.


nonsense, you should tell your generic list bringing friends to man up and start tweaking and stop half assed list building or suffer the consequences.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

I spoke to my friends about this and they agreed that changing your list to deliberately face a specific army is just meta gaming.


----------



## Silens (Dec 26, 2010)

Words_of_Truth said:


> I spoke to my friends about this and they agreed that changing your list to deliberately face a specific army is just meta gaming.


Meta-gaming is a RPG phrase for 'using knowledge your character wouldn't have'.

Who's to say that your army has no idea what's coming for them? What if your the one sneaking up on your opponent and you've scouted them and know exactly what they've got?

If Captain Cato Sicarius sends in a strike team into the heart of a Tyranid hive ship, he's not going to be giving them anti-tank weapons because 'that's meta-gaming'. 



Wusword77 said:


> If you're tailoring a list against somebody they most likely won't have any idea you're doing it unless you tell them up front "Hey, I know you play Nids so my new army is gonna be loaded with flamers and anti horde."


Well... Yeah, but you stated outright that the person would either be unable to counter your tailoring or not know about it. I just refuted that, saying that a lot of the time people will try to tailor their lists.



Wusword77 said:


> That's not tailoring, that adapting your list to handle weaknesses it has. The two concepts are not the same.


No, me and my friends will outright tailor our lists to handle with the things we know the others bring. People going up against my Necrons know I like to take flyers, scarabs and immortals so they will take things that are going to be able to defeat my scarabs (Lots of templates, normally), some powerful anti-air stuff usually with interceptor and then things to deal with MEq whilst ignoring most of their own TEq stuff as I've got nothing of that calibre in my army. Likewise, one of my friends runs a forces of the Imperium list (Space Marines and Elysians) and I will take weapons and organise my forces accordingly. We don't just go "Oh, she's taking Scarabs again so I'll throw in a handful of flamers", it's a case of swapping out entire squads and then making the new guys' single job to deal with scarabs. 



> So if I'm not fine with you running anti MEQ, as I play SM, it's bad sportsmanship if you do?


Yep. If you're not okay with it then I won't tailor my list to you. I might take more MEq than normal or run my 'standard' list if I think it will run well against MEq.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Silens said:


> Meta-gaming is a RPG phrase for 'using knowledge your character wouldn't have'.
> 
> Who's to say that your army has no idea what's coming for them? What if your the one sneaking up on your opponent and you've scouted them and know exactly what they've got?


It's meant to be a competitive game though stacking the odds in your favour kind of defeats the point of playing it in the first place imo. I guess it comes down to whether you want to win at all costs or have a friendly competitive enjoyable game.


----------



## Silens (Dec 26, 2010)

Words_of_Truth said:


> It's meant to be a competitive game though stacking the odds in your favour kind of defeats the point of playing it in the first place imo. I guess it comes down to whether you want to win at all costs or have a friendly competitive enjoyable game.


That's an extreme argument. You and your opponent tailoring against each-other doesn't mean you want to win at all costs. Heck, with some of the weaker codices you might not be able to win at all without tailoring your list.

Me and my friends play to win. We tailor against each other and we do the best we can against each other but that doesn't mean we're not having fun. In fact, because of who we are, we'd likely have less fun playing like two Canadians on either side of a doorway. "You first, eh'?" "No, I insist friend, eh'?" "It's fine, you go before me, eh'?"


----------



## Iraqiel (May 21, 2008)

Whilst I agree with Silens personally, it is pretty clear that this has highlighted the two mindsets on the matter, and we are really just arguing two sides of a coin.

Venom, pick your side. Play for fun with your friends, and if they don't play the way you like and you can't convince them to change their minds, perhaps find a gaming club nearby. It doesn't mean that you stop playing with friends, but it does mean that you get some games in an environment where you won't feel bad for bringing a list appropriate to the circumstances to a game.


----------



## Jdojo18 (May 8, 2012)

One way to get around list tailoring is to start a campaign with someone from one of tthe Imperial Armor books. For instance, me and my friend started the one from IA:8 with Orks vs imperial guard and Ravens. 

we have no problem bring lots of flamers or tons of machine guns because we both know that if an imperial army were to attack orks, they would bring tons of anti infantry with them. Any commanding officer would know to leave the weapons meant for Daemons behind and to dust off the weapons that are meant to be used on the greenskins.

The scenarios are also very specific on what you can bring through a different force orh chart. On one mission for instance, the orks may only be able to bring 4 troops, 1 elite, and 6 fast attack while the imperial army may be able to bring 6 troops, 4 elites, 2 fast attack, and 1 heavy. It completely changes things up but in a fun way.

Just an idea


----------



## venomlust (Feb 9, 2010)

Iraqiel said:


> Whilst I agree with Silens personally, it is pretty clear that this has highlighted the two mindsets on the matter, and we are really just arguing two sides of a coin.
> 
> Venom, pick your side. Play for fun with your friends, and if they don't play the way you like and you can't convince them to change their minds, perhaps find a gaming club nearby. It doesn't mean that you stop playing with friends, but it does mean that you get some games in an environment where you won't feel bad for bringing a list appropriate to the circumstances to a game.


I have no big concerns. It's really just a couple of armies that I'd have to change up my list for. The rest I'd be happy throwing my "all comers" list at and making the best of it. Goal #1 is to have fun with my friends, which happens every game no matter what. Even my friend with the T6 army helps me out in every way he can: gives me pointers, reminds me of buffs/psychic powers/etc that can only hurt his army. He wants me to have fun too, and he's a good guy. All the players in my local store are.


----------



## Firewolf (Jan 22, 2007)

>> I knew 1 dude who wrote a new list for every game, cos we tended to let others know what we would be using. Really got on my, and other players wick, so got to a stage of saying "Im using x", up until the night before the game, and then change to y. A few tweaks to a list i can handle, but complete list changes piss me off.


----------



## King Gary (Aug 13, 2009)

A lot of the issues people have seem to be coming back to the manner in which players go about changing or tailoring lists. The fact of the matter is, in a small, tight-knit group of players if no one ever changed their lists then the game would stagnate and potentially become very boring indeed.

Surely it is natural to want to win at a war game? Isn't that precisely the point? If you *just* want to have fun with friends then go watch a couple of epesodes of Archer or Arrested Development, or even some funny cat videos on youtube. By playing 40k or any other sort of game for that matter, there's the added element of competition. And that's where it's possible for problems to occur, because for some people, with terrible social skills, the competition can take over their entire experience and this can sour the experience for others.

Be competitive, change your list, try and kick as much ass as you can possibly manage, and enjoy it. Don't try and play inside other players' heads, countering their every move and unit choice, doing this will leave you wide open to some very easy counters yourself. Instead, take well thought out, logical steps to give you the best chance at beating your opponent. You might win convincingly one week, but the choices you made should encourage your opponent to be better prepared themselves next time.


----------

