# Do you tailor or not?



## StalkerZero (Oct 3, 2010)

As 40k players the majority of us probably play mostly with a smaller circle of friends. Some may play in tournaments. 

It seems to be that most of the requests for tactics or advice I see are "how do I beat x" with very specific replies on how to counter something using your codex. 

I suppose I am just not that sort of player. I _attempt_ to build one solid list and play test it against different types of armies and make changes or scrap it altogether. Not once I have ever written something in a list to directly counter another unit that I know I will see regularly. For me it's the whole "Do I have anti-transport, anti-infantry, anti-horde, etc" and not what is going to kill that MoN DP this week.

Definitely not to say the way I do things is right. Neither way is really right I suppose. 

Just wanted to see what type of list builder some posters were I supposed.


----------



## Dawnstar (Jan 21, 2010)

For me it depends. If I know I'm going to be playing Orks during my next game, I'll put Flamers on my list instead of Meltaguns, and a mix of Khorne Berzerkers and Noise Marines. If I know Im playing a Mech player, I'll do the opposite and take Meltaguns, and probably take 2-3 squads of CSM squads to pack in the Meltaguns

For tournaments, I look at it exactly like you. I build a list, and look at what it has. Does it have enough anti-tank? Anti-Marine? Can I deal with hoard armies? and from there I will refine my list. Maybe I should take 3 Obliterators instead of that 2nd Land Raider, for the increased firepower that will give me


----------



## Pssyche (Mar 21, 2009)

I have voted "No" and yet, here I am in the process of readying a tailored list for a particular, potential opponent. 
Let me explain...

Last month saw the start of a new Apocalypse Campaign that I'm taking part in.
In it, it's 3,000 points a player and you get three Strategic Assets.
Now, I have a fairly established Apocalypse Eldar Army and I won my first match fairly comfortably. Everybody there had a good time. 
Except one guy.
Because his opponent turned up with two Reaver Battle Titans with Techmarines. 
And the Replacements Asset. 
Now while this is a legal set up, it's so against the spirit of the campaign it's untrue. 
Some of the participants barely scrape together the 3,000 points worth of models, let alone the right models to give it a go.

So I'm tailoring a force to challenge him and put his Reavers down.
It really goes against everything I like about the game, but when someone's taking effectively a 4,500 point army to a 3,000 point battle, then something's got to give...


----------



## C'Tan Chimera (Aug 16, 2008)

Several of my friends play so competitively I sometimes hesitate on calling them friends and would rather go with 'rivals', so yeah. I tailor my lists to hold out against him because I know this guy couldn't play casually if his life depended on it.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

I starting to think about it.... right up until the giant red neon "NO" sign started flashing in my head which lead me to my eventual conclusion which is, surprisingly, no. It is slightly chicken shit to do so and any player with the brains of a peanut should be able to find a way to beat an all-comers list with another all-comers list if he puts a bit of thought in to it. Unfortunately, it takes a bit of your face getting fucked in with a battle cannon barrel to get the trick down, but it should work out in the end leaving you with a happy, although slightly fucked up smile. 

Also, "tailoring" involves me putting another metric fuckton of $$$ into the outstretched, sweaty palmed hands of the money grubbing whore that is GW just so I can get another few dozen models whose sole purpose would be to fuck up one specific dudes day. IOW, I would rather bite my cock off.

However, if it is part of some fluff driven game, sure, why not?


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

I build all-comers lists so I cover anti- Infantry/Tank/MC/MEQ/GEQ etc etc. Playing IG I can choose between different units that tackle the same firepower niche, and even overlap.

My Death Wing and SM armies are themed (Pure and Drop Podding) so can be a bit handicapped regardless of what I face.

That said, there are times when my opponent(s) and I agree on taking lists that are the nemesis of each others:grin:


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

My lists tend not to be tailored towards a specific opponent. Well...within reason. Like the reaver titan example given above i will create a list to put somone in their place if necisary. 
I played an opponent in third ed who always fielded 2 assassins. Whilst i could handle the eversor easily enough, his Vindicare repeatedly picked off my chaos lord so i started equipping my vehicles with searchlights and nailing him to the wall with obliterator fire every game. 
Usually i'll kit my army to get the most amount of anti marine weapons as i can. with orks they throw out enough attacks to give most other hoard armies a run for their money and lets face it, anything i would take to knock over marines would be useful against a mech list. 

So not really tailored. i just assume all of my opponents are Marine equivilent.


----------



## StalkerZero (Oct 3, 2010)

GrimzagGorwazza said:


> My lists tend not to be tailored towards a specific opponent. Well...within reason. Like the reaver titan example given above i will create a list to put somone in their place if necisary.
> I played an opponent in third ed who always fielded 2 assassins. Whilst i could handle the eversor easily enough, his Vindicare repeatedly picked off my chaos lord so i started equipping my vehicles with searchlights and nailing him to the wall with obliterator fire every game.
> Usually i'll kit my army to get the most amount of anti marine weapons as i can. with orks they throw out enough attacks to give most other hoard armies a run for their money and lets face it, anything i would take to knock over marines would be useful against a mech list.
> 
> So not really tailored. i just assume all of my opponents are Marine equivilent.


Sounds like a pretty solid plan. MEQ destroying weapons often do overlap quite well with transport destroying.

I guess I can't really say I don't tailor my lists. More so that my lists can't be tailored too deeply. 

I play Necrons. When your book has like 3-4 good units and one unit that has real options it's hard to make changes to try to beat another list.

I also play Space Wolves. Normally Space Wolves are incredibly customizable but I bought specifically just what I needed: Long Fangs and Five Razorbacks for 1500 points. So doesn't leave much room for other customization.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

i tend to throw stuff i like into a list, for instance im playing a 3,200 point game on saturday, and since he's playing CSM i dont want to bring my CSM. so SMs it is, first off since its a large enough game im bringing both of my termie squads with dedicated LRs. next im bringing my bike captain & bike squad. that said theres damn near half my army (6 KPs worth 200+ points each.)

now i like a mech gun line so im tossing in 2 trip las preds too. im bringing all my land speeders & some tact squads in rhinos. it may have a lot of competitive units but i dont think the list is competitive.

but ive maxed my HS, fast attack, elite, HQ and 1 shy of my troops.


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

Absolutely not, and if I come across people who I know do do that, I make an appropriate change to my playstyle.

By and large, I am a very friendly, patient, and lenient player. More than willing to bend some rules, allow people to go back and do stuff they forgot. This in part stems from the fact that I play most of the 40k armies, and so I tend to write lists on the spot and am unable to truly master any one codex to the degree of others. (Something I have great respect for.)

When my opponent is someone who tailors though, friendly gloves come off. I have been playing for more than twelve years, most of the lists I put up here get many views and few responses for a number of reasons; and a big one being that there is little that can be done to help them. 

For a known tailorer, I play tourney competitive lists, many of them being ruthless and unforgiving for my opponent.


When I do play a game, since I am often making up lists on the spot, I do have a slight edge. Hard for a person to tailor their list when they have no idea what army I will be bringing to the table, multiple lists or not.

Those twelve plus years of playing also are a help should my opponents army ever get revealed to me before my list is complete.I can pick a theme, or an idea, and roll with it to completion regardless of the new information. (Though I will not deny it being tempting sometimes, but I'd rather have fun and lose.)


----------



## ckcrawford (Feb 4, 2009)

When someone baits me I will sometimes do it because I can't resist it. Don't want to sound like a jerk. But if I see a box with three land raiders in it...

I can't help resist. 

........Melta..........:biggrin:


Edit: I really hate constant tailors. "What you going to play with." Oh yeah sure, I'm going to tell you and later perhaps let you drive my car. I just lie to them. In my life I've actually played players who actually believe some of the bullshit lists I just tell them. 

Yeah... I've got three terminator squads with ten dudes each. all going to deep strike. You may want to wait a while.


----------



## StalkerZero (Oct 3, 2010)

I do think there are about three different "base" types of list makers: all-comers, tailored lists, and people who sincerely change their list every game because something looks fun to try out.

I have never played the same list from the two in my normal gaming group. It started to bug me for a while because I haven't changed my Necron list in months really drastically. But then, I started to realize that both of them change their lists not because they want to tailor it to what they're playing against. They just still have that shiny, bright eyed new player gleam in their eyes and want to try it all out.

Reading forums kind of robbed me of that but I suppose most of that last paragraph and this wasn't really relevant. 

:smoke:


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

I always write my lists as all comers lists. I'll often have an idea of how I want the different parts to work together on the field, and ensure I have enough different pieces to cover combat, assault, mid range, etc. It makes the process of game-play more focused on the actual game and not on mapping my advantages to my enemy's weaknesses while they are unloading from their cases.

In pursuit of ego-reduction, I approve of tailoring. If that's the case, and I know I'll be playing an asshole, and I know how he plays - then as Darkreever says, the gloves come off.

After playing a game I will revise my army list to deal with whatever I just fought, if it caused me a problem, and re-examine how to use the list as it already is - if there might have been a better way.

And as stated, if your list can wipe away MEQs then you're probably building your list to a solid standard.

Cheers,
Kreuger


----------



## The Darkling (Mar 21, 2011)

I build my army to a specific theme everytime because i put way to much thought in, however i will generally collect models and units i like that fit that theme and build a list from that, there are generic units that come out everytime like my daemon prince and plague marines but i can vary, if im going to be playing my friends IG tank company i would probably leave my berzerkers at home.


----------



## jaws900 (May 26, 2010)

hell no's. I build an army which is fun for me. Imperial Fists - Termiantors, and lots of them. Blood Angels - Landraiders! Tyranids - Tervigons and Carnifex's. 
That sort of thing. they are jsut fun armys not really competative but fun. If i win then thats fine. If i lose, atleast i had fun.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

If I am playing someone I have played before of course I tailor my list: everyone does.

Firstly, there is no point in taking something that will have no effect on the battle. If you are going to do that you might as well just take fewer points. However, my definition of "no effect" is very narrow; most of the CSM armies I have built contained Spawn as they can do damage.

Secondly, I know what my opponents are likely to field so, even if I try to be objective, I will unconsciously assess units based on effectiveness against that model.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

I tailor my lists to an extent, I try to keep them as all comers as I can, but I know what alot of players at my store gravitate to, and I will tailor my lists so they are effective more to that gravitation rather then just something that can be shot down easily because of lack of AV, or lack of MEQ, or lack of AH.

my lists are not tailored to each specific person, but tailored to my group as a whole, especially during tournaments.


----------



## Cowlicker16 (Dec 7, 2010)

I'm pretty much an all-rounder, I love having an entire plan ready to to go about who's supporting who and what is going to happen then watch as nothing goes to plan. I also love bringing in "fun" units that have really funny rules, who cares if my dreadnought goes crazy and kills my own guys? It's Chaos!!!! Who cares if I just saw 7 marines take out 30 guants? I've got 60 more!!

So for me its more about the fun of the game then ever winning, cause even just the reaction of your opponet as he sees 4 fully sized ripper swarms coming at him is fun all of its own


----------



## uber (Feb 28, 2011)

the way i see it, in the warhammer universe you know who you deploy the forces that you think will best get the job done. if you are attacking an ork stronghold you would of course prepare your troops accordingly. war in wh is not about opponents by surprise...unless you get ambushed. 

no more often than not you will know who you are fighting. as such i think a little bit of meta-gaming is fine. 

with that said, in the end it's all about fun, so i wouldn't be a fan of exploiting your opponents codex by playing a build that has no value except against HIS army.

i play against ultramarines regularly, so you're damn right i load up on plasma. although i would probably play my list against pretty much any army.


----------



## Yellowfin Tuna (Feb 17, 2011)

With the group of friends I mianly play against, we never have pre prepaired lists. We turn up with whatever of our armies we fancy that day and write lists with that in mind. It lets us have fun with crazy and different lists and we get to use all of our embarrasingly large model collections. I have only once used the same army list more than once and that was when me and a mate were working on a doubles tournament list.


----------



## High_Seraph (Aug 28, 2009)

I do tend to tailor my lists a little bit against each army. I run three tac sqauds one with melta, one with plasma, one with flamer. Going against horde melta gets taded for another flamer, going against MEQ drop the flamer bring another plasma, going against someone who uses a lot of mech drop the flamer and bring another melta.


----------



## goldsmartie (Dec 11, 2009)

I find that when i tailor my list to take out a certain enemy (a certain stompa comes to mind), the result can be aplied to other situations even though it wasn't tailored for it.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

I have to tailor to stay relevant in my gaming center. The reason being I play only one army, and have been doing so for so long that if I didn't my force somewhat, my win rate would be less then 10%.


----------



## ckcrawford (Feb 4, 2009)

I love the tailors and buy something right before the game and glue the shit out of it together before the game starts. Lol, thats just a motivater there. hahaha. Gosh, especially those young rich kids.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

ckcrawford said:


> I love those that tailor their lists, and who buy something right before the game, and then proceed to glue the shit out of it right before the start of said game. Lol, that's just a motivator right there. hahaha. Gosh, especially those young rich kids.


I added a +5 to your making sense save.


----------



## effigy22 (Jun 29, 2008)

I tailor my lists, as do most of my opponents. We play in the spirit of the game - which is to kick the crap out of each other. 

But... as we know were tailoring agianst each other we try to throw stuff in which neither of us would expect!


----------



## ckcrawford (Feb 4, 2009)

LukeValantine said:


> I added a +5 to your making sense save.


Well its like, this one time I was playing this kids back when I had a plasma army, and I think I was facing this kid that was like 12. He realizes that I'm not really into anti tank weaponry at the moment, and proceeds to buy 3 fricken land raiders with his mom's credit card. 

Talk about patience. I was like.... hmmm... he probably doesn't know that my champions have strength 10 powerfist attacks with all the cool upgrades we use to have in the old chaos codex. So I went for a T-Bell run while he quickly and shitly assembled his land raiders.... I still won. I mean, Theres really so much 6 lascannons can do against an infantry army in a ruined city... so.... there you go.


----------



## HatingYou (Oct 10, 2010)

Most of the time no but if I play someone I hate then yes because losing to them would be horrible.

usually we arn't comp like that but sometimes things get super serious


----------



## Dragearen (Sep 8, 2009)

I always tailor to the general metagame in my area(which is mainly lots of footsloggers with heavy backup vehicles/artillery), but I almost never tailor specifically to another player's army in my LGS.

If I'm against a friend, however, sometimes we decide we want to be as mean to each other as possible. So then we both give permission for the other to tailor, and it usually makes quite interesting games.

If I do tailor against a potential army(for example, one of the employee's elite Eldar army), then I always make sure that the tailored unit(s) will work well against other armies as well.


----------



## 5tonsledge (May 31, 2010)

it depends on who i am playing really. but i play in a campain where you cant change youre list without losing youre points that youve earned in league. but yeah my list are designed to fight any army as are the other players so it ballances out. the only times ive ever had to change my list around is when i played tyranids, cause my list just couldnt kill enough gaunts.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

HatingYou said:


> super serious


Yah, but does it ever get really supper cereal.......like when man bear pig gets involved?


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

LukeValantine said:


> I added a +5 to your making sense save.


What do I have to equip to get a 'making sense' save?

That would be mighty hand at work. 

*Presents terrible presentation to client*
Making Sense saving throw!
*Presents amazing presentation to client!*

Cheers!


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

My list is a generalised one. If I can, I try to add a counter to most of the big threats out there. 

Stuff like Meppy or Lysander usually influence my choices, not because I know I`m gonna verse them, just because I anticipate the possibility. As a result I do have a fairly decent win record, even with a balanced list.


----------



## BloodAngelZeros (Jul 1, 2008)

I'll do a little bit of tailoring to the armies that I see most often but I honestly play purely to have fun so I build my lists pretty much just to fit the fluff I make about em or style of play I like.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

I build all-comers lists. I don't list tailor and neither does anyone in my group. We had someone come in to a campaign I was running (that very clearly stated that players were meant to use one list per week) who tailored his list every round. When confronted, he said that it was stupid for us to expect anyone to not list tailor. He hasn't come back since as a lot of people didn't respond very nicely.

Don't list tailor, or you're a talentless hack. Just my opinion.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

.....well yah list tailoring every round in a campaign is a bit, well extreme. However list tailoring is a element of the hobby....and I mean the hobby, look at other mini wargames and you will see the same thing happening to one degree or another al over the place.

Still as you clearly demonstrated there are tolerance levels between someone tailoring a list to stay relevant in a tournament/gaming club, then there is balls to the wall douche beggary.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

tailoring a list per opponent, or per round of a campaign / tournament is just down right low.

Setting your army up to deal with the general makeups of your enemies. (IE: I see meq and mech lists like mad) putting more emphasis on those armies then a swarm list, is natural.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

I feel I should revise my earlier statement (was in a crappy mood last night).

If you're in a campaign and it's understood that list tailoring is acceptable, then go nuts. If you're in a group that enjoys list tailoring for some reason that I cannot fathom, then go nuts. Otherwise, don't list tailor because it's lame and doesn't help you actually get better at the game. Before too long one will plateau when writing hate lists which really isn't overly useful.



KhainiteAssassin said:


> Setting your army up to deal with the general makeups of your enemies. (IE: I see meq and mech lists like mad) putting more emphasis on those armies then a swarm list, is natural.


It's a natural response, but if one is looking to become as skilled at the game as they can, the best way is to write an all-comers list and then stick with it rigorously for an extended period regardless of the local metagame. Only after a number of games have been played is it time for (hopefully small) adjustments.


----------



## Killystar Gul Dakka (Mar 20, 2011)

Even though I've been guilty of tailoring lists on a seldom occasion, I've done it ONLY when I know I'm playing against a tailored list.

I believe that Tailoring defeats the purpose of building your army. It reminds me of playing Magic the Gathering back in High School. You could come up with an _awesome_ deck idea, but once you hurt someones feelings enough and beat them so many times they feel _useless_, and so they build something with *no other reason or purpose* than to be able to beat *you.

So all Tailoring proves, is that you are a SUB-PAR player, and should rethink your hobby choice.

*my $0.02 i suppose (and 2 cents cant buy dung)


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Wow what a bitter statement sounds like someone has had a negative experience with the hobby. However I feel I need to bring down the hate level in the thread just a tad.

facts about list tailoring.
1) List tailoring usually entails the gamer either having 2-3 of each unit in their book, or have a intricate understanding of the hobby. Hence list tailors are usually never *sub-par* gamers, but at their typical level of skill they probably would be better served playing with all comers armies to better their skill, then list tailoring for competitions.
2) Individuals that heavily list tailors often view winning above all else, and in that way they are more comparable to people the look for super broken army lists. Putting them firmly in the power gamer sub group.
3) Everyone who has a win rate over 2 to 1+ typically list tailors to some level or another. Example only a idiot would bring an all comers list in a group that is all swarm or Mech. However most have enough common sense to know what is considered being a ass hole. Case in point: Everyone in your group takes Mech so you switch out HB's on you devastators for something with a high str, vs you getting a extra 2 devastator squads with rapid firing anti-tank weapons.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

LukeValantine said:


> Hence list tailors are usually never *sub-par* gamers, but at their typical level of skill they probably would be better served playing with all comers armies to better their skill, then list tailoring for competitions.


I don't think this is true. A list tailor doesn't need to be overly skilled at the hobby to understand what sorts of units perform well against others. It doesn't take much game knowledge to know that Devastators packing plasma cannons decimate units like Tactical Marines, or that Orks find Land Raiders difficult to tackle. In fact, anyone can learn these things simply by reading stuff on the internet.



> 2) Individuals that heavily list tailors often view winning above all else, and in that way they are more comparable to people the look for super broken army lists. Putting them firmly in the power gamer sub group.


Ugh. Not even going into this one.



> 3) Everyone who has a win rate over 2 to 1+ typically list tailors to some level or another. Example only a idiot would bring an all comers list in a group that is all swarm or Mech. However most have enough common sense to know what is considered being a ass hole. Case in point: Everyone in your group takes Mech so you switch out HB's on you devastators for something with a high str, vs you getting a extra 2 devastator squads with rapid firing anti-tank weapons.


I have an almost exact 2:1 win/loss ratio (it's higher by a fraction) at the most highly competitive club in my region. I don't list tailor at all because I'm very frequently moving from one area to another playing lots of different people. Due to this there really isn't a local metagame so I'm forced to take truly all comers lists. I don't have a "Toronto" army list or a "Hamilton" list or anything else of the sort. There are plenty of others in my group of friends, on Heresy and elsewhere on the internet that do the same sort of thing.


----------



## Caliban (Nov 27, 2010)

it depends on how conciously you think about it. i was about to press NO but the i thought, i used to take csm squads but now take noise marines as standard without thinking regardless to whom i play.why? in my area around 3/5 are nids and 1/5 are IG. i need a lot of quick weak fire. sure against tau it becomes less effective but then i've tailored for the wrong lot.


----------



## Killystar Gul Dakka (Mar 20, 2011)

Alrighty then, we will assume Players A B C and D all play at the same hobby store, and typically only play eachother. Players A B and C typically run the same _mech-heavy_ lists they've ran for an extended period of time, player D typically plays a swarm list w/ some ability to handle armor....

After many losses, Player D wipes away his tears and brings a list that magically has nothing but Meltas and PFs....it would _appear_ to "on-looker E" that Player D has gone out of his way to prove that while his Main army may take a whooping against Mech Heavy, that he can go home, and raid his codex for something that is easier to beat Players A B and C with....

Then player F shows up with his own swarm list, and tears Player D's anti-mech list appart..

Karma ftw


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Its also the dynamic force that drives a far part of GW sales.


----------



## Lucio (Aug 10, 2009)

Originally I tailored my lists as a show that I understood counters and the capability of x unit vs y unit. The tailoring was more in the form of rearmament for units instead of switching the list itself. Now that I have a better grasp of what things are capable of and am getting better at building lists (as opposed to throwing 90% of what I owned on the board regardless of effectiveness) and have a greater ability to acquire the models I want for a decent generalized list, I don't do so anymore.


----------



## dspadres (Jan 10, 2011)

Based on reading pg. 1, because this thing has gotten too long before I got here, most people seem to be against tailoring their list. Which I don't get. Saying you don't tailor your list and seem to be abhorrently against it means that you must be making lists the exact _opposite_ of what you're up against.

"But that doesn't make any sense. Why would I take stuff I know is going to be crap against a certain army?"

Why indeed.

I think what you really need to do is establish what tailoring actually means. If you consider someone fielding a vindicator or two when you're playing against Orks or using a lot of anti-vehicle when you're up against mechanized Guard to be tailoring then your definition is a little too strict.

There's a huge and distinct difference between tailoring and just being intelligent. There's no reason to not take helpful things just to prove some sort of self-righteous point about not exploiting your opponent's weakness.

In truth, whatever army you play, you should be aware of what your weaknesses are and know that your opponent is going to exploit it in some way, THEREFORE it is your duty to be ready to counter what he's up to.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

dspadres said:


> Based on reading pg. 1, because this thing has gotten too long before I got here, most people seem to be against tailoring their list. Which I don't get. Saying you don't tailor your list and seem to be abhorrently against it means that you must be making lists the exact _opposite_ of what you're up against.


No, that's incorrect. Playing with a single list and not altering it based on your current opposition isn't stupid, it's how you get good at the game. Nobody (at least as far as I can tell) is actually taking the anti list tailoring concept to such an extreme that they'll write lists that are woefully unprepared for the battlefields of 5th edition 40K and then stubbornly refuse to adapt to changing circumstances. There's a marked difference between taking something that's good in the game and taking something specifically to counter that one guy at your gaming group and only using it in games against that particular individual (or his army).



> I think what you really need to do is establish what tailoring actually means. If you consider someone fielding a vindicator or two when you're playing against Orks or using a lot of anti-vehicle when you're up against mechanized Guard to be tailoring then your definition is a little too strict.
> 
> There's a huge and distinct difference between tailoring and just being intelligent. There's no reason to not take helpful things just to prove some sort of self-righteous point about not exploiting your opponent's weakness.


Erm, let's look at the definition of the word 'tailor'.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tailor

*3.
to fashion or adapt to a particular taste, purpose, need, etc.: to tailor one's actions to those of another.*



> If you consider someone fielding a vindicator or two when you're playing against Orks or using a lot of anti-vehicle when you're up against mechanized Guard...


What you are describing is tailoring by definition. The difference between changing a list for a general increase in effectiveness and changing it for an advantage against a specific individual is, at least in my eyes, pretty plain to see.



> In truth, whatever army you play, you should be aware of what your weaknesses are and know that your opponent is going to exploit it in some way, THEREFORE it is your duty to be ready to counter what he's up to.


Right and you can do this through tactics. Moving units and vehicles in specific ways, engaging at certain ranges, opting to use one weapon over another depending on circumstances... basically playing the game intelligently rather than mindlessly throwing counter units into your list and letting the army nearly play itself.


----------



## High_Seraph (Aug 28, 2009)

So would you consider dropping a flamer from a tac squad to bring another plasmagun to kill more meqs tailoring Katie? I'm sorry if that's not your meaning but from what I can gather from your posts that you view that as tailoring your list. I know the flamer uses a template and usually hits more than the plasma but I prefer something that will just kill a meq outright with no chance for a save in the open.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

High_Seraph said:


> So would you consider dropping a flamer from a tac squad to bring another plasmagun to kill more meqs tailoring Katie? I'm sorry if that's not your meaning but from what I can gather from your posts that you view that as tailoring your list. I know the flamer uses a template and usually hits more than the plasma but I prefer something that will just kill a meq outright with no chance for a save in the open.


Yes, that's exactly correct. That's tailoring because in response to your opponent's army of choice you're altering your list instead of relying on your abilities as a general to win. It takes next to zero skill to do this and before long a person will stagnate as they can never really improve their on-table abilities.


----------



## Trevor Drake (Oct 25, 2008)

That would be like me taking another Ravager in my list just because I am facing a mech army and trying to maximize lances. Sure, I could do that, but what thought process is there? What hurtle did I overcome? I added a tank that I would not normally use against another opponent just to beat you, big whoop.

Or I could stick with my one Ravager, and use my other units to maneuver you where I want you to be, bait your units into fire lanes, present a target that is irresistable. If you dont go for the ploy, I ensure that I have my units in a position where I can capitolize on that. Putting a ravager in a firelane out of your line of sight, while leaving a juicy target there close by, to draw you in, get you to move where I need you to be, rather than trying to counter you every step. Making use of what you have. Its not like an Archon is chilling in Commoragh saying 'Hmm I am gonna pillage an Imperial World, better take an extra Ravager just in case the General puts his troops into metal cans with tank tracks strapped to them.' 

This way, I learn how to adapt with a list and learn to use tactics rather than just plopping another model on the table and learning nothing. Sure I could take the second ravager, but what good will that be if I tailor a list to face mech for a tourney and face nothing but horde? Im boned, where as if I had built a balanced list, I could cover my bases, and not have myself spread too thin and capitalize on my strengths, and use my weaknesses to my advantage by baiting you with a perceived flaw in my army. 

Does it always work? No. Is it sweet when it does? Yes.


----------



## High_Seraph (Aug 28, 2009)

Trevor Drake said:


> That would be like me taking another Ravager in my list just because I am facing a mech army and trying to maximize lances. Sure, I could do that, but what thought process is there? What hurtle did I overcome? I added a tank that I would not normally use against another opponent just to beat you, big whoop.
> 
> Or I could stick with my one Ravager, and use my other units to maneuver you where I want you to be, bait your units into fire lanes, present a target that is irresistable. If you dont go for the ploy, I ensure that I have my units in a position where I can capitolize on that. Putting a ravager in a firelane out of your line of sight, while leaving a juicy target there close by, to draw you in, get you to move where I need you to be, rather than trying to counter you every step. Making use of what you have. Its not like an Archon is chilling in Commoragh saying 'Hmm I am gonna pillage an Imperial World, better take an extra Ravager just in case the General puts his troops into metal cans with tank tracks strapped to them.'
> 
> This way, I learn how to adapt with a list and learn to use tactics rather than just plopping another model on the table and learning nothing. Sure I could take the second ravager, but what good will that be if I tailor a list to face mech for a tourney and face nothing but horde? Im boned, where as if I had built a balanced list, I could cover my bases, and not have myself spread too thin and capitalize on my strengths, and use my weaknesses to my advantage by baiting you with a perceived flaw in my army. .


I want a sure thing in my army, if I hit and wound with a plasma the meq is dead in open ground. A flamer allows their armour saves. 

I'm not saying tactics isn't important to winning, leave that unit in the open. If I see your leaving them there on purpose I'm going to take a step back and look around at where your units are posistioned so I won't fall into those type of traps. This has this lost me some games yes but I held longer than if I blindly went after that unit and got stomped by you. If they are an immediate threat I'll look into what can I do to take them out without exposing more of my army to retaliation. If they aren't a threat to my forces in the area I will gladly ignore them while trying to take down the threats that back them up.


----------

