1303
Post by: Relic_OMO
The prevailing dogma on these forums is that list tailoring, ie. the practice of altering ones army so as to be optimised against a particular opposing race or to win a particular scenario, is taboo. It's wrong, it shows lack of skill, it's downright cheating. I think this notion is, quite frankly, idiotic, and challenge it unreservedly.
I'm not even sure the philosophy that opposes list tailoring is coherent, but it seems to be 'playing a list that isn't all-comers shows you're bad. Making a list specifically designed to exploit opponent's weaknesses is bad.' This seems to be rooted in tournament-style gameplay, where you don't really know what you'll be facing, so you make as generalised a list as possible so you don't get caught out being unable to compete against any given opponent. Somehow, this bit of tournament common sense got inexplicably blown into the idea that if you ever play anything other than a completely generalised list, you suck. That's, to put it politely, insane. For instance, if you regularly leave the house before the sun comes up, like I do, you might not know what the weather's going to be that day, and you might wear layers and/or pack a small umbrella. If people were to then bizarrely blow up that bit of common sense into 'well, if you check the weather report and dress accordingly, you're a n00b', you'd think they were nuts. Yet that's pretty much what this anti-list tailoring philosophy boils down to.
It's not even an internally consistent philosophy. As an example, it is well known that in the current meta, vehicles and all vehicle lists are common, and thus anti-armour weaponry is a good idea. (Hmm, tailoring a list to kill vehicles, that seems very... tailory.) With that in mind, several tournament lists will deliberately take no vehicles and thus run infantry spam to exploit a weakness in those lists that run few anti-infantry weapons. This is considered not only acceptable, but smart, even though it's tailoring your list to exploit known, predictable weaknesses. Yet if someone were to say, 'well, I know that I'm going to play Bob on Sunday, and he usually plays a ton of IG infantry blobs, so I was thinking of packing a ton of flamers to beat him', that person would be universally derided all over the forum. If that same player saw a light infantry horde packed into a small area, and manoeuvred a few flamers over and roasted them during a game, those same haters would be praising him for seeing the opportunity and having the skill to get the right tool into position. Yet somehow the fact that he has the foresight to see it coming days ahead of time and make the same strategic decision makes him a target of derision. It's bizarre.
Look, I get that list tailoring under some circumstances can be a bit lame. If, for instance, you turn up at the store for a random pickup game, find a random pickup opponent, and he looks over your list and then riffles through a stack of paper and pulls out List 47b-omega designed specifically to beat orange-painted Tau, then you might feel a bit hard done by. Especially if you have orange-painted Tau. But what's lame about this situation is not that he tailored a list ahead of time to beat you. It's that you didn't have a similar opportunity, not knowing his list in advance, and thus he has a pretty significant advantage, which is a bit unfair. We could argue that the player in this situation is clearly more prepared, since he has taken the time to evaluate many different possible opponents, and the time to pack a variety of models to play different lists. Typically, in contests of skill, we applaud those who make more preparations and spend more time thinking about strategy, rather than calling them names and praising those who show up with no idea about the opponent and who plan on winging it as they go. Apparently, only in 40K, being prepared is a sign of being a bad player, and being more prepared than the other guy does not mean you deserve an advantage. How strange. Still, having said that, I agree that this specific situation does feel a bit lame, only because of the immediate advantage given to one opponent. Certainly it has bugged me before when it's happened to me. After some thinking about it, though, I realised that I was being stupid, because in contests, more preparation is to be applauded.
And that's really the crux of it. We all agree that list building is a key skill in 40K. We all agree that knowing your opponents strengths and weaknesses is a key skill. Even Sun Tzu agrees on that one. Yet, inexplicably, so many people on these boards think that combining these two key skills is somehow something to be shunned, and to do so is the sign of a bad player and borderline cheat. It's mind-blowingly silly.
Many say it's a crutch. That making strategic choices about your list with knowledge of your opponent in advance means that, somehow, you aren't as 'good'. How does this even remotely make sense? When you make a list, do you make strategic choices based on what might be effective, or do you take random units, because taking effective units would be a crutch? When you see an opponent's army across the table, do you consider the weaknesses of that army and try to exploit them, or do you shoot randomly, because taking your opponent's army into consideration would be a crutch? (These are rhetorical questions.)
Right, I get it - you're supposed to take effective units, and you're supposed to know everything the opponent's army can do, but you're not supposed to take units that are effective against his army, because making good strategic decisions makes you a worse player. No, that's not right, you should make good strategic decisions when making a list, but you have to pretend that what the opponent takes doesn't matter, because reacting to your opponent makes you a worse player. Or is it that you are supposed to react to what your opponent does, but it's only skilled if the units you do it with aren't good? Or is it that you're unskilled if you make a list with excellent, point-efficient units, because that's a crutch, and you're only a better player if you play with a list full of... excellent, point-efficient units? I'm sorry, I can't seem to keep the arguments straight, probably because the arguments are all so frigging stupid.
Again, I actually do understand. The conceit is that if you play every game like it's a tournament, and thus play as generic a list as possible, you're somehow becoming better. That taking units that would be better against a particular opponent makes you worse, because you're using more effective units, and somehow playing with more effective units makes you a worse tactician. If these were true, and you really wanted to train yourself tactically, would it not make even more sense to therefore use a really bad army list filled with inefficient choices, and find a way to win with that? Of course not, you say, because list-building is part of the skill of 40K. Exactly.
40K skills involve decision-making, analysis, and an element of vision and creativity. Building the list, making good strategic choices, looking at your opponent, sizing up his strengths and weaknesses, making good decisions - all of these are part of the skills required to play 40K. It is a ridiculous conceit to suggest that sizing up an opponent's strengths and weaknesses when figures are on the board is good, but doing so when planning a game is bad. It is similarly ridiculous to claim that using units that are good at defeating an opponent is using a crutch, but using units that are more efficient and powerful is smart list design and a sign of skill.
There's a time and place for testing a generic tournament list against random, unknown opponents. But even if you simply have to test your generic tournament list at all times, because ninjas confront you in the middle of the night and challenge you to 40K games with unknown lists and you'd better be ready, it's still laughable to suggest that the key skill of list building actually means that you only pick the most efficient units, come up with a gimmick that you can use against any opponent, and play 'your game'. That's not The Art of War, that's Magic:the Gathering. It doesn't make you a better player, or a better strategist or tactician. To be honest, I think it actually makes you a little worse tactically and strategically, but that's a different argument. My point is that revisiting list design and coming up with different strategies, different unit combinations, and thus different tactics for different opponents is extremely strategic and tactical, and in fact the cornerstone of these things. NFL teams don't say 'well, we can't adapt our personnel, gameplans, and playcalling to our particular opponent, because then we'd be making ourselves worse players and leaning on a crutch'. It's part of the game. And treating it as part of the game makes you better at the game.
There are lots of reasons why tailoring your list makes the game better and more interesting, but here are a couple.
List building is a skill. Everyone agrees on this. It's a part of the game, and you should treat it as such. And it's always a skill, not only when you're making a gimmick/spam list at 1850 or 2500 or whatever points level the cool kids play at. It's strategy, and it's a skill that is lost when you just use the latest power list or only play a certain points level or come up with some gimmick so you can be known as 'that guy with all the dreadnoughts' or something. Strategy is very different at 1000 pts, at 1500, at 2000. Strategy should be different when you're facing different opponents, different combinations. The process of inventing these strategies, of analysing multiple situations, points levels, and unit combinations, makes you a better strategist, and makes you a better player.
More variety. It's obvious that there are many units in the game that are not useful in tournaments - they're not efficient or useful enough against the current meta. In the environment of list tailoring, these units see the table again. They become useful, and this adds to the variety and the possibilities of tactics and strategy. It increases your tactical pool, and broadens the tactical experience - you're seeing units you don't normally see, you're seeing combinations you don't normally see, and you have to learn to analyse and adapt to your opponent, recognising opportunities as they occur. This doesn't make you a worse player. It is always going to make you a better tactician, and a better player.
New dimensions to the game. The vast majority of 40K games are not tournament games. They're played by a group of extended friends or clubmembers, who meet regularly and play in a localised environment. Adapting lists, remembering the tendencies of a certain player or his favourite units, taking that into account and finding a counter, and then starting the whole cycle again when he finds a counter to what you did, makes the game better, and improves the players involved. That's actual evolution of strategy and tactics right there. That's how players improve, right there - they evolve their strategies, and they learn from the variety they see and do. And then there's even guesswork; 'Jeff packed a huge amount of S6 last time with very little melta capacity, so I could play a lot of AV14. But what if he expects that this week?'
That's my favoured playstyle these days. Games where both opponents know the opposing race and the mission in advance, with a predetermined points value. Both can then field lists designed to achieve objectives and beat a particular opponent, with an element of guesswork and headology thrown in. It incorporates all the skills of the game - list design, decision making, analysis of strengths and weaknesses, and creativity. Some may call it list tailoring. It sure is. It's a strategic and tactical game - play it with strategy and tactics.
40226
Post by: rovian
Yep guess what thats dumb and your thoughts are for jerks only if you bring a tailored to list to a tourny you are probably gonna lose most games as you wont face that army and it is super jerk but in a friendly grudge match its fine if both know but its mostly dumb and for people who cant play to tailor.
21748
Post by: Savist
First of all I did not read the entire post. It was too long to read all on my phone without my eyes bleeding. I do not think that list tailoring is good, I think it makes it a dumb game for both people. If you tailor a list against someone who spams missiles the obvious reaction would be to take 3 Land Raiders. At this point however you no one learns anything from the game except missiles have a hella hard time killing LRs. This game does not show skill, just that someone know how to write a list against another person. Same thing with Nids. If you take all flamers and plasma against nids you will probably tool him. It does not show who is a better player just who's list is a hard counter.
Another reason why tailoring a list is a terrible idea, for me any ways. is because most games I play are preparing for tournaments. At a tournament you can take one list, so you need to make an all comers list, and make sure it is competitive.
I think that people who tailor their lists are probably worse gamers than people who take all comers. They need to take a list that is optimized to defeat a specific army in order to win.
Yep guess what thats dumb and your thoughts are for jerks only if you bring a tailored to list to a tourny you are probably gonna lose most games as you wont face that army and it is super jerk but in a friendly grudge match its fine if both know but its mostly dumb and for people who cant play to tailor.
Wow you managed to say exactly how I feel in one line 
40226
Post by: rovian
Savist wrote:First of all I did not read the entire post. It was too long to read all on my phone without my eyes bleeding. I do not think that list tailoring is good, I think it makes it a dumb game for both people. If you tailor a list against someone who spams missiles the obvious reaction would be to take 3 Land Raiders. At this point however you no one learns anything from the game except missiles have a hella hard time killing LRs. This game does not show skill, just that someone know how to write a list against another person. Same thing with Nids. If you take all flamers and plasma against nids you will probably tool him. It does not show who is a better player just who's list is a hard counter.
Another reason why tailoring a list is a terrible idea, for me any ways. is because most games I play are preparing for tournaments. At a tournament you can take one list, so you need to make an all comers list, and make sure it is competitive.
I think that people who tailor their lists are probably worse gamers than people who take all comers. They need to take a list that is optimized to defeat a specific army in order to win.
Yep guess what thats dumb and your thoughts are for jerks only if you bring a tailored to list to a tourny you are probably gonna lose most games as you wont face that army and it is super jerk but in a friendly grudge match its fine if both know but its mostly dumb and for people who cant play to tailor.
Wow you managed to say exactly how I feel in one line
thank you bow bow
20901
Post by: Luke_Prowler
First off, using the word "Dogma" already informed me that this was not going to end well.
Second, predicting your opponent =/= list tailoring.
The reason list tailoring is frowned upon has nothing to do with strategy or tactic, it's because it's unsportsmanlike. Nothing is gain from the experience but a token victory on your record and resentment from the other player.
16335
Post by: Witzkatz
I ran into a problem like this when I started playing Wh40k with a friend of mine, he was also new.
I came to his house with my Marines. He fields IG.
He sees my list and goes..."Well, you got a dreadnought there...I'll then take some MLs against that. And now I'll take this and this and that against this stuff...*mumble*"
And I thought, well, this seems unfair. He sees what I have and can react. So why shouldn't I do it myself?
"Ah well, you got so much AT there now, I'll remove my dreadnought and take more Marines instead."
Of course, he responded.
"What?! Allright, then I'll change those MLs back to heavy bolters..and this to that..."
See what's happening there? It goes on and on. You can't list tailor "fairly", because there's always a guy who can tailor LAST. If you allow the other guy to react, then he has the advantage. And again and again and again.
If you hand each other a list and the both tailor their list to that of their opponent, then in the end both will have tailored their lists to a list that does no longer exist.
It doesn't work fairly. There's alway an edge of unfairness in there. And that's why list tailoring is unsportsmanlike and should be avoided.
Postscriptum: Tailoring works, of course, on very basic things, like knowing if your enemies will field MEQ or GEQ. And if both sides - as in my case IG and SM - agree that their armies can be slightly tailored to be better than average at beating their respective enemy - then that's fine. This works and, if there's consent, I'm ok with it. This, however, is still a step away from hardcore list tailoring, in my opinion.
782
Post by: DarthDiggler
I think if both players tailor their lists for a game you can still have an exciting game and use units that normally don't get to see the tabletop. If I'm bringing Marines and you bring Orks, we can make lists knowing that ahead of time and the game will still be fun, fair, competitive and not repetitious.
24153
Post by: tetrisphreak
I agree with everyone but the OP so far in this thread. To tune your list to the army type you expect to face (MEQ, GEQ, Orks, 'Nids, etc) is a completely different tactic from list tailoring, which is when someone sneaks a peek at someone's army list and takes every hard counter to their list to render it ineffective. Therefore there isn't strategy or tactics in the game, rather "i roll these dice and you lose game, the end". As stated above, it's sheer douchebaggery.
32432
Post by: Brother-Thunder
The problem with list tailoring is that it relies on "point & click" units specific for the enemy army. It removes alot of strategic depth because it removes the need to think of what goes where at any time.
A general list removes the worry of having to fight units meant specifically to destroy YOUR army, rather than everybody's. It makes the game more player-centric, rather than what model is taken for a point & click purpose.
8303
Post by: sexiest_hero
I see what the OP is saying. When I fight My chaos vs my buddie's Smurfs, we take lists to wreck face. Besides in the Tactics section everybody asks, how do you be Long fang or mech vets. Isn't that list tailoring.
37710
Post by: mynamelegend
Many players play to prepare for what is generally considered the top level of Warhammer 40,000 play. Namely, tournaments.
Most army lists are written with this in mind, and most online list-writing discussions are done with the assumption that your list will be used in a game that prepares for tournament play (that is to say, a Take All Comers list, instead of a tailored list).
You'll find that specific discussions about "how do I beat such and such?" tend to involve a lot more helpful pointers than it does "how dare you make a list to beat your buddy you n00by pile of n00by n00b!".
So it's not that making lists designed to defeat a previously known enemy army is looked down upon (the OP called this tailoring, but several other players have had a different idea of what the word 'tailoring' means, and my response assumes the OPs meaning). The issue is instead that the base assumption of the list building portion of the game is a different one from what the OP prefers.
I deeply doubt that anyone will honestly tell him that he's an inferior 40k player, or an inferior human being, for writing lists designed to work against the army he assumes his friends will play. If his local friends and he himself have all decided to go for this type of play instead of "tournament emulation lists", then more power to them!
There are not all that many people who claim that building a list to fight an army type ("How do I best fight hordes/MEQ/mechanized?") is inferior to playing pure TAC. The issue people have with tailoerd lists is instead with the guy who pulls out list 73-b Omega for fighting Orange Tau, then re-write it a little because the orange tau list has an ethereal.
Two friends fighting each other with lists built knowing what the enemy army is, but NOT what the enemy list is, is not list tailoring as commonly understood by the online community.
The issue people have here is mostly one of the OPs tone, I believe, and I certainly felt a bit annoyed at the tone too when reading.
"My way is better than your way, and any reasons you have for your way are all slowed" is not the way to make a point, or make friends for that matter.
Suffice to say, OP, the Warhammer Police won't come and break your door in and make you burn your enemy-centered army lists (a better and less loaded term than "tailored" for what you seem to have in mind). So acting like everyone should burn their TAC lists and conform to your idea of the "best" metagame comes across as, sadly, a little pompous and elitist.
Personally I try to make 'universal' lists, unless me and a friend are running special quirky story missions. I feel that running a solid list that doesn't change too much gives me a good idea of that list's capabilities. If my opponent tailors himself to fight me, or if he merely makes an enemy-centered list against me, I have faith in my list's ability to give myself a fighting chance. That my list tries to not make an assumption about exactly what army, or units, the enemy will field and instead tries to prepare for every eventuality... does not make me a worse person. Or a better one. It just means my local game with my friends is different from yours. I won't tell you that you're wrong, and I think that many of the other posters feel that you should return the same courtesy.
28405
Post by: dnanoodle
I'll say this--I play a guy who somewhat tailors but not so bad. He brings lists he can run against basically anything but are obviously good against mine.
He runs almost exclusively foot troops. If I go to his house packing bright lances in an all-comers list (which I have done many times) I handicap myself for a LOT of points.
Players need a balance. Either agreed upon or enforced indirectly by a local meta
527
Post by: Flavius Infernus
Wow, I can't believe the number of responses that are coming across as intolerant of the OP's ideas. Relic started off by saying Dakka was mindlessly dogmatic about this, and maybe he was right?
Or maybe not everybody actually read the post?
It sounds to me like he's saying, "If you're not playing in a tournament, designing list with a known opponent in mind adds fun new dimensions to the game." Assuming both opponents agree, of course, and are both doing it.
That doesn't seem very controversial to me. I only play all-comers lists myself, but I'm inclined to agree with the original post.
9345
Post by: Lukus83
Without trying to be labelled intolerant I have to say I disagree with the OP. My own personal experience of tailoring essentially means designing a list to beat someone who is bringing what you expect...mass flamers to a horde army, nothing but melta and ML's to a deal with a mechanized foe etc, etc. I have to ask how does this make you a better player? Surely you get better by bringing a well rounded list and trying your hardest to include things that mitigate potential weaknesses instead of just using a point and click list. "Wow, my 4 flamers just wasted 20 guardsmen...what a surprise, I found some real tactical value from that experience".
In our local meta we have a rather wide playing base of armies so we like to bring something that is able to adapt to each of the different opponents. Sure my opponents can pack a ton of melta when facing our local IG vet, but what about when they face my nids? I bet they sure wish they had some plasma right about now.
Looking at the OP's 3 original points at the bottom of his post I have to strongly disagree with all 3.
1. List building is a skill.
By tailoring how are you improving your list building qualities? You are simply taking something in an optimized environment. See flamer comment above.
2. More variety
You can do this with a well balanced list. Of course some tourney lists revolve around spam but in my opinion the best lists complement themselves with redundancy and the ability to deal with every situation out there. Bringing the right mix of flamer, plasma and melta should be pretty standard to a competitive list.
3. New dimensions to the game
Knowing what to bring to defeat a list that you know in advance is not skill. Beating a well rounded list that has the tools for every job is. Like I said before redudancy for each situation is key. You need to learn how to protect a key unit and get them into position to do the damage.
Now saying all this it may be that the kind of tailoring I have experienced may be different to that of the OPs and although I find it distasteful I can appreciate when it is needed. I have had many practise games with units that need to be experimented with to find out any potential use they may have. Take the pyrovore for example. It is utter garbage even though it provides great anti horde. Why? It takes up an elite slot which is is essentially the only place where we find our ranged anti-tank and we can find equally effective infantry killers elsewhere in the nid FOC. But to say that taking the pyrovore to deal with hordes when you know your opponent is bringing no vehicles is just wrong since you are just building a click and play list. What tactical value is gained from it? Again, see above for my flamer comment. A well balanced list will have access to the same or similar tools but you need to learn how to use them effectively and protect them until they achieve their goal while working in sync with the rest of the list.
3933
Post by: Kingsley
List tailoring, as long as both people know about it, is neither better nor worse than taking all-comers forces. It's just a different way to play.
9345
Post by: Lukus83
Well of course if both players agree there is nothing really wrong with it. I don't claim that it is cheating or shows lack of skill but it does create limits on becoming a better player.
1303
Post by: Relic_OMO
mynamelegend wrote:I deeply doubt that anyone will honestly tell him that he's an inferior 40k player, or an inferior human being, for writing lists designed to work against the army he assumes his friends will play. If his local friends and he himself have all decided to go for this type of play instead of "tournament emulation lists", then more power to them!
There are not all that many people who claim that building a list to fight an army type ("How do I best fight hordes/MEQ/mechanized?") is inferior to playing pure TAC. The issue people have with tailoerd lists is instead with the guy who pulls out list 73-b Omega for fighting Orange Tau, then re-write it a little because the orange tau list has an ethereal.
Two friends fighting each other with lists built knowing what the enemy army is, but NOT what the enemy list is, is not list tailoring as commonly understood by the online community.
Do a Dakka Search for 'list tailoring' and see. Alternatively, just look at this thread. I don't make that assessment for no reason.
Lukus83 wrote:Without trying to be labelled intolerant I have to say I disagree with the OP. My own personal experience of tailoring essentially means designing a list to beat someone who is bringing what you expect...mass flamers to a horde army, nothing but melta and ML's to a deal with a mechanized foe etc, etc. I have to ask how does this make you a better player? Surely you get better by bringing a well rounded list and trying your hardest to include things that mitigate potential weaknesses instead of just using a point and click list. "Wow, my 4 flamers just wasted 20 guardsmen...what a surprise, I found some real tactical value from that experience".
Do you believe that you only get tactical experience when you use something suboptimal? So there's no value in using flamers to kill hordes, but if you use all your lascannons to kill the horde, then you've really learned something tactically? By that logic, then, when you design a list, you make sure that it uses the least efficient units you can, right, so you aren't using optimal units, and thus you're getting maximum tactical value out of your experience, am I right? And when you see those 20 guardsmen on the table, you don't use the flamer in your army, you instead use the lascannons, because otherwise you wouldn't get any tactical value from the experience.
No, obviously you don't, because list-building is part of the skill of 40K. Assessing strengths and weaknesses, and using strengths against weaknesses is key to the game. In fact, it may well be the core skill. It's completely bizarre to suggest that making the decision to use a strong unit against an enemy weakness shows skill if you do it on the table, but shows lack of skill if you do it in advance.
1. List building is a skill.
By tailoring how are you improving your list building qualities? You are simply taking something in an optimized environment. See flamer comment above.
Because, as I said, the process of inventing strategies, analysing different situations, points levels, and unit combinations, makes you a better strategist, and makes you a better player. What I don't get is how people can seriously argue that making a list filled with only the most efficient, powerful units in the codex that are good against everything and have few weaknesses, rolling that out and executing your preplanned strategy shows great skill, but making a list with different units and a different preplanned strategy shows no skill.
I don't claim that it is cheating or shows lack of skill but it does create limits on becoming a better player.
So you're not claiming it shows lack of skill, it just... shows lack of skill? It does nothing of the sort. We all believe that using the right unit for the right situation is a skill. We all believe that matching strengths and weaknesses is a skill. Yet, inexplicably, you believe that to do it before the game is not a skill. In fact, as you say in your pyrovore example, you think it's 'just wrong'. Somehow, making the decision to take this unit for a planned role (ie. anti-horde) is 'wrong', it's just 'click and play'. It has no 'tactical value'. Yet your example says that you want that slot for ranged anti-tank, ie. Hive Guard and Zoanthropes. Somehow, making the decision to take those units for a planned role and then using them for that role isn't 'wrong'. It's A-OK. It isn't click and play, it shows tons of tactical skill.
I may be wrong. Maybe you don't take Hive Guard with the role of anti-tank in mind and use them for that role. Maybe you just like how cute the models are, or you use them in other ways for maximum tactical value. Again, obviously this is not the case - you take those units with a planned role, you use them in that role, and that's strategy and tactics right there. Your mistake, dare I say conceit, is that it's only a skill if you do it in a list that isn't designed with any opponent in mind.
3933
Post by: Kingsley
Lukus83 wrote:Well of course if both players agree there is nothing really wrong with it. I don't claim that it is cheating or shows lack of skill but it does create limits on becoming a better player.
I wouldn't say that. If you frequently play campaigns or in other environments where list tailoring is appropriate or even encouraged, then *not* list tailoring puts yourself at a disadvantage. It's all about what you want to get out of the game-- not everyone has to be interested in the competitive tournament style of play.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Flavius Infernus wrote:Wow, I can't believe the number of responses that are coming across as intolerant of the OP's ideas. Relic started off by saying Dakka was mindlessly dogmatic about this, and maybe he was right?
Or maybe not everybody actually read the post?
It sounds to me like he's saying, "If you're not playing in a tournament, designing list with a known opponent in mind adds fun new dimensions to the game." Assuming both opponents agree, of course, and are both doing it.
That doesn't seem very controversial to me. I only play all-comers lists myself, but I'm inclined to agree with the original post.
With that caveat no one is going to argue. It is rather stating the obvious.
In which case a long post (which I have been unable to get through) is uneccesary.
The tone of the OP comes across as agressive and telling people he thinks their concepts are, "idiotic" makes me less inclined to continue reading.
527
Post by: Flavius Infernus
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Flavius Infernus wrote:Wow, I can't believe the number of responses that are coming across as intolerant of the OP's ideas. Relic started off by saying Dakka was mindlessly dogmatic about this, and maybe he was right?
Or maybe not everybody actually read the post?
It sounds to me like he's saying, "If you're not playing in a tournament, designing list with a known opponent in mind adds fun new dimensions to the game." Assuming both opponents agree, of course, and are both doing it.
That doesn't seem very controversial to me. I only play all-comers lists myself, but I'm inclined to agree with the original post.
With that caveat no one is going to argue. It is rather stating the obvious.
In which case a long post (which I have been unable to get through) is uneccesary.
The tone of the OP comes across as agressive and telling people he thinks their concepts are, "idiotic" makes me less inclined to continue reading.
I think the value of the original post is that it calls attention to the heavy all-comers-list prejudice on Dakka, which I had never really noticed until it was pointed out. In the interests of exploring and learning everything possible about the game, I don't see any rational basis for rejecting discussion and questions about list tailoring.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
There is nothing wrong with open discussion about list building or anything else.
But generally speaking it is better NOT to get peoples' backs up with an aggressive tone imho.
37505
Post by: Nagashek
"So you're not claiming it shows lack of skill, it just... shows lack of skill?"
Lack of skill and lack of growth are two different things. You can suck, but improve. You can also be amazing, but never improve.
For me the use of take all comers lists is more a matter of adaptability: a very important skill for any tactician to possess.
Tailoring your list to suit a faction is not a bad idea. It is logical for the leaders of your army to suit their weponry and organization to suit the enemy. (From a fluff perspective, this is what the Codex Astartes is against. CA espouses flexibility over focusing on one style or enemy type)
If friends make an appointment for a game a week in advance and build lists against their opponant's style or faction, this is appropriate. Finding ways to overcome your weaknesses against certain armies or builds is in itself a challenge and increases skill (which I believe is one of the OP's intended points.)
Changing your list at the table based on the models or list you see is obviously NOT appropriate, as illustrated above, it would just lead to endless countering, and no actual gaming would happen.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Relic_OMO wrote:The prevailing dogma on these forums is that list tailoring, ie. the practice of altering ones army so as to be optimised against a particular opposing race or to win a particular scenario, is taboo. It's wrong, it shows lack of skill, it's downright cheating. I think this notion is, quite frankly, idiotic, and challenge it unreservedly.
...
I think you have overestimated the antipathy to list tailoring.
The main people against are tournament players, who say you need to take an all-comers list to events because you don't know what you are going to come up against. This seems pretty sensible.
1303
Post by: Relic_OMO
Nagashek wrote:
If friends make an appointment for a game a week in advance and build lists against their opponant's style or faction, this is appropriate. Finding ways to overcome your weaknesses against certain armies or builds is in itself a challenge and increases skill (which I believe is one of the OP's intended points.)
Changing your list at the table based on the models or list you see is obviously NOT appropriate, as illustrated above, it would just lead to endless countering, and no actual gaming would happen.
Exactly right. On both counts. The above example of this endless countering is not a flaw with the idea of tailoring the list. It's just an example of people not getting their act together and organising a wargame. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kilkrazy wrote:
I think you have overestimated the antipathy to list tailoring.
The main people against are tournament players, who say you need to take an all-comers list to events because you don't know what you are going to come up against. This seems pretty sensible.
And it is. Absolutely it is. But I haven't overestimated the antipathy. A quick search will show that.
32486
Post by: -Nazdreg-
Lets do it this way.
If you tailor your list agains ONE specific faction, you will beat this faction most likely.
If you tailor against ALL factions, you will beat all factions most likely.
First example is a tailored list.
Last example is an all comers list.
Now tell me: What shows more skill?
The second problem is, that there are armies, who need to be played in a certain way to be competitive at all.
And there are armies who can put out a big variety of competitive lists.
So list tailoring against the latter would result in an unnecessary high risk. This is also not very useful.
Again, TAC does not mean "no tailoring".
Do you believe that you only get tactical experience when you use something suboptimal?
Actually... Yes I do.
Killing a horde with lascannons really does show skill.
But not being prepared against a horde is a lack of skill.
Also a little question to think about:
What do you do, if you play a list tailored to beat your list? (If you dont have an all comer, than you are most likely to run into that)
You need that skill shooting lascannons at hordes if you tailored against mech IG and the opponent brought s Blob army...
[EDIT]
So to turn it around again:
I am with you, OP, but as long as I understand you, I think your thinking will lead to an all comers list if you have games against an unknown opponent.
Of course if you know your opponent and he is ok with it, why not playing with tailored lists? Its another experience.
But most likely the more flexible codex will win this, not the better player.
25703
Post by: juraigamer
If both players are tailoring against each other, than it's not as bad as it would be against a tailored vs all corners list. Still, tailoring is just a bad way to play, I enjoy trying new tactics and tricks with my all corners lists.
36809
Post by: loota boy
I'm sorry, I play warhammer, Not rock-paper-scissers.
6531
Post by: notabot187
If I was playing the same friend over and over in a basement somewhere, I would probably end up list tailoring, and I would expect it out of my opponent. For many people who only play games like this, this is perfectly fine. Basement hammer is different than tourney hammer. If I only played in GTs and such, I would only bring optimized all comers lists. Since I mostly play in small store tournies, and pick up games with whomever happens to be at the FLGS, I bring a tuned mostly all comers list (no points in tailoring against x list if nobody locally plays it, or the guy who does sucks).
Now the question about how to define "all comers" If you are ONLY playing your brother or best friend in a basement somewhere (which is a pretty common way for many) than an all comers list is going to be specifically tailored against your only opponent, since he is the only one that show up... If you only play local games at the FLGS, your lists are going to be generalists based on what you will face. If you play GT hammer, your lists are going to be generalists to the point of dealing with enemies that are possible, not just likely (ie, nobody likes to lose to the "bad" army that you have a poor matchup with).
I guess what I'm saying is that at some level, nearly all lists are tailored, and all lists are all comers, if they are played in the proper environment. Where list tailoring gets its bad rep in when somebody specifically tailors against an individual without warning. Nobody really likes to be ambushed and picked on, especially when they were just wanting a pickup game the FLGS.
I personally just bring a generalist list, even against my buddies or pickup games. The reason for this is I don't like the paper rock scissors game that occurs when you bring a "counter" list. What is the points of even playing when you have rock, and your opponent has scissors? Its not fun to not be challenged, and its doesn't help you get more games and grow the hobby to smash people who can't fight back. (and it suck when the role are reversed even more). With a general all comers lists, I should have a chance to be anybody, and even be able to bring the good fight against somebody who tailors (had this happen against guard when I played daemons against him, he brought mystics with support for the first time with my list in mind, but my assault range was long enough due to bringing a fast list).
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Meh. Nomatter the situation you're always list-tailoring to one degree or another. You're either list-tailoring to your local meta, or to a gaming group, etc. The constantly changing meta makes list-building a skill unto itself.
Tailoring a list to deal with a specific army has its place. In our local escalation league it was interesting because that WAS the meta, and we knew who our opponent was going to be and what army they were going to bring. Lists were not fixed throughout the league. This made for some really interesting matchups.
Another place it makes sense is in a campaign. I don't often talk in fluff terms but here it makes sense. If a bunch of Space Marines knew they'd be fighting a hoarde of Orks, would they really bring an assload of Meltaguns? Probably not.
Just my 2 cents.
37505
Post by: Nagashek
Just because you tailor your list vs a faction does not mean you will beat them. Some factions can handle the pressure, others can not.
31561
Post by: ElCheezus
Tailoring your list against the metagame is a great idea. That's why a lot of lists make sure to have a few different ways of taking out vehicles these days. That, though, is more about knowing the state of the game in your area, and less about knowing which opponent.
Fetterkey wrote:List tailoring, as long as both people know about it, is neither better nor worse than taking all-comers forces. It's just a different way to play.
This is great. If you agree with a friend to play a few games as a campaign with set races, you should both be trying to bash each other's brains out. It would definitely be a different experience. I might even suggest my brother-in-law and I start tailoring more against each other.
I actually think that playing an all-comers list (with your meta in mind) shows better decision making. If you tailor a list against "tyranid Bob", only to find out he just switched to Tau, you'll probably lend up in trouble. Similarly, what if you took a bunch of anti-mech for your local IG player you're playing in the league today, but he's switched to all infantry for this game. As people have said, it becomes rock-paper-scissors.
A general list with a couple minor tweaks might be in order, but if you have a list that can beat both swarming Nids and all-mech IG, then you've got superior list making skills.
The anti-orange-painted Tau list that the guy pulls out of his rolodex of lists isn't an example of where being prepared wins. It's an example of where having the money to buy all the models you want, as well as transport capacity wins. He can make a list with the oddest entries, and field whatever unit he wants. What guard player uses the LR Eradicator Nova Cannon, much less buys, models, and paints three? One who knows he won't ever face marines, or has too much time and money to waste on a model that wouldn't be used without being able to tailor a list.
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
OP:
To address your points:
1. List Building is a Skill: You're correct. It takes *more* skill to make a list capable of dealing with any potential opponent than it does for an opponent to show your their models, show you their list, and for you to design a list made to capitalize on whatever is required best to beat it.
2. More Variety: There is no more variety of units in custom list-building than in a standardized "Take all Comers" list. Flashgits are a bad unit. If you custom-build a list to take on a particular opponent....its *still* not going to include flash gits. There's no basis in fact for your conjecture here.
3. New Dimensions To the Game: You have this completely backwards. Trying to gain an advantage over an opponent by stacking your deck in your favor doesn't add a new dimension. On the flip side of the coin...trying to use the units you have AT YOUR DISPOSAL in a "take-all-comers" list *does* add a new dimension to the game - one of generalship and skill.
List-tailoring isn't considered cheating by anyone I've ever met. It can be considered poor sportsmanship that you're trying to gain an unfair advantage. Mostly, it is considered inept generalship. It means that you're not good enough to figure out how to approach a challenge. The basis for this is in the fact that on the field of battle, you have what you have. Commanders don't get to view an enemy disposition and tailor the countering forces to precisely match what is needed to overcome the enemy in front of them - rather, they make do with what they have.
I encourage weaker opponents to tailor their lists to mine, so that they have a better chance of presenting a challenge. If you and I were to play, I would also encourage you to custom-tailor your list against me....since you're not skilled enough to get by without it. It isn't an insult, its just a stage along your road of learning about 40k. There comes a day in every 40k player's career where they realize that they're good enough that they don't need to try creating an advantage over their opponent by customizing their army to defeat their opponent. When I first started 40k, I custom-tailored my lists. I expect everyone in the lower echelons of 40k tactics to do so. I don't fault them for it, I just try helping them learn how to be a better general.
I realize that this is coming off as high-handed, but you must understand that there are different skill levels in 40k - and that as you expand past the novice levels and into the ability to truly analyze the tactical capabilities of your army, the units in your codex, how they work together, and what you can do to bring together a coherent force capable of responding to multiple challenges, that the need to tailor a list to an opponent to stand a chance of winning goes away.
Like I said - list tailoring is fine - it just means that you're not good enough not to do it yet. No one starts as a tactical genius at 40k.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Dashofpepper wrote:No one starts as a tactical genius at 40k.
*Insert obligatory Cadian Lord Castellan meme joke here*
25983
Post by: Jackal
1: Tailored lists only apply to friendly games.
Bring one to a tournament and 80% of the other armies will take you apart.
2: For some armies against regulars its something that has to be done.
With the current power trend with new book, old armies are far too weak to really do anything spectacular.
Necrons against pups or vamps would be a good example.
Against guard would be an extreme example.
3: You said making an all commers list takes skill?
You mean reading through a forum or 2 and digging up a basic cookie cutter layout?
Takes more skill to run a tailored or themed army as you have to think ahead and keep on your toes, rather than buy from a list you read.
4: If you know the players in a tournament and decide to tailor towards beating them, fair enough.
Thats using your own initiative.
It is not cheating as you have called it.
If that was the case, every daemon player would be screaming cheater when facing a GK army.
5: As a bit from above here, but even GW tailors thier armies.
Daemons are made to be evil, GK are made to hunt them down.
So, thats my thoughts and opinions anyway.
39296
Post by: gpfunk
Sun Tzu also said...and i'm paraphrasing as I don't have my copy of The Art of War...that the element of surprise is perhaps the most important and crucial thing to winning a battle. To strike in the most unexpected way and with such fervor and determination that your opponent cannot help but buckle. Now according to this, neither opponent should show their list to the other, as neither one of them would want to lose that crucial element before the battle has started.
Then again, you have to take Mr. Tzu with a grain of salt...it may be surprising to take an army where your elites slot is filled with flash gitz, but that doesn't mean that your standard all comers list won't trounce it.
31561
Post by: ElCheezus
Ûž Jack Ûž wrote:3: You said making an all commers list takes skill?
You mean reading through a forum or 2 and digging up a basic cookie cutter layout?
Takes more skill to run a tailored or themed army as you have to think ahead and keep on your toes, rather than buy from a list you read.
Creating the al-comers list takes more skill, yes. Just because the skill was outsourced to the internets doesn't mean it took less skill to create, it just took less for that one particular person.
Also, it takes skill to adjust the net lists to your own metagame. Very rarely does the internet meta line up with the one in my game store.
25983
Post by: Jackal
So how does it take skill for YOU to build it?
It doesent.
Its a design that someone had posted and since then it has turned into a basic layout for what you need to use.
When i go to a tournament, whats the odds of seeing 10 or so guard players, with atleast 60% running leafblower lists?
They didnt think of the same list.
They simply sourced it.
If you need reference to cookie cutter lists cheezus, keep an eye on the US tournaments.
You will find it pretty amusing how many people run a list with 1 or 2 differences.
and im sure dash can back the last statement up being a regular 
31561
Post by: ElCheezus
gpfunk wrote:Then again, you have to take Mr. Tzu with a grain of salt...
I think you mean "Mr. Sun." Chinese surnames work differently most times. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ûž Jack Ûž wrote:So how does it take skill for YOU to build it?
It doesent.
Its a design that someone had posted and since then it has turned into a basic layout for what you need to use.
If someone posts a list of all possible army builds, does that mean nobody ever has skill at making a list anymore? Oh wait, recognizing a good list is important, too. If the president surrounds himself with intelligent advisors and listens to them, does that mean he hasn't done anything intelligent?
The fact that it took an internet worth of people to build and modify the list is testament to how much work it took.
If it only matters how much skill each person put into their list, then anyone on this forum will forever be a n00b compared to the guy in his basement with no internet.
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Ûž Jack Ûž wrote:
2: For some armies against regulars its something that has to be done.
With the current power trend with new book, old armies are far too weak to really do anything spectacular.
Necrons against pups or vamps would be a good example.
Against guard would be an extreme example.
Boiling your thoughts down to this basic principle.
There are different skill levels in 40k. You don't *have* to list-tailor, you're just not good enough *yet* to know how not to. Continue on your trek to learn tactics in 40k.
My Necrons by the way are undefeated. Even against Space Puppies, IG, and Space Wolves - my three most common opponents. The only person with a claim here is Mike Brandt, when I was first looking at Necrons and we proxied a game with them in his basement using whiskey bottles for monoliths.
24860
Post by: Whatever1
Subliminally,I think a big reason that list tailoring is looked down is that it is inherently WAAC behavior. You may get your jollies by stacking a list to blow your buddies off the table by the end of Turn 3,but it isn't much fun for them.
Ethically,there's nothing wrong with list tailoring so long as both players have the equal opportunity to do so. The "Orange Tau" example should never happen,ever. In my 40k group,we all make out our lists without the other's knowledge,then let each other look at them before the game,but we aren't allowed to make changes afterwards. To look at somebody else's list,and then either build or pull out a pregenerated army list specifically designed to crush that list doesn't take a whole lot of skill.
List tailoring practices can be very detrimental to a group of 40k players in the long run. In order for any game to be fun,you have to at least feel like you have a chance to win. In a group of players that heavily list tailors,the player that has most amount of money to spend on models has a tremendous advantage,especially when you are predetermining the mission as the OP is doing. You can drop 10-man Tac Squads with Flamer/ML and 3 Whirlwinds against one buddy's Ork horde army in an Annhilation game,then turn around and run MSU's with melta in Razorbacks and 3 Lascannon Predators against another's Mech-dar list in a Capture & Control if you've got the $ to drop on the models. If your buddies don't have the cash to sufficiently list tailor to everybody else in the group,then they're at a distinct disadvantage to the people that do. One good thing about groups that primarily play TAC lists is that good list builders can identify which units will be generally good against most builds and buy those,building competitive armies for a cheaper cost. In a list tailoring group,it's one thing to realize that a unit of Pyrovores would be awesome against Jim's Ork horde army,but something altogether different to come up with $100 for a unit of 3 models that will probably only ever see the table against Jim's Ork horde army because you'll be dropping Hive Guard against everybody else. When players start to feel that they have no chance to win simply because they don't have the money to effectively list tailor against everybody else,then they are likely to lose interest in the game.
List building is an important skill in 40k,and list tailoring does give some experience to a player about learning how to deal with different types of units by using units in their codex. At the same time,it takes a lot more skill to create a list that can effectively deal with multiple armies than it does to create list that will obliterate 1-2 lists,but then get dominated by everything else. It's harder to create a list that can effectively deal with armor spam,infantry spam,and armies that rely primarily on shooting or close combat than it is to create a list that will effectively deal with infantry mobs that are good in close combat. It also takes more skill on the tabletop to win with TAC list than a tailored one.
38067
Post by: spaceelf
I view list tailoring as a logical course of action if you are playing a one off game against a known enemy and you want to win. This being said, I don't play to win. I have found that with GW games playing to win leads to boring games, and a lack of variety of armies and of army composition. The silly new Grey Knight henchman builds are a perfect example of lack of variety in army composition. Entire races are excluded from competitive play. If you play for fun, you can also use all sorts of cool minis that are not competitive. This not only adds variety in models, but in game play as well. This is not to say that I do not like winning, or don't want to win. I just find that with GW games trying to win leads to a boring game.
Many of you may think, this guy must be nuts. He plays with all of this garbage and gets his face beaten in. This of course happens, but not all of the time, as that would be quite boring as well. I also encourage my opponents to play with junk as well. It really does make the game more fun.
I find that the games that are the most fun are the ones where are armies are best matched. If it takes list tailoring to achieve this, then tailor away.
One last note, nothing is quite as satisfying than writing your own list, putting in a good number of substandard units, and winning a game.
2059
Post by: ArtfcllyFlvrd
List tailoring is lame because it's easy to win if you tailor. So unless both guys tailor, which you would have to agree to ahead of time, then one guy has such a huge advantage it's not even a real game.
If you have a lot of MEQ in your area, and you want to run an anti MEQ army, that's fine. But don't switch all your plasma and melta to flamers when you play orks. It's just lame and teachs you nothing about how to really win.
37092
Post by: Awesome Christ
I disagree, I disagree with your points, I find your arguments self defeating and silly... but it's a game, play it how you like, I build general lists because I feel it's more fun and I can learn more about over all tactics.
My biggest issues with tailoring is that some armies tailor better than others, the IG, nids and eldar can just customize better then most MEQ. If I play the guard as my blood angels going DoA I hit the field, he's strategically hidden his large blast markers so I can't take them out and on my turn I watch pretty much my entire force vaporize as I get hit with str 8 ap 3 and poison (2) ap3 and plasma vets that I cracked out of transports. he can get more tanks than I can squads if he knows what I'm fielding. How does that create a fun experience for the two of us and what did either of us learn aside from "let's not ever do that again."
Edit: this assumes both players know they're tailoring, If only one side is able to tailor, I agree, that person should be whipped and hung from the nearest set of rafters.
38888
Post by: Skinnereal
Not that I've tried it, but if you are running a list including 'scissors' (tanks, for instance), and your opponent is likely to add in a 'stone' (AT), just make sure they know you have 'paper' (ccw), and they'll limit the tailoring.
EDIT: Spelling, as usual.
20815
Post by: Deceiver
I play guard and I have an all-comers style list but it leans towards taking out MEQ'S. I have plenty of pie plates and anti infantry guns to deal with most infantry hordes but without the foresight of adding in those plasma's and such I'll struggle agaisnt anything in power armor. Having said that, the units such as plasma vets in my mind have roles which can be used against any army. They're transport killers, take out marines and termies, good for those horde army MC'S and so on. I won't take any unit I feel could be at a loss in the rock/paper/sissor game when you draw what army you're playing against. One unit i'm very cautious to add into a list is my hellhound squadron. It'll make or break the game based on whether I fight a horde or MEQ. That to me doesn't scream 'good use of points'. When I do take them its to clear out specific areas of infantry such as objectives so that my own can move in. My plan won't revolve around the draw of armies but the tactics of my opponant when he see's I have three hellhounds.
For me an all-comers list is about looking at what your own army lacks and filling that role as opposed to considering what an opponent can throw at you. If i'm lacking heavy anti-tank guns i'll consider some lascannons, melta's or a manticore. What I won't do is add them because I think my opponent has a new Land Raider he wants to play with. Why? Because against regular opponents theres nothing to say that it won't be a bluff to force you to take more anti-tank guns when he's only going to use an infantry army.
On the other side of the coin where you don't know your opponent, you can't specialise anyway and you have no choice but to draw a list in the dark. So all you CAN do is cover your own weakness'.
23469
Post by: dayve110
I will be playing in a 'tournament' soon.
By 'tournament' i mean a series of games where points are scored, between a small group of friends, where the prize will be free drinks.
We all know what armies we will be facing. And their will be a dominant MEQ presence, which we will all accomadate when building our lists.
We will all tailor slightly towards each other, as we know what armies will be involved but not the precise make-up of those armies.
I see no problem with this as we are all going to do it and i see no reason why not to, i know others will.
What i do have a problem with is tailoring pre-game against unknown opponents.
We had this one guy who would bring about 3,000 points (normally we play 1,500) and would find an opponent, and wait until you start getting your models out before getting his own. Funnily enough his list ended up being written on the spot and strangly geared to fight against his opponent.
Well... once he challenged me that kinda stopped so much. He wanted to play 2K and knowing his little trick, i got some of my army out, then exclaimed that i didn't bring enough to make a legal 2K list, and that i could play if we used two force org charts instead of one. He agreed, and the rest is history. I don't care how much you tailor your list, giving an Eldar player 6 heavy support choices is not the greatest idea in the world. I think he learnt his lesson after we had a little chat afterwards.
With that said, It's not really a problem in my local area, apart from the odd scenario. And i'll say it again, if you know you will face a player, or players, then there is no harm in both of you tailoring before you see each others lists, but i have serious problems when only one person does so.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
I do think there is a bit of kneejerk anti-tailoring antipathy here. That said, it's a natural product of our general focus on tournament play.
In friendly play with an opponent who has agreed to it, and does the same thing, tailoring can be okay and good fun. One of the earlier posters did mention the issue of going back and forth changing your lists, but simultaneously revealing your lists negates that issue. That being said, tailoring does bring in two other factors...
1. Some codices have more choices available to them than others. If I am playing SM, and my usual opponent has Necrons, it is not exactly fair for us to allow tailoring. I have a lot more options to do it with than he does.
2. Some players own a lot more models than others. If I have a 5000pt+ collection of SM, and my usual Eldar opponent only owns 2000pts of stuff, I have a big advantage in how much I can tailor, as opposed to him. Again, not exactly fair.
All that said, if you've taken 1 and 2 into account, and you're not prepping for tournament play, I can certainly see the potential fun of tailoring.
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
dayve110 wrote:
We had this one guy who would bring about 3,000 points (normally we play 1,500) and would find an opponent, and wait until you start getting your models out before getting his own. Funnily enough his list ended up being written on the spot and strangly geared to fight against his opponent.
Well... once he challenged me that kinda stopped so much. He wanted to play 2K and knowing his little trick, i got some of my army out, then exclaimed that i didn't bring enough to make a legal 2K list, and that i could play if we used two force org charts instead of one. He agreed, and the rest is history. I don't care how much you tailor your list, giving an Eldar player 6 heavy support choices is not the greatest idea in the world. I think he learnt his lesson after we had a little chat afterwards.
Aww....that was a disappointing ending. :(
I was hoping it was going to be like this:
.....knowing his little trick, I got some of my army out until he got his models out and made a list. Then I fussed with them and exclaimed that I was missing models and couldn't make a legal 2k list, so switched armies on the spot (from like Marines to Eldar or something) and beat the crap out of the list he tailor-made to beat my other army.
32486
Post by: -Nazdreg-
Actually only one time I ran into an opponent tailoring in a friendly game.
But he did it openly. Asked me what I have (Mono slaanesh Daemons  ) and then adapted his weapons to it. He played the nasty Tau Battlesuit army and exchanged Krisis weaponry (and even asked me for advice)
The table was next to without terrain.
I took it with humour and spent the last 2 turns chasing a fleeing devilfish across the board after crushing the rest with horrible casualties on my side too.
And I held a draw against an Anti- IG Wolves Army.
Of course if opponents tailor against you, it will be a challenging game, but I would rather tailor my list to be worse against my opponent than tailor it to be better.
Its against my own subjective sense of honour.
23469
Post by: dayve110
Dashofpepper wrote:Aww....that was a disappointing ending. :(
If it helps, considering he took 20 terminators (you know of my fondness for AP=rubbish scatter lasers... ) I though it was quite fitting that he got the majority of those wiped out without striking back by 2 Wraithlords, an Avatar, Eldrad, Yriel and Seer council. After 2 doomed units, 4 flamers, 6 destructors, and one hell of charge later of course. And yes, that was alot of points and wouldn't work for me normally, but totally worth it to see the look on his face. (Oh, i took no pleasure in this beating, it was purely an educational game regarding proper list writing.  )
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
-Nazdreg- wrote:
Of course if opponents tailor against you, it will be a challenging game, but I would rather tailor my list to be worse against my opponent than tailor it to be better.
Its against my own subjective sense of honour.
Now that....is not bad list tailoring.
I do a little of the same, although rather than switching up units (hard on Vassal since if you ask what army people are running, they presume you're going to tailor to it), I switch down codexes to something less competitive.
6454
Post by: Cryonicleech
Tailoring isn't bad, IMHO, for campaigns, or events in which you play against the same opponent(s) over a long time period.
But Tailoring is, generally, a poor strategy. It's not a "morally" bad one, but if you brought anti-infantry to a tournament, sure, you'll beat that foot sloggin' list, but when the Mech hits the table, best of luck to ye.
However I don't see it as a better way to play, it's really basic. Oh, your opponent brought infantry? Sure, bring lots of flamers, not reprehensible, but honestly, I think if you find a list that hard-counters your list to the point where you're forced to tailor that says a lot more about the units/options you may have taken, or your general strategies, more than anything else.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
So, I'm going to tentatively agree with the OP here.
What the OP is saying is that the strongest list will be the ones that beat your opponents, so the strongest lists will have your opponents in mind when you make them. Furthermore this kind of espionage and creating a list that EXACTLY beats what you're planning to come across actually does take a fair degree of skill.
Yes, it takes skill to make a list that covers all of your bases, but it also takes a lot of skill to find out what four player's lists are and build a list specifically designed to counter all four of them.
If you're competing, espionage and intelligence gathering, for the purpose of making decisions based on what you find, is a good skill to have, and isn't in any way immoral.
As El Cheezus notes...
ElCheezus wrote:Tailoring your list against the metagame is a great idea.
Because, really, if you're only ever taking the one list regardless of what your local meta is like, are you actually a more skilled person? I'd think it's the one who adapts to change and the specific circumstances they come across that is better in this regard.
That said, while I agree with the premise, there are a few problems in execution.
Relic_OMO wrote:But what's lame about this situation is not that he tailored a list ahead of time to beat you. It's that you didn't have a similar opportunity, not knowing his list in advance, and thus he has a pretty significant advantage, which is a bit unfair.
Witzkatz wrote:He sees my list and goes..."Well, you got a dreadnought there...I'll then take some MLs against that. And now I'll take this and this and that against this stuff...*mumble*"
And I thought, well, this seems unfair. He sees what I have and can react. So why shouldn't I do it myself?
"Ah well, you got so much AT there now, I'll remove my dreadnought and take more Marines instead."
Of course, he responded.
"What?! Allright, then I'll change those MLs back to heavy bolters..and this to that..."
See what's happening there? It goes on and on. You can't list tailor "fairly", because there's always a guy who can tailor LAST. If you allow the other guy to react, then he has the advantage. And again and again and again.
This is one of them. Only one person can apply their skill at list tailoring effectively. This is because the last person who applied their list tailoring skills likely utterly counteracted the penultimate list tailoring.
List tailoring isn't somehow immoral, but it is unfair. You can do list tailoring in certain ways fairly (like playing to the local meta in general), but doing list tailoring in other ways just gives you an unfair advantage.
In common parlance, this is called "cheating".
Relic_OMO wrote:More variety.
This is the other thing I'd take issue with. We have actually played a league or two at my FLGS, and I found the opposite to be true.
The reason why is because when people have 3 or 4 lists, and they pull out the one designed to beat your type of list before the game begins, this punishes you for having a type of list that can be tailored against.
The end result is players taking a more thorough blend of different units until they found the one list that was untailorable, and then played that one list over and over again.
The end result is that it actually reduced variety, and caused people of the same army to start fielding more and more similar lists.
6531
Post by: notabot187
My funniest list tailoring story is when I was playing my orks in 4ed. A guy I've never seen comes in, asks for a low point game, like 750. I tell him I'm playing orks (and I have no idea what he is playing) I take 5 minutes and cut out units out of my normal list, leaving me with something I thought was fun. He takes all the plasma and high strength weapons for high volume anti ork weapons. Only problem.... I brought a unit of scoring meganobs (in a truck), some warbikers, biker boss, and a unit of gretching. Proceed to stomp him taking almost no wounds. Tried to say I tailored against him, by not taking horde orks... While he took all the plasma and railguns out of his list, and I didn't even know he was playing tau.
24267
Post by: akaean
I strongly dislike list tailoring.
I don't dislike it because there is a "dogma" against it on Dakka. Rather I dislike it because nearly everything that frustrated me when I started playing 40K was a direct result of list tailoring.
When you first start out, and come in to the store with your first 750 point list. You are fielding nearly 100% of your models.
You make an all comers list because you don't know what armies the local meta consists of, all you know is that you've just dropped ~200 dollars and you expect your all comers list to give you a good game, no matter who you play.
Then you walk into the store, and get ready to play a game. You ask for a small game because you don't have very many points.
They go, "Ok, I'll play a game with you, what army do you play?"
"Eldar"
*smiles sagely and proceeds to write a list specifically designed to crush elves in space*
At this point I stopped telling people what army I was running so it would be all comers v all comers.
its just stupid. Its not preparing, its basically saying screw you new guy I can do this and you don't have the models to do it back to me.
I've gotten better since then, but I still write all comers lists. I go to various different stores to play so there is no "local meta" for me. I've built my 2000 point list, with units I like, and I expect it to fare admirably no matter where I play it.
List tailoring is WAAC strategy that is incredibly unfair to new gamers.
Designing a personalized list of units you like that can still do well in a casual all comers environment is a testament to skill, list tailoring is not.
20815
Post by: Deceiver
It depends entirely on the player. Theres some little brats where I play who will do that but most of the guys are pretty fair. You pick a list and then thats it. Touch move like in chess. One of the guys let one of the newer players choose which of his four lists to play against which I found quite odd but at the same time kind of nice.
Personally I have four lists, one infantry based, one mech/tank heavy based, and two all comers. I can only physically carry the infantry and the all comers models on me due to the carry case size. I pick what ever I feel like playing with as opposed to who i'm facing. The point is its a game. Your there to have fun. Besides, you learn more from defeat than victory. Theres plenty of oppertunity to be picky and canny in tournies.
36940
Post by: Anvildude
The way I read the OP wasn't necessarily that everyone should bring boxes of models, and 'tailor', or pick in the minutes before the game, an army list specifically designed to counter the list their opponent has. I believe the point was more that there is a psychological aspect to the game, which includes knowing your opponent, knowing what they like to field, and understanding how they might react to a change in your list. It's not about single games, it's about a gaming career, about the months you play and build your army, watching others do the same and attempting to exploit the player's weaknesses, not the list's. More Rommel and Patton, and less spiteful arena handler deciding to loose the tigers instead of the other team of unarmoured surfs.
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Ailaros wrote: Stuff...
Despite having addressed the points you're agreeing with very early in the discussion (like, which takes more skill - tailoring your list to your opponent, or taking a fixed set of models and tailoring their use to find a way to beat your opponent?) but then I saw that it was you who posted. I'll go ahead and save my breath and time.
However, if you would like a detailed explanation of why your agreement with the OP is based on faulty premises (of what skill is), skip back to the first page and look for my first post. Automatically Appended Next Post: Deceiver wrote: One of the guys let one of the newer players choose which of his four lists to play against which I found quite odd but at the same time kind of nice.
That's a respectable player! =D While I don't have multiple lists for the same armies (except for Necrons, where I have both a Wraith Wing and a Tomb Spyder wing), and I do have the models to change up in my other armies for any permutation I'd like...I typically offer my opponent the opportunity to play against multiple codexes. If you want to play my face-beating list, you get Dark Eldar. If you want to play a solidly competitive list, you get my Orks. If you're not a very competitive player, you get my Necrons.
Does your guy have wildly different army lists, or variations of the same theme for his four?
26282
Post by: striderx
Dashofpepper wrote:If you want to play my face-beating list, you get Dark Eldar. If you want to play a solidly competitive list, you get my Orks. If you're not a very competitive player, you get my Necrons.
Then what does your Tau do?
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
striderx wrote:Dashofpepper wrote:If you want to play my face-beating list, you get Dark Eldar. If you want to play a solidly competitive list, you get my Orks. If you're not a very competitive player, you get my Necrons.
Then what does your Tau do?
I traded out my Tau for Necrons last year - I was having issues with people crying cheese over DE and Orks, so I got Necrons as my "I dare you to cry cheese" army. You only have to kill 24 models to phase me out. =D
23469
Post by: dayve110
akaean wrote:When you first start out, and come in to the store with your first 750 point list. You are fielding nearly 100% of your models.
You make an all comers list because you don't know what armies the local meta consists of, all you know is that you've just dropped ~200 dollars and you expect your all comers list to give you a good game, no matter who you play.
Then you walk into the store, and get ready to play a game. You ask for a small game because you don't have very many points.
They go, "Ok, I'll play a game with you, what army do you play?"
"Eldar"
*smiles sagely and proceeds to write a list specifically designed to crush elves in space*
You were playing some very egocentric people. There are games that take carefull planning to win, and games that are simply "i win" against a new guy where the winner takes nothing away except his ego grows several inches while be brags to his friends about how he smashed some new guy into the dirt.
Personally, given a new player in the store, i'll volunteer to play them. And against a new player i'll win. BUT i don't tailor my list at all, i'll lower it down to whatever level they are playing but keep the same things in mind (say i had 3A, 2B, 2C and 1D... then I'd take 2A, 1B and 1C).
Now, IMO, getting your arse handed to you is the best way to learn, during early 3E it is exactly what happened to me and i quickly got better, upto the point where i am now. I still get beaten occasionaly or have very close games, and i learn some very valuable information from each one. Learning what NOT to do, it better than steamrolling your opponents. While i gain little from these newbie games nowadays, i'm imparting knowledge in the most basic way possible and always assure that i have a nice talk with the newbie afterwards, and during the game...
I will point out if X unit is shuffled over 3" it'll provide cover to the more valuable Y unit for example, or that positioning X unit at that point will let it into charge range of a wraithlord that it cannot hurt in combat, etc.
After the game, i'll give pointers on the new guys list, suggesting little changes here and there without them having to buy a stash of new models. I'll also give some pointers on where they went wrong and the main points of the game that caused them to loose and things of that nature.
When i got back into the hobby properly the little group we formed consisted of 2 new guys, and at the recent RTT tournament we all went to those 2 new guys managed to both get into the top 50%, one of them i think reached the top 10% and came 3rd out of the players from our store (and this is the guy i used to play twice each week)
akaean wrote:At this point I stopped telling people what army I was running so it would be all comers v all comers.
its just stupid. Its not preparing, its basically saying screw you new guy I can do this and you don't have the models to do it back to me.
It really depends on who you play...
akaean wrote:I've gotten better since then, but I still write all comers lists. I go to various different stores to play so there is no "local meta" for me. I've built my 2000 point list, with units I like, and I expect it to fare admirably no matter where I play it.
List tailoring is WAAC strategy that is incredibly unfair to new gamers.
Designing a personalized list of units you like that can still do well in a casual all comers environment is a testament to skill, list tailoring is not.
While i agree creating a viable all comers list takes immense skill, there ARE times when tailoring can be both fair and show some skill at creating you list.
If you were to play in a mini-tournament with a group of your close friends with some sort of beer-related prize and you knew that all of them would be playing MEQ's... would you really take units to accomodate orc opponents? or IG power-blob armies?
While it would be a decent test of an all-comers list, mutual tailoring between friends could lead to interesting results
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Dashofpepper wrote:However, if you would like a detailed explanation of why your agreement with the OP is based on faulty premises (of what skill is), skip back to the first page and look for my first post.
Actually, you didn't say WHY list tailoring require less skill, you only said THAT it requires less skill.
Furthermore, this is missing the OP's original point that list tailoring IS a skill. It's part of the subset of skill in list building.
In fact, you implied that taking a tailored list is a sign of a weak general because a tailored list will allow a weaker general to do better. What is a tailored list, though, but a list that is strong in the circumstances in which you're using them?
What this is implying, then, is that the stronger a list is, the less a player has to think on the field, which is the sign that they're a bad general. This would mean that only the most skilled players would bring the weakest lists possible, if having a horribly mis-matched list is a sign of a good player.
Generally, it seems to me that the opposite is true. The best players bring the best lists they possibly can. Knowing something about the army you're going to be facing against increases the ceiling of possible.
After all, what difference is there really between a person making the best list possible without knowing anything about their opponent, and those who build the best list possible while knowing things about their opponent? One could make the argument that the former are simply lazy, while the latter has put in the time and effort to do research, and planning a different list every time.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Ok its ok to tailor lists. Op ill play you, but just before it starts I wanna see your list first so I can change my list accordingly.
But... you want to change yours now right? Or else ill just pwn you. Ok you can change... but now I have to. There ok.. what? Now you have to change because I just hard countered your list again and it would be impossible to beat? Ok you can change... what? Infantry horde list? Ok ok I get rid of all my heavy weapons and just take templates and flamers. Sorry, now you have to change again?!
Let's just do that until the end of time. My distant ancestors can write lists with yours! Awesome dude!
33511
Post by: Alphapod
I think that the perils of list tailoring can be explained by the following story:
There once was a new guy at my FLGS. He had just started DE, but had built up a 1250 point list for the first game. He had arranged to play against a player that was widely known to use Tau, so he geared up to smash mechanized or crisis-suit heavy Tau. When his opponent arrived, said opponent brought Blood Angels Dantewing and stomped him (less though than he should have due to poor dice rolling). Then I get up for the next game (I wrote my list two days before). Seeing my Tau, my opponent is quite happy, declaring that he "built his list to kill Tau". My Tau stomped him worse than the Blood Angels. What appeared on paper to be good ideas (Splinter Cannons for killing Crisis Suits, Dark Lances for killing Devilfish, and Wyches to kill everything) ended up falling apart as I blew apart the overly-confident glass cannon, especially since my list was less-than-conventional (1 Devilfish, 2 Railheads, 3x dismounted fire warriors, 1x mounted fire warriors, pathfinders, and a Command Squad).
31561
Post by: ElCheezus
One list to rule them all, and in the darkness table them.
40938
Post by: althathir
List tailoring is a really sensitive topic because of the lengths people can go to. Im gonna steal an example that was brought up earlier, if a new player shows up with a 750 point army, and plays a vet that has a 750 point list for facing that fraction in most cases A) the premade list is gonna be off cause new players lists rarely are optimal. B) regardless of the tailoring the vet would spank him anyways because he probably has better idea of what the noobs army can do then the new player.
What bothers me is if a that new player agrees to a game, and the opposing players looks at his list and then designs a list to counter the specific units the new player has chosen. This scenario is why tailoring has such a bad repuation.
33891
Post by: Grakmar
I'm shocked by the number of people who clearly have no idea whats being talked about in this thread.
The OP is not saying: "Look over your opponent's exact list and make one to beat it." He's saying "Both players should be aware of what army the other one is playing."
That is perfectly acceptable, IMHO. Take-all-comers works great in tournaments and for random pickup games at a FLGS (since you don't want to have to haul all your models to the store). But, for a friendly game, let both players know what army they'll be facing off against. It really does add a whole new level to the game.
And, I perfectly respect the die-hard tournament players that view friendly games as training and want both players to use TAC.
To each their own.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the veteran vs newbie:
The veteran should absolutely list tailor. But, not to win, to take a worse army. The newbie he's going against has probably made a few mistakes in list building and doesn't have as good a grasp as the rules and tactics of 40k.
A vet will absolutely destroy a newbie if he uses his standard TAC list. He has to list tailor to tone the list down a bit and make the game fair.
40938
Post by: althathir
That was kinda my point, it just that "list tailoring" is a fairly vague statement, building a list when I know i'm gonna play imp guard next, and these are the units my buddy uses i'll build a list to counter them both fall under the same terminology.
40698
Post by: An0maly1
I agree with the OP, for the money and time anyone spends on building, painting, and crafting an army they should get, hell, they deserve the right to do whatever they damned well please with their army.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Grakmar wrote:Take-all-comers works great in tournaments
You know, I actually question that serious tournament gamers bring take-all-comers lists.
I mean, really, were I to go to a big tournament, I'd make my list to be good against mech guard, space wolves, and blood angels. You're not making a list to take ALL comers, you're making a list to take the most popular tournament lists.
40938
Post by: althathir
The mission packs (most tournaments release them early) also have a lot to do with army list composition, for example if only one mission is objective based taking less troops than normal may be a good ideal.
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Ailaros wrote:Grakmar wrote:Take-all-comers works great in tournaments
You know, I actually question that serious tournament gamers bring take-all-comers lists.
I mean, really, were I to go to a big tournament, I'd make my list to be good against mech guard, space wolves, and blood angels. You're not making a list to take ALL comers, you're making a list to take the most popular tournament lists.
Do you see the relation to my objections to your theories that luck plays at the high end of gaming? >< Its speculation without reference. The best way to answer your question is this: Check out my Nova Open Orks (link in signature). Tell me what army it is poorly equipped to handle that isn't on your list there - Mech Guard, Space Wolves and Blood Angels.
A more general note would be that an army capable of dealing with those three is very capable of dealing with pretty much anything else too.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Dashofpepper wrote:Tell me what army it is poorly equipped to handle that isn't on your list there - Mech Guard, Space Wolves and Blood Angels.
A more general note would be that an army capable of dealing with those three is very capable of dealing with pretty much anything else too.
Exactly. It's not that you make a list that ONLY handles those three list, and utterly fails to handle the other things. It just so happens that good lists for handling those three armies can also probably sufficiently handle many other army types as well. That doesn't mean that the list wasn't build with certain armies in mind.
Furthermore, ignoring tournament meta doesn't strike me as the first step into creating the most competitive tournament list. Ignoring the meta doesn't actually make you a better player either, nor does failing to build a list around what you expect.
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Ailaros wrote:Dashofpepper wrote:Tell me what army it is poorly equipped to handle that isn't on your list there - Mech Guard, Space Wolves and Blood Angels.
A more general note would be that an army capable of dealing with those three is very capable of dealing with pretty much anything else too.
Exactly. It's not that you make a list that ONLY handles those three list, and utterly fails to handle the other things. It just so happens that good lists for handling those three armies can also probably sufficiently handle many other army types as well. That doesn't mean that the list wasn't build with certain armies in mind.
Furthermore, ignoring tournament meta doesn't strike me as the first step into creating the most competitive tournament list. Ignoring the meta doesn't actually make you a better player either, nor does failing to build a list around what you expect.
Uh.....*sigh*
Dood. Not exactly. You're completely missing the point. My *personal* Ork list was designed before Mech IG. Or Space Wolves. Or Blood Angels. Or Tyranids. Or Dark Eldar. It was designed to be capable of the potential to deal with every single codex. And I *do* mean that I went through the wargaming of "This is how I'm going to deal with this marine build....and this Necron build....and this Ork build....and every permutation that I could think of in every codex."
I can't speak for all/most/majority/anything "serious tournament players," but the folks I discuss my lists and tactics with have the same philosophy.
Nor am I advocating that you ignore tournament meta. I'm advocating being prepared for ALL tournament meta. EVERYWHERE. At the same time. When I drive 11 hours to attend an event, do you really think I research what the local meta is like? Or when I spent a few months participating in a tournament circuit a couple states away that is comprised of a series of major metropolitan RTTs (still local) that my army changes?
That's what I consider skill. I can take the set of models that I've grown comfortable using together, and plop them on a table anywhere in the world, in any META, against any army, against any theme in any army, and be comfortable in the knowledge that I have the tools to prevail.
32486
Post by: -Nazdreg-
I can take the set of models that I've grown comfortable using together, and plop them on a table anywhere in the world, in any META, against any army, against any theme in any army, and be comfortable in the knowledge that I have the tools to prevail.
That would be the definition of a TAC.
And I support this statement. And in your case, Dash, I like that your way involves the "relationship" between the player and the list.
If you read forums and the guys tell you "Take this, it is good" and you have no idea what they talk about, then it makes no sense for you to stick to this advice in the first place.
You actually have to "be" the army in order to excel with it.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
I didn't feel like reading through three pages of this before asking, but do you consider it list tailoring if you plan to play against a specific codex? Not knowing the models, but knowing which particular army you will play? If I know I'm playing against Space Marines, I'm gonna want AP 3 or 2 weapons. Bring some big guns for tanks, etc. But yes, knowing your opponents SPECIFIC list and running something against him designed to just beat that is lame. Unless your friend is running a cheesy/beardy list and you just want to teach him a lesson and you are already a better player.
30356
Post by: Jaon
I believe in tailoring to a specific army e.g daemons or MEQ or guard tanks, but not to a list.
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
timetowaste85 wrote:I didn't feel like reading through three pages of this before asking, but do you consider it list tailoring if you plan to play against a specific codex? Not knowing the models, but knowing which particular army you will play? If I know I'm playing against Space Marines, I'm gonna want AP 3 or 2 weapons. Bring some big guns for tanks, etc. But yes, knowing your opponents SPECIFIC list and running something against him designed to just beat that is lame. Unless your friend is running a cheesy/beardy list and you just want to teach him a lesson and you are already a better player.
Yes, I would consider that list-tailoring. Why would you want to build a list designed to kill one particular army well when you can build a list designed to kill EVERY army well?
1986
Post by: thehod
Dash has a point, but rather than focus on armies I focus on common things you will see in lists:
Hordes
Power Armor
Mech Vehicles
Power HQs
FNP
AV 14
You need units to counter the above.
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
thehod wrote:Dash has a point, but rather than focus on armies I focus on common things you will see in lists:
Hordes
Power Armor
Mech Vehicles
Power HQs
FNP
AV 14
You need units to counter the above.
Hordes - Orks
Power Armor - More orks/bigger Orks (nobz)
Mech Vehicles - More orks again
Power HQs - Deffrolla/Nobz
FNP - More orks, rollas, nobs
AV 14 - Rolla.
Hordes - Basic DE weaponry
Power Armor - More basic weapons
Mech Vehicles - Well, troops to be fancy, but more basic DE weaponary
Power HQs - More SC
FNP - pew pew
AV 14 - DL Pew Pew.
There really should be enough basic solutions to them problems in any list trying to even claim to be TAC.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Dashofpepper wrote: Why would you want to build a list designed to kill one particular army well when you can build a list designed to kill EVERY army well?
Because no one list kills every army equally well.
There is no "one list to table them all", no "master list" out there. Indeed, if there were, then any competitor worth their weight in salt would only ever play that one list.
In the end, you have to make choices. You can make a list that does nothing "poorly" (which is perhaps what people really mean when they talk about a take-all-comer list), but it's impossible to make a list that does absolutely everything "very well".
You have to choose what you're going to be weaker against and what you're going to be stronger against. Either you make these decisions randomly, or you take into consideration what you're likely to face off against (aka list tailoring).
40519
Post by: Kingkaneda
I'm pretty new to 40k, pretty new to wargaming in general. Started about a year ago with infinity, and now Im being convinced 40k is the way to go. So I'm proxying with some of their armies, mainly using SW or Tau to represent vanilla SM. My 2 friends each have 3 armies. So while they KNOW I'll be fielding SM, I have no clue what to expect. I can face Tau, Orcs, SW, CM, Deamons or Tyranids. Basicaly I lose everytime. And everytime I take the new information into my list. So I guess this would give me a sorta balanced list in the end, while they get better and better at stomping SM.
I like it alot better when I know ahead of time wich army Im going to face. I'm not talking about wich units he picks, just wich army. This way I can make minor adjustments to my list, of wich I think will help me against this particulary army. Offcourse my opponent can do the same and we both make a hard list to play against eachother. No last minute changes after seeing my opponents list, that is just lame. This way it is fair and equal.
Its a shame you can't take more lists to tournament. They could say you make a 1 different list vs every army, you can decide for yourself if you field the same against some. So offcourse I'll field alot of flamers vs Imperial guard, but the IG player should now this when he is going to face SM and try to make a good counter against it. I agree with the topic starter that this opens up a wider and possibly more interesting way of preparing for combat.
edit: I just thought of a good comparison: Street fighter 4
Ive played sf 4 alot when it just came out. Even entered some tournaments. Comparing the list building of 40k to the move set you use in sf4. Some people will always play the same tactic in sf4, no matter who they are facing. Wheter they face allrounder ryu, range player dhalsim, turtle guile etc. These people usually don't get very far in the tournaments, cause they don't adapt. Shooting alot of fireballs and then trapping him with an uppercut works ok versus a slow guy like zangief, but its horrible against dhalsim who just teleports away. So after playing alot of sf4 I developed different tactics against ALL the different characters. Moves(units if you compare it to 40k) I used alot againts 1 character, were horrible against other.
The same can be said for a lot of things. Adapting will make the game more fun and deeper. It would be horrible if in sf4 everybody just had 1 tactic and they always played like that, you get a random winner in the end.
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Ailaros wrote:Dashofpepper wrote: Why would you want to build a list designed to kill one particular army well when you can build a list designed to kill EVERY army well?
Because no one list kills every army equally well.
There is no "one list to table them all", no "master list" out there. Indeed, if there were, then any competitor worth their weight in salt would only ever play that one list.
In the end, you have to make choices. You can make a list that does nothing "poorly" (which is perhaps what people really mean when they talk about a take-all-comer list), but it's impossible to make a list that does absolutely everything "very well".
You have to choose what you're going to be weaker against and what you're going to be stronger against. Either you make these decisions randomly, or you take into consideration what you're likely to face off against (aka list tailoring).
As I keep telling you....you only believe that because you're a mere mortal playing 40k. Tell that to Hulksmash, who has retired his Space Wolves, because (and I quote), "It isn't fair for me to use them against mortals." Just because you aren't good enough to do something doesn't mean that it can't be done. And the "one list that can table them all" is only partly the models - it is largely the player. If I give you Hulksmash's Space Wolf list, will you beat everyone's face in with it? Nope. But he will. Most of the internet screamed at me for how ineffective my own Orks look, and all the things I needed to change to make them more effective, use more powerful units, etc.....and I beat face with them.
To be less tactful than I've been with you over three threads and about 18 pages of them...the only reason that you think its impossible to make a list that does everything very well is because you're not good enough to figure out how to make and use it. And you've no interest in learning since you steadfastly believe that luck is the ultimate determiner of 40k, not skill.
While your beliefs are commendably consistent, they are consistently inaccurate.
*edit* I refer you to my earlier challenge to back that belief up regarding my Orks.
You say that you can't make the "One list to table them all." I say that you can. And that I've done it twice. Assemble the list that is going to exploit all my weaknesses and bring it to the table, and see what happens.
39195
Post by: Asuron
Going to weigh in the debate
Ina way isn't the lists people take in tourney built to deal with mechanized armies because of their current dominance?
So isn't that in turn a form of list building.
I mean sure all comers have capacity to deal with infantry in some way, but aren't they currently more heavily leaning to any anti tank they can lay their hands on?
Also wouldn't making an all comers army be a form of list tailoring? In the way that your designing a army specifically to handle every threat a person can throw at you?
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Asuron wrote:
Also wouldn't making an all comers army be a form of list tailoring? In the way that your designing a army specifically to handle every threat a person can throw at you?
Tailoring a list is a way of preparing your army to deal with a specific scenario.
I'm pretty sure that by definition, TAC is sort of opposite tailoring on the spectrum.
39195
Post by: Asuron
Dashofpepper wrote:Asuron wrote:
Also wouldn't making an all comers army be a form of list tailoring? In the way that your designing a army specifically to handle every threat a person can throw at you?
Tailoring a list is a way of preparing your army to deal with a specific scenario.
I'm pretty sure that by definition, TAC is sort of opposite tailoring on the spectrum.
I think you are dealing with a scenario if you look at it in a certain way.
What I mean by that, is that your dealing with a scenario that you won't know what your facing and so design a list specifically to deal with that fact? That list being an all comers list
I think that if we follow with this idea, that we discover that we dislike only certain forms of list tailoring.
Like for example we dislike it when people know a list you have and specifcally tailor against it, taking units specifically designed to counter it, rather than playing on skill that using a all comers list requires.
36940
Post by: Anvildude
I suspect a lot of the debate on here is being spawned by different people having different definitions, and uses of terms. It's propably only exacerbated (made worse) by the fact that we have people from different countries.
What exactly does the term ''Tailoring" mean to you in the context of 40k?
What is a "Scenario"?
Does "Tailoring" include only the list, or do you take into account the player using that list?
Is taking a 'fluffy' list "Tailoring"?
I ask, because I see people on here talking about 'tailoring' as choosing a list to counteract a race, others seem to think it means choosing units to counter specific units; some seem to believe you can 'tailor' weeks in advance, without knowing who exactly you'll be fighting, others look like they think it's only 'tailoring' when you build your list right before the battle.
What is the Dictionary definition of "To Tailor"? It's something along the lines of building or modifying in order to solve a shortcoming, right? And by that definition, every time you try a different unit, whether for TAC or Counter purposes, you are 'tailoring' your list, to better suit your own needs.
34456
Post by: ColdSadHungry
Well, I didn't read your whole post, Relic but the gist is - what's so bad about tailoring your list to meet your opponent. And I have to agree.
Now, I don't have any tournament experience and I don't know what the WH40K community generally feels about it but if you have, say 3000 points worth of an army and you know that you will be facing a mob of orks in one battle and some space wolves in another, why should you be forced to use the same army to fight both? You've got 3000 points worth of troops so take you pick from that lot for each battle.
I don't always want to play with the same force over and over, equally, I want the challenge of facing an army that has been designed, as best it can, to beat mine. I want to chop and change my force and try to outwit my opponent, not just on the field of battle, but before it by wisely choosing the right components of my force.
Surely it's far more challenging to have to alter your army and try to anticipate what your opponent is likely to field than to just draw up one list and face opponents who have used the same list in their last two/three battles or whatever. It's like a football match - I much prefer the build up to it, the possibilities, the options - to the after match analysis. To me, it's far more interesting to be able to take a different set up for each battle because I don't want to know the make up of my opponent's force before the battle and I want to be able to spring a surprise or two on him as well.
36940
Post by: Anvildude
I think what might get people all hackled about doing that is that most folks believe that there's always a hard counter to every unit, or every list. That is, some combination that will always beat that list, if both players are of generally the same skill level.
Thing is, when you start mixing in combinations of units, synergization, Psychic powers and such, you will, in fact, not really have a hard counter (IMO). Of course, then the other thing is, everybody runs the same. exact. lists. So there's very little experimentation ongoing, trying to see how two units might interact when using them together on the tabletop. All you have to do to see that is post a non-standard list here on DakkDakka, and count how many people basically tell you to gut it and replace it with one of the standard lists. Orks for example: Say you take a list with Flash Gitz, Big Gunz, Tankbustas and Bikerboyz, with a Warphead and Grotsnik. You might be playing that because it's all you have, or you like the fluff, or whatever. But when you ask how you should use that list, you won't get advice on how to best use those units together; instead you'll get advice on building one of the 'standard lists', like Kan Wall or Wagon Spam.
This means that, hey, guess what, it's possible to tailor to a list, since you can know EXACTLY HOW IT'S GOING TO BE PLAYED. On the other hand, if it's a list you've never seen before, like a Boyz and Deffdredds list I saw a while back, your opponent won't know how you're going to use it, and as such will have a much, much harder time 'tailoring' a list against it.
I suppose this tactic of using, you know, non-standard lists (which everyone has seen a thousand times before, so, hey, guess what? There's known counters!) might be a bit difficult for codexes without much customizability and limited units (sorry Necrons) but hey, those folks are usually pretty creative in how they play anyways.
5563
Post by: bucheonman
I only read most of the 1st page, but I want to respond to a few things that were typed.
It is not a bad thing in itself, but in cases, list tailoring can be rude. Let me give you a few examples.
1. When I played 3rd, just before Nids got their codex, we were playing a 2000 pt game. I was playing Nids out of the rulebook. I also had just barely enough models to make a 2000 pt list, hence everyone already knew what I had. Other people with more models and actually having codexes had a huge advantage.
2. Similiarly, someone having a limited number of models probably fields the same thing every game. Hardly fair, huh?
3. If I am playtesting for a tourney, I may ask someone to playtest against me. In that case, I want to face an all-comers list that I would typically see in a tourney. Not a list designed to show me how my list is vulnerable.
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
ColdSadHungry wrote:Well, I didn't read your whole post, Relic but the gist is - what's so bad about tailoring your list to meet your opponent. And I have to agree.
Now, I don't have any tournament experience and I don't know what the WH40K community generally feels about it but if you have, say 3000 points worth of an army and you know that you will be facing a mob of orks in one battle and some space wolves in another, why should you be forced to use the same army to fight both? You've got 3000 points worth of troops so take you pick from that lot for each battle.
I don't always want to play with the same force over and over, equally, I want the challenge of facing an army that has been designed, as best it can, to beat mine. I want to chop and change my force and try to outwit my opponent, not just on the field of battle, but before it by wisely choosing the right components of my force.
Surely it's far more challenging to have to alter your army and try to anticipate what your opponent is likely to field than to just draw up one list and face opponents who have used the same list in their last two/three battles or whatever. It's like a football match - I much prefer the build up to it, the possibilities, the options - to the after match analysis. To me, it's far more interesting to be able to take a different set up for each battle because I don't want to know the make up of my opponent's force before the battle and I want to be able to spring a surprise or two on him as well.
The biggest part of your lack of understanding is your professed lack of tournament experience. You don't KNOW what people are taking to a tournament. You may be playing against strangers. You have no way of knowing what challenges, what armies, or what you'll be facing. You're walking in blind, and the best you can do is bring all the tools required to deal with any challenge that you might have to face.
Its common sense. Which is more challenging? Me telling you that I'm bringing Dark Eldar so that you can pack your army full of autocannons, missile launchers, assault cannons and heavy bolters...or you not knowing what you're going to be facing or whom and trying to bring the tools to deal with ALL of it.
I went to a tournament today. Most of the people there I've seen before. I've won every other tournament I've attended there. I was the only Xenos player. There were FIVE Blood Angel players there, four of them with mechanized BA lists, tailored a list to beat me. Several IG armies too. So one of them had managed to squeeze some ungodly number of heavy weapon teams (all autocannons) into his army - like 17. His army was a couple of infantry units, two chimeras with vets, two stormtrooper units, and the rest autocannon heavy weapon teams. Does it take skill to make a list that can beat one particular army? Nope. If he had come up against a landraider army or god forbid...a NECRON army packing Monoliths...he'd have been screwed from the get go. Same with most of the BA players. Lots of autocannons, assault cannons, heavy bolters....only one of them was packing Lascannons.
Its pretty bad when I'm wishing I had my Tau or my Necrons in the tournament because they could stomp BA face.
23433
Post by: schadenfreude
Dashofpepper wrote:ColdSadHungry wrote:Well, I didn't read your whole post, Relic but the gist is - what's so bad about tailoring your list to meet your opponent. And I have to agree.
Now, I don't have any tournament experience and I don't know what the WH40K community generally feels about it but if you have, say 3000 points worth of an army and you know that you will be facing a mob of orks in one battle and some space wolves in another, why should you be forced to use the same army to fight both? You've got 3000 points worth of troops so take you pick from that lot for each battle.
I don't always want to play with the same force over and over, equally, I want the challenge of facing an army that has been designed, as best it can, to beat mine. I want to chop and change my force and try to outwit my opponent, not just on the field of battle, but before it by wisely choosing the right components of my force.
Surely it's far more challenging to have to alter your army and try to anticipate what your opponent is likely to field than to just draw up one list and face opponents who have used the same list in their last two/three battles or whatever. It's like a football match - I much prefer the build up to it, the possibilities, the options - to the after match analysis. To me, it's far more interesting to be able to take a different set up for each battle because I don't want to know the make up of my opponent's force before the battle and I want to be able to spring a surprise or two on him as well.
The biggest part of your lack of understanding is your professed lack of tournament experience. You don't KNOW what people are taking to a tournament. You may be playing against strangers. You have no way of knowing what challenges, what armies, or what you'll be facing. You're walking in blind, and the best you can do is bring all the tools required to deal with any challenge that you might have to face.
Its common sense. Which is more challenging? Me telling you that I'm bringing Dark Eldar so that you can pack your army full of autocannons, missile launchers, assault cannons and heavy bolters...or you not knowing what you're going to be facing or whom and trying to bring the tools to deal with ALL of it.
I went to a tournament today. Most of the people there I've seen before. I've won every other tournament I've attended there. I was the only Xenos player. There were FIVE Blood Angel players there, four of them with mechanized BA lists, tailored a list to beat me. Several IG armies too. So one of them had managed to squeeze some ungodly number of heavy weapon teams (all autocannons) into his army - like 17. His army was a couple of infantry units, two chimeras with vets, two stormtrooper units, and the rest autocannon heavy weapon teams. Does it take skill to make a list that can beat one particular army? Nope. If he had come up against a landraider army or god forbid...a NECRON army packing Monoliths...he'd have been screwed from the get go. Same with most of the BA players. Lots of autocannons, assault cannons, heavy bolters....only one of them was packing Lascannons.
Its pretty bad when I'm wishing I had my Tau or my Necrons in the tournament because they could stomp BA face.
Or if at the last minute you unpacked a battlewagon heavy ork list. If you're the guy they are tailoring a list to take it as a complement, bring multiple armies, and randomize what army you'll play before the tournament starts.
36940
Post by: Anvildude
That would have been hilarious to see the look on their faces if you, the Ork Tactician himself, opened your bag and brought out a couple Moniliths.
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
I'm negotiating with my wife to complete the necron army.
I *have* all the models, and have for quite some time, but they're not field worthy yet.
17376
Post by: Zid
Tailoring is... well, your really jipping yopurself if anything. If your playing a list to "beat" certain lists, but its not geared to fight others, how do you expect to win? Skill will only get you so far
39195
Post by: Asuron
Dashofpepper wrote:I'm negotiating with my wife to complete the necron army.
I *have* all the models, and have for quite some time, but they're not field worthy yet.
I'd be interested in seeing how far you could go in serious tournaments with them.
Like say Nova or things like that.
How much of it is left to be completed?
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Asuron wrote:Dashofpepper wrote:I'm negotiating with my wife to complete the necron army.
I *have* all the models, and have for quite some time, but they're not field worthy yet.
I'd be interested in seeing how far you could go in serious tournaments with them.
Like say Nova or things like that.
How much of it is left to be completed?
Completed to playable standard, or to tournament standard?
527
Post by: Flavius Infernus
I don't think the OP is talking about situations where one player tailors lists to play against other players who (1) aren't also tailoring and (b) are playing all-comers lists. Clearly, if you're tailoring and your opponent is not, then you're trying to make the match easier for yourself in a way that is arguably not fair. I don't think anyone would argue that attempting to substitute list-tailoring for actual game skill is a good thing.
I think the OP is saying that, when both players are tailoring to play against each other in a set match, it can add an extra dimension to the game. Again, doesn't seem controversial to me.
So arguing that tailoring lists in tournaments is cheating or is less challenging or less effective are all straw man arguments, since I don't think anybody is claiming otherwise.
28090
Post by: liam0404
Our FLGS actually tends to work in "seasons". By this, I mean that if there is no GT coming up, we arrange games with players in advance. Now this doesnt mean that we list tailor, but everyone knows what everyone has, so if I want to fight my friend bob for example, he knows that im currently giving my necrons a run out (i rotate my army (by this i mean race!) around once a month), and I know he is trialing vanilla marines. We both have enough points to draw from a large model pool, so while we knoe what race we will be fighting, we dont actually know what we will be facing on the night (except for bob, as necrons dont have many builds!!!!).
When GT's draw near, this tends to go out the window, and we all agree to play 1500(well 1750 now), not knowing what race/build anyone is going to take. More impromptu games take place this way, as that adds to the element of surprise, accurately simulating a tournament environment.
I can completely see where the OP is coming from. I just think you have to adapt your approach depending on the current metagame situation.
40938
Post by: althathir
Flavius Infernus wrote:I don't think the OP is talking about situations where one player tailors lists to play against other players who (1) aren't also tailoring and (b) are playing all-comers lists. Clearly, if you're tailoring and your opponent is not, then you're trying to make the match easier for yourself in a way that is arguably not fair. I don't think anyone would argue that attempting to substitute list-tailoring for actual game skill is a good thing.
I think the OP is saying that, when both players are tailoring to play against each other in a set match, it can add an extra dimension to the game. Again, doesn't seem controversial to me.
So arguing that tailoring lists in tournaments is cheating or is less challenging or less effective are all straw man arguments, since I don't think anybody is claiming otherwise.
Its a combination of two factors thats kinda of took over this discussion
the terminology - when people say list tailoring, its covers a wide range of actions. For example I know of people that will tailor a list to beat certain people, the worst part is they get a bad rep and then start beating on the new players who they have an even bigger advantage over due to collection size. I was luckly enough to start with a good group of people so I didn't have to deal with it too much but if I had i'm sure that just seeing list tailoring and a better way to play the game would just piss me off and overshadow the first post. I play eldar and I have no problems playing againist people changing their army based on the fact but I don't equate that with the phrase "list trailoring" thats more planning a pick up game.
The scenario that Relic_OMO brings up at the end of the op saying that a predetermined mission, point level, and knowing the army your facing adds more depth to that game is generally false in my experience but regardless by adding the controversial phrase "list tailoring" to it his post he added depth to the discussion (see what i did there ).
Secondly Dashofpepper and other posters are basically calling " BS" on his points, which I agree with.
1) List building is actually easier when you know what your facing, for example if a nid player is playing eldar he should know to go with hive guard over zoanthropes, cause runes of warding screws them. Knowing each armies strengths and weaknesses is important but it takes more skill to use what you have to expliot a weakness, then to design a list too.
2) It doesn't add more variety bad units are still bad units, it changes what good units are fielded but its not like swooping hawks all the sudden become MVPs.
3) I don't think it adds depth to the game, guessing what your opponent might bring is a weak agrument in my mind. For the most part it takes depth from the game because you've built a list of counters, at that point all that matters is if you guessed right
20086
Post by: Andilus Greatsword
liam0404 wrote:Our FLGS actually tends to work in "seasons". By this, I mean that if there is no GT coming up, we arrange games with players in advance. Now this doesnt mean that we list tailor, but everyone knows what everyone has, so if I want to fight my friend bob for example, he knows that im currently giving my necrons a run out (i rotate my army (by this i mean race!) around once a month), and I know he is trialing vanilla marines. We both have enough points to draw from a large model pool, so while we knoe what race we will be fighting, we dont actually know what we will be facing on the night (except for bob, as necrons dont have many builds!!!!).
When GT's draw near, this tends to go out the window, and we all agree to play 1500(well 1750 now), not knowing what race/build anyone is going to take. More impromptu games take place this way, as that adds to the element of surprise, accurately simulating a tournament environment.
I can completely see where the OP is coming from. I just think you have to adapt your approach depending on the current metagame situation.
I agree, if you know the race but not necessarily the list then "tailoring" isn't as big a deal, especially in friendly matches amongst people who are playing because they enjoy the game.
18176
Post by: Guitardian
It really is this simple: If I don't know who or what I will be playing I will write a list accordingly, and if I do know, then so will they, and we will likewise write our lists accordingly. What's the problem?
40938
Post by: althathir
Guitardian wrote:
It really is this simple: If I don't know who or what I will be playing I will write a list accordingly, and if I do know, then so will they, and we will likewise write our lists accordingly. What's the problem?
Um the "better way to play the game" part of the OP.
20086
Post by: Andilus Greatsword
althathir wrote:Guitardian wrote:
It really is this simple: If I don't know who or what I will be playing I will write a list accordingly, and if I do know, then so will they, and we will likewise write our lists accordingly. What's the problem?
Um the "better way to play the game" part of the OP.
Well then of course he's wrong. Thread concluded, good work everyone.
40938
Post by: althathir
Wow thanks do I take bow or something?
39195
Post by: Asuron
Dashofpepper wrote:Asuron wrote:Dashofpepper wrote:I'm negotiating with my wife to complete the necron army.
I *have* all the models, and have for quite some time, but they're not field worthy yet.
I'd be interested in seeing how far you could go in serious tournaments with them.
Like say Nova or things like that.
How much of it is left to be completed?
Completed to playable standard, or to tournament standard?
Which one would you need to compete in tournaments like Nova?
527
Post by: Flavius Infernus
Also I think the OP was objecting to the widespread negative view that Dakka has toward discussions/questions that involve list tailoring.
I've noticed this attitude also (all you have to do is look back on this thread). If somebody were to create a post on the Tactics forum that said "I want to talk about how to tailor lists in this particular way," I believe fifty responders would dogpile on the thread with shouts of "tailoring = bad!" and squash any possible discussion.
Regardless of what one believes about list tailoring, I don't think there's any rational basis for squelching discussions of list tailoring.
40938
Post by: althathir
Its more that I think what he is suggesting is different from list tailoring, basically what he is saying is that when playing in a predetermined game (mission, opponents army, point level) can add a new level of complexity to the game. I disagree because in most cases it allows you to narrow options making list building easier. For example if I know the game is kill points, why bother with more than the two troop choices, furthermore I can look for hard counters to units I expect him to use which in my mind doesn't take more skill.
Regardless imo this a lot different than what most players consider list tailoring. I think most people define List tailoring as when one party designs a list solely to gain an advantage they wouldn't normally have over a particular opponent for that game. The key part of that statement is the one player part, two regular opponents changing a couple of units in their armies or even their whole armies when they face eachother is perfectly fine (its not cool to do it the noob though). Its also different than asking for help againist a particular opponent or army because, for the most part if your struggling it is due to a weakness in your existing army that should be addressed, or in your tactics that learning how to correct makes you a better player againist everyone.
In Relic_OMO's scenario both players are modifying their lists based on the predetermined matchup they are expected to find most advatageous units to compete in that mission neither player should be blindsided, and if one gains an extra advantage because they were more accurate in chosing counters thats fine but as long as both players are creatomg lists to maximize advantage.
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Flavius Infernus wrote:Also I think the OP was objecting to the widespread negative view that Dakka has toward discussions/questions that involve list tailoring.
I've noticed this attitude also (all you have to do is look back on this thread). If somebody were to create a post on the Tactics forum that said "I want to talk about how to tailor lists in this particular way," I believe fifty responders would dogpile on the thread with shouts of "tailoring = bad!" and squash any possible discussion.
Regardless of what one believes about list tailoring, I don't think there's any rational basis for squelching discussions of list tailoring.
How about the one where the OP basically says, "List Tailoring is better, its smarter, people who don't think so are stupid and stuck to old and unworthy dogma, and I have a bunch of reasons why tailoring my list is more tactically challenging than not tailoring."
This thread wasn't a discussion about how to tailor your lists a certain way, it was to say, "Everyone who doesn't agree with me is stupid and here's 5 reasons why." Then the 5 reasons why are completely invalid and backwards - so of COURSE the thread gets 50 responses to point it out. You can't create a thread with trollbait and expect that it to be discussed nonchalantly. I'm surprised that this thread has been so civil. I take full credit - on the first page I completely disproved the OP in a polite manner, pointing out how inadequate his claims are, the evidence that he's wrong, the logical conclusions to be drawn from the subject - and for 4 pages, its gone unanswered. =D
527
Post by: Flavius Infernus
Dashofpepper wrote: I take full credit - on the first page I completely disproved the OP in a polite manner, pointing out how inadequate his claims are, the evidence that he's wrong, the logical conclusions to be drawn from the subject - and for 4 pages, its gone unanswered. =D
I don't see where you've posted anything on page 1, Dash, but I'll assume you mean your page 2 post and see what I can do...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dashofpepper wrote:OP:
It takes *more* skill to make a list capable of dealing with any potential opponent than it does for an opponent to show your their models, show you their list, and for you to design a list made to capitalize on whatever is required best to beat it.
I don't see any evidence here; this is just a bald assertion. The OP claims tailoring takes more skill, you claim all-comers takes more skill, and at this point it's just a matter of opinion. Nobody is showing any evidence yet.
Dashofpepper wrote:
2. More Variety: There is no more variety of units in custom list-building than in a standardized "Take all Comers" list. Flashgits are a bad unit. If you custom-build a list to take on a particular opponent....its *still* not going to include flash gits. There's no basis in fact for your conjecture here.
Again, just your opinion without any supporting evidence. You don't like flash gits. Maybe somebody else thinks they're good or can think of a situation where they work. You can have this argument about any unit in any codex and never agree. De gustibus non est disputandum.
Dashofpepper wrote:
3. New Dimensions To the Game: You have this completely backwards. Trying to gain an advantage over an opponent by stacking your deck in your favor doesn't add a new dimension. On the flip side of the coin...trying to use the units you have AT YOUR DISPOSAL in a "take-all-comers" list *does* add a new dimension to the game - one of generalship and skill.
I think this one is actually demonstrably factually incorrect. Any game of 40K has the dimension of generalship and skill (even if only a little bit), so that's not new to an all-comers game. But list tailoring is, by definition, not a dimension of all-comers lists, so adding that would be new.
Whether or not it's worthwhile adding list tailoring is a different argument, but I don't think you can argue logically that it isn't new.
Dashofpepper wrote:
List-tailoring isn't considered cheating by anyone I've ever met. It can be considered poor sportsmanship that you're trying to gain an unfair advantage. Mostly, it is considered inept generalship.
Ad populam. It doesn't matter what people one knows consider something to be--people can be wrong.
Dashofpepper wrote:
It means that you're not good enough to figure out how to approach a challenge.
This is only true if you limit the definition of "challenge" to playing an all-comers list. Is there really no other kind of possible challenge in all of 40K?
Dashofpepper wrote:
The basis for this is in the fact that on the field of battle, you have what you have. Commanders don't get to view an enemy disposition and tailor the countering forces to precisely match what is needed to overcome the enemy in front of them - rather, they make do with what they have.
Okay, this is evidence, but it's a false analogy. 40K is not a field of battle, it's a game. 40K players are not military commanders, and 40K players do do get a god's-eye view of the enemy disposition, and a variety of other key differences. There's no rational basis for arguing that 40K should try to simulate actual battlefield conditions. The idea that the game is better or more challenging the closer it simulates actual battles is an assertion of opinion & taste, not of fact, so it doesn't support the claim that people who tailor lists aren't good players.
Dashofpepper wrote:
I encourage weaker opponents to tailor their lists to mine, so that they have a better chance of presenting a challenge. If you and I were to play, I would also encourage you to custom-tailor your list against me....since you're not skilled enough to get by without it. It isn't an insult, its just a stage along your road of learning about 40k. There comes a day in every 40k player's career where they realize that they're good enough that they don't need to try creating an advantage over their opponent by customizing their army to defeat their opponent. When I first started 40k, I custom-tailored my lists. I expect everyone in the lower echelons of 40k tactics to do so. I don't fault them for it, I just try helping them learn how to be a better general.
I'll snip there because the rest of the post continues the no true Scotsman fallacy. To say "no good player tailors lists, and anyone who tailors list is not a good player" is not a real argument. It's demonstrably false and a logical fallacy. If even one good player tailors lists, then the whole claim is empirically wrong.
So I'm not seeing any logically-supported argument here so far. But I'm willing to be persuaded that the OP is wrong and interested to hear your well-reasoned arguments, Dash.
19941
Post by: SpankHammer III
Wow i'm a little confused now. I don't even know if I tailor any more.
I have a guard army, I take a lot of plasma and melta because there are a butt load of MEQ players at my FLGS. I've tried to build a certain level of all comers in to it (lots of Heavy flamers and ordinace blasts for hordes) but there is a strong leaning toward anti vehicle and anti MEQ. If I come up against a true horde list i'll probably be in trouble.
Does this mean that I tailor?
I don't know peoples exact lists and generally don't know who i'll be playing until I get there so didn't consider it tailoring. I certainly didn't think of my self as a bad sport, I might be a bad general though (I do lose as much as I win )
When I used to play one guy exclusively I have to admitt there was a lot of tailoring between us but no last minute stuff, I knew basically whay models he had but didn't know which one he'd use.
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Flavius, I stopped at your first setence and didn't continue.
When I say, "It takes more work to make a screwdriver serve every tool need (when you need a wrench, or a hammer) than it does to have a full toolbox and pick the particular tool you need for a job" and your response is "You haven't shown me any proof!"
......Well, then I know common sense isn't going to prevail today and I'm not even going to throw down with you. You're right, I haven't PROVEN that its harder to make a multi-purpose tool than it is to make a screwdriver. I shouldn't have to.
It takes more effort to breed an apporaear than to grow an apple tree, an orange tree, and a pear tree separately.
Yep. If that one doesn't make you just nod your head and say "Obviously!" then we're not even communicating in the same language. Anytime "You haven't proven common sense to me, therefore it isn't true!" becomes a staple of an argument, its best not to get involved.
527
Post by: Flavius Infernus
Straw man: I didn't ask for proof, Dash. Please don't attribute statements to me that I didn't make, like me asking you to prove common sense or me asking for proof of anything.
I asked for evidence. This is an inductive question, so there can be no proof. Only logically reasoned arguments that are more or less persuasive.
Since you claimed that you had "completely disproved the OP in a polite manner, pointing out how inadequate his claims are, the evidence that he's wrong, the logical conclusions to be drawn from the subject," I was pointing out that you had, in fact, not done so. Your page 2 post has no substantive evidence and no non-fallacious logical conclusions.
The tool analogy is a good start on an actual argument. Clearly designing a multi-purpose tool is different from designing a single-purpose tool--just as designing an all-comers list is different from designing a tailored list. I'll even grant that it's more challenging in certain ways.
But that's where your analogy breaks down. When you claim that list-tailoring means "you're not good enough to figure out how to approach a challenge," you're suggesting by analogy that people who prefer single-use tools are not good handymen because they don't know how to approach the challenge of using a multitool. When your post says that tailoring is, "a stage along your road of learning about 40k," that's like claiming that single-use tools are a stage in learning to use the multitool that all experienced carpenters prefer (or being able to use a screwdriver to do the job of all different tools in the other part of your analogy).
Clearly, using the wrong tool or a multi-tool is more of a challenge, but that doesn't automatically make you a better carpenter. And to claim that the use of single-use tools is the sign of a newbie carpenter is obviously false.
Also I'm disappointed that you read one line of my post and bailed out without doing me the same courtesy that I did you in answering your own request for a critical reading of your arguments. I have said a couple of times now that I'm ready to be persuaded (and I have a long and documented history on Dakka of changing my mind in the face of logical arguments).
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Flavius, sticking to my guns for obvious reasons of common sense.
One note though about analogies breaking down.
I don't claim that list tailoring means that you're not good enough to figure out how to approach a challenge.
I *do* claim that the claim "List tailoring is the only way to beat certain armies" and also that the claim "List tailoring is required to survive between different opponents" *is* a sign that you're not good enough to figure out how to approach that challenge.
In terms of my analogy, that would be people saying that a toolbox full of tools is the ONLY way to approach a job, and is superior to all others because there's no such thing as a tool capable of dealing with multiple jobs, and me saying, "You haven't learned what a multi-tool is."
To be frank with you, if I thought you were ready to be persuaded, it would have been done somewhere in this thread by someone - me or others.
But like I said - if common sense isn't a currency between us, I have no need of trying to prove it to you. I say $5 is more money than $1. I also say that TWO pennies are not more money than ONE nickel. And you tell me to prove it.
Nope.
You might be ready to be convinced, but I don't feel like it needs to be done. I just read through your other points to give you the courtsey you requested. While I'm tempted to tell you to stop categorizing apples as oranges and apply them both to fruit (list tailoring to TAC lists as opposed to both to 40k).....I'm just honestly not interested. I truly *do* believe that you're just looking for an argument, and what you've posted seems to validate that.
I'm ready to be convinced otherwise though.
24267
Post by: akaean
SpankHammer III wrote:Wow i'm a little confused now. I don't even know if I tailor any more.
I have a guard army, I take a lot of plasma and melta because there are a butt load of MEQ players at my FLGS. I've tried to build a certain level of all comers in to it (lots of Heavy flamers and ordinace blasts for hordes) but there is a strong leaning toward anti vehicle and anti MEQ. If I come up against a true horde list i'll probably be in trouble.
Does this mean that I tailor?
I don't know peoples exact lists and generally don't know who i'll be playing until I get there so didn't consider it tailoring. I certainly didn't think of my self as a bad sport, I might be a bad general though (I do lose as much as I win )
When I used to play one guy exclusively I have to admitt there was a lot of tailoring between us but no last minute stuff, I knew basically whay models he had but didn't know which one he'd use.
Nobody is going to call that tailoring. The fact that you'd play the same army whether against horde orks or space marines proves that. As you noted, you even have heavy flamers and large blasts in case you find yourself against one of these armies. Also I'm sure you've noticed that Battle Cannons are a sick all comers weapon. Large Blast s8 ap3 hits orks hard, and it devastates marines...
As another example, I play Eldar, and sometimes looking at my army list I feel like its somewhat tailored against horde. This isn't because I have it out to get dem orkses, but rather because dark reapers (and especially star cannons) are sub par, Eldar are just better at killing MEQs through volume of fire rather than low ap weapons- and that means trouble for armies like orks and blob IG. I'll still play the same list against Marines, I'll play the same list against Dark Eldar, and Tau. The fact that I have a better match up against orks, and a worse match up against FnP Blood Angels is in large part due to the nature and construction of my codex. That said, I do take units to "patch" these weaknesses, such as Banshees (when playing casually) and Fire Prisms.
19941
Post by: SpankHammer III
Nobody is going to call that tailoring
Thanks, was getting confused about what point fielding an army to deal with your meta became tailoring, and yes battle cannons are full on awesome against everything except termies and AV13+
752
Post by: Polonius
Maybe I'm missing some nuance, but how is it not self evident that preparing for multiple possiblities is more difficult than only preparing for one?
And if both parties are list tailoring, wouldn't the natrual strengths and weaknesses of the relevant armies rise to the top? Even among top codices, there are differences in flexilbity, natural abilites, etc.
19941
Post by: SpankHammer III
The only real problem I'd have would be if some one saw my list and then wrote theirs right there and then. Saying that i'd probably still give it a go to see how my list did, and if I lost I could always blame the tailoring
22245
Post by: Jimole
My gaming group has 5 'core' players, plus 3 others that we battle when we have the chance. When we arrange to have a game we each tell each other what army we will be using and write up our lists correspondingly. I don't see any problem with this. Our battle doesn't take place in a vacuum; there is a story behind it.
If my guardsmen have been sent to stop dirtypete's ork waaagh! then they are coming equipped with the right tools for the job. They aren't requisitioning plasma guns and lascannons (well, maybe a few plasma guns for extra trukk poppin'). The factories are pumping out autocannon shells and flamers. If my 'nids are fighting Kane's Eldar then they are going to be spawning biovores and hive guard, not zoanthropes.
Of course we are careful to keep our exact lists a secret from each other until the game is about to begin, so we still need to make a balanced list, albeit one tailored for fighting that particular foe. I know that Jihallah is going to play wolves, but will he running lots of long fangs, or a bunch of pod dreads, or razorback spam? Better cover all bases (we have a pretty huge selection of models between us and can make all sorts of different builds). This might be list tailoring in some people's eyes but I don't think there's anything wrong with it. It helps having the huge pool of models though, so there's still a bunch of guesswork and balancing going on.
752
Post by: Polonius
@Jimole- that raises an interesting point about list tailoring: it's effectivness varies dramatically with the opposing army.
I have enough IG to bring pretty much any army to the table: power blobs, infantry gunline, AV12 spam, heavy tanks, etc. If I tell you "I'm bringing IG," you need to prepare for three major threats.
Compare that to Nids, who pretty much need to bring both MCs and swarms.
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Polonius wrote:Maybe I'm missing some nuance, but how is it not self evident that preparing for multiple possiblities is more difficult than only preparing for one?
Which is why I put forth common sense as the reason I wasn't going to dig into the weeds with Flavius.
752
Post by: Polonius
Dashofpepper wrote:Polonius wrote:Maybe I'm missing some nuance, but how is it not self evident that preparing for multiple possiblities is more difficult than only preparing for one?
Which is why I put forth common sense as the reason I wasn't going to dig into the weeds with Flavius.
I mean, there is an interesting argument that drafting the best possible "take on all comers" list is easier than drafting the best possible tailored list, based on the idea that you'd really need to know/guess what your opponent could bring, how to deal with it, etc. I don't think it plays out because most opposing codices would still require a take all comers list, just with reduced options. I think you also end up spending more time analyzing what your opponent is more likley to bring than anything else.
527
Post by: Flavius Infernus
Dashofpepper wrote:Flavius, sticking to my guns for obvious reasons of common sense.
Yeah, the appeal to common sense isn't really an argument either. If you can't spell out your common sense in logical terms, then it's not sense.
Dashofpepper wrote:
I don't claim that list tailoring means that you're not good enough to figure out how to approach a challenge.
So this would be a reversal of your position from when you said, "List-tailoring... means that you're not good enough to figure out how to approach a challenge," back on page 2?
Dashofpepper wrote:
I *do* claim that the claim "List tailoring is the only way to beat certain armies" and also that the claim "List tailoring is required to survive between different opponents" *is* a sign that you're not good enough to figure out how to approach that challenge.
Well I agree with that, but I don't remember anybody claiming it.
Dashofpepper wrote:
To be frank with you, if I thought you were ready to be persuaded, it would have been done somewhere in this thread by someone - me or others.
But like I said - if common sense isn't a currency between us, I have no need of trying to prove it to you. I say $5 is more money than $1. I also say that TWO pennies are not more money than ONE nickel. And you tell me to prove it.
Nope.
Again, I don't recall asking you to prove anything, and will be happy to recant any place you can point to where I asked for proof. There can be no proof of anything in this (inductive) argument--only opinions that are well supported by logic and reason, and opinions that are not supported by substantive logic and reason.
I have agreed with everything that you've said which was reasonable or self-evident, such as the fact that designing all-comers lists is more challenging in some specific ways than designing tailored lists. I also agree that 40K players learn more by playing games that are more challenging, whether that's because of list design or opponent skill. I already said in earlier posts that I believe list-tailoring is not a good substitute for player skill.
What I don't agree with is (1) the assertion that you "completely disproved the OP in a polite manner, pointing out how inadequate his claims are, the evidence that he's wrong, the logical conclusions to be drawn from the subject." (I can see that you stated your opinion where it is different from Relic's opinion, but as I said before I don't see any evidence or logical conclusions in what you yourself referred to as "disproof.") And (2) the claim that no good player tailors lists and only newbie players tailor lists. Since you are the one making the claims, the burden of proof is on you.
I'm not really looking for an argument here--I could write the arguments in favor of TAC lists and against tailored lists out myself. I have no interest in winning arguments on the Internet.
Whenever I argue on Dakka it's because I really like what I read here and I come here every day, and I am interested in improving the quality of information on the forum. It seems to me that, if there's a pervasive attitude on Dakka that list tailoring is not worthy of discussion, that we're being elitist and narrow-minded, and really depriving ourselves of some possible interesting ideas. Maybe there is one weird situation in which Flash Gits are good. Maybe that's information that we can then take back to help improve our TAC lists and tournament play. If we decide up-front that certain discussions have nothing to teach us, then there's nothing we can ever learn from those discussions.
752
Post by: Polonius
Flavius: I think Dash was a little sloppy in saying common sense, as it implies a use judgement based on shared experiences, etc.
As I said in an earlier post, it's fiarly self evident that the more options you have to plan against, the more difficult the planning becomes.
527
Post by: Flavius Infernus
[edit] double post
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Polonius wrote:Flavius: I think Dash was a little sloppy in saying common sense, as it implies a use judgement based on shared experiences, etc.
As I said in an earlier post, it's fiarly self evident that the more options you have to plan against, the more difficult the planning becomes.
I don't think that he gets it. ><
Flavius, when you say "No one is showing any evidence yet..." as a reason for not accepting something I consider to be both common sense and self-evident.....then you *aren't* accepting that it is self-evident. Or this discussion would never have started in the first place.
I like analogies. Apples are red. You tell me that I haven't shown any evidence that they are. I tell you to go away instead of trying to prove that they're red to you. That's...basically this.
527
Post by: Flavius Infernus
Polonius wrote:Maybe I'm missing some nuance, but how is it not self evident that preparing for multiple possiblities is more difficult than only preparing for one?
I agree that it's self-evident, which is why I wrote in my 14:35 post that "Clearly designing a multi-purpose tool is different from designing a single-purpose tool--just as designing an all-comers list is different from designing a tailored list. I'll even grant that it's more challenging in certain ways."
I was trying to avoid getting entangled in a tangential argument about exactly how it is more difficult.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dashofpepper wrote:Polonius wrote:Flavius: I think Dash was a little sloppy in saying common sense, as it implies a use judgement based on shared experiences, etc.
As I said in an earlier post, it's fiarly self evident that the more options you have to plan against, the more difficult the planning becomes.
I don't think that he gets it. ><
Please, Dash. Ad hominem?
Dashofpepper wrote:
Flavius, when you say "No one is showing any evidence yet..." as a reason for not accepting something I consider to be both common sense and self-evident.....then you *aren't* accepting that it is self-evident. Or this discussion would never have started in the first place.
Okay then, for the third time, I accept the self-evident things as self-evident--such as the claim that desiining TAC lists is more challenging/difficult in some ways.
Because it is self-evident, I shouldn't have to detail specifics of how TAC list design is challenging in the sense of trying to get everything you might need into the limited points available. TAC list optimization is an endlessly fascinating puzzle.
And I agree that tailoring lists doesn't have that particular challenge. But it has other challenges, like trying to second-guess or double-bluff your opponent, or come up with ways to make bad units work in particular combinations against particular opponents. Probably others I haven't thought of.
I don't know which set of challenges has a higher level of raw "difficulty." I'm not sure if that question can be answered.
So my claim is that putting a value judgment on one set of challenges by saying that one is superior and one inferior, or that one is the inevitable destination of experienced players with the other one being unworthy of discussion--those are statements of opinion. They are supportable opinions, but the support hasn't happened yet.
Dashofpepper wrote:
I like analogies. Apples are red. You tell me that I haven't shown any evidence that they are. I tell you to go away instead of trying to prove that they're red to you. That's...basically this.
I like analogies too--very useful tools.
But the false analogy is a logical fallacy in which the two things being compared have some essential difference that makes the analogy invalid. Anybody can compare anything to anything else, but the analogy only provides substantive support when the logical relationships between the things being compared are analogous.
36542
Post by: Radical
If one opponent list tailors, then that opponent will have a starting advantage that goes outside strategy and tactics in the game. Opponent A has brought his standard "all-comers" army and must do his best to adapt to the situation. The skill here is building a list that works towards your strengths, masks your weaknesses, and is adaptable enough to take on as many general enemy opponent's that can be encountered as possible. Opponent B has gone outside this level of play and specifically utilized units that would provide a significant advantage over Opponent A, thus he has an unfair advantage. One player is starting from a stronger position that the other has no opportunity to counter, and thus the game is not balanced.
If both opponent's list tailor, then both players step outside the standard boundaries of the game. The question then becomes one of who has the larger collection of models to better allow them to tailor to their opponent. If both are on an even playing field in that aspect, then it becomes a lopsided game of rock, paper, scissors. Whoever loses that game then gets to spend the next few hours fighting a battle that he didn't really stand much of a chance of winning to begin with. If the list tailoring is done on the fly, then it becomes a question of whoever goes last will have a distinct advantage. If the "tailoring" is done blindly going in, with a wide enough selection of armies/models to choose from, then it is usually impossible to break a strong counter to the field, and this is fine.
When you look at the meta, you're not looking at a specific opponent. You have no inherent advantage on a game to game basis, just when playing opponents that your build is supposed to be strong against. However, if your build it too focuses upon beating that one list, then you run the risk of being weak against other builds. In a well designed game, this creates a constant cycle of counters that can continue onto infinity. In a poorly made game, a dominant strategy is discovered, one that is over powered, and there isn't a counter to it. The only way to beat it is to copy it and hope to use it better than the other person, therefore the game stagnates.
I'd like to compare list tailoring to a fighting game that involves the use of 3 attacks between two opponents using different characters. In an ideal environment, both characters would have their strong and weak points, but through effective use of their 3 attacks they would attempt to rise to the top and beat their opponents. However, list tailoring breaks it down into 2 characters each using one attack infinitely, and only having the option to use that one attack. In this setting, it becomes a question of who picks the attack that is going to always have the advantage over the other person's attack. The game is over before it began, thus ruining any chance of having an actual game. One opponent lost before the game started, why even bother playing at that point. There was no skill, just make the right decision and you auto-win.
List tailoring in the purest sense of just playing towards one opponent who has a specific build so that you'll always has the advantage is so wrong I don't even see how someone could argue otherwise. It is equal to playing rock, paper, scissors and you getting to pick a full second after your opponent decides what to pick.
527
Post by: Flavius Infernus
Well the key difference between rock, paper, scissors and 40K is that in the one you only have three choices, whereas in the other you have a huge number of choices. So if both players are tailoring, anticipating your opponent becomes much more challenging than in rock, paper, scissors.
And also, unlike rock, paper, scissors, if you choose wrong you don't automatically lose. You could be facing an uphill battle, which I agree with many of the posters here is a good way to improve your gameplay (if you're the one with the weaker army). So the difficulty moves out of the realm of building an optimized all-comers list, and moves into the realm of anticipating your opponent.
But I'm not sure who gets to decide what the "standard boundaries" of the game are. Tailoring is not against any rule.
A player's collection of models is always a factor even with all-comers lists. Very few can afford all the models to make an optimized TAC list for more than a few armies.
Like Dash, I like it when my opponents attempt to tailor to my all-comers lists. I may not win, but it's a challenge.
752
Post by: Polonius
Flavius Infernus wrote:Like Dash, I like it when my opponents attempt to tailor to my all-comers lists. I may not win, but it's a challenge.
Some would say that's the ultimate test. A take all comers list should, almost axiomatically, be able to deal with armies designed to defeat it.
36542
Post by: Radical
Flavius Infernus wrote:Well the key difference between rock, paper, scissors and 40K is that in the one you only have three choices, whereas in the other you have a huge number of choices. So if both players are tailoring, anticipating your opponent becomes much more challenging than in rock, paper, scissors.
And also, unlike rock, paper, scissors, if you choose wrong you don't automatically lose. You could be facing an uphill battle, which I agree with many of the posters here is a good way to improve your gameplay (if you're the one with the weaker army). So the difficulty moves out of the realm of building an optimized all-comers list, and moves into the realm of anticipating your opponent.
But I'm not sure who gets to decide what the "standard boundaries" of the game are. Tailoring is not against any rule.
A player's collection of models is always a factor even with all-comers lists. Very few can afford all the models to make an optimized TAC list for more than a few armies.
Like Dash, I like it when my opponents attempt to tailor to my all-comers lists. I may not win, but it's a challenge.
In a game like 40k where most of the results are based off the outcome of a dice, or numerous dice more times than not, then of course you're never going to have anything that is concrete. The worst 1000 point Necron army you can come up with can table a 2000 point Leafblower build if the dice roll right(or you use some sort of Christian magic). However, certain builds are sometimes going to have inherent weaknesses, and if one player gets to build a list entirely meant to exploit those weaknesses ruthlessly then the game is no long being played on a level field.
While it isn't a crime to play at a disadvantage, no one would consider it for a second in any kind of "serious" setting. Tailoring isn't going to happen in any serious game setting. Try that in a tournament and see how it goes over for you. It is a table top game that is pretty open with the fact that you can do damn well whatever you want if your opponent agrees to it, but if we're going to discuss anything we have to start off with a few basic premises. One of them being that in this setting, you're attempting to have the most even match as possible.
35176
Post by: Eura
It's obvious you won't change your stance OP, so I won't pester you about how I disagree (everyone else is screaming it anyway), but I will give the conjecture of
have you ever had someone tailor a list to murder you yourself? How irritating and frustating it was when you knew no matter how good you were you'd lose, because every trick you had up your sleeve was already worthless?
I mean sure you can tailor to slaughter your friends, ofcourse that defeats the purpose of a friendly game because you "had to win". If all your doing is creating an unpleasant environment for everyone that plays against you, Is it even still a game?
Thats my 2 cents if anyone will even bother reading it : P
1303
Post by: Relic_OMO
Radical wrote:
While it isn't a crime to play at a disadvantage, no one would consider it for a second in any kind of "serious" setting. Tailoring isn't going to happen in any serious game setting. Try that in a tournament and see how it goes over for you. It is a table top game that is pretty open with the fact that you can do damn well whatever you want if your opponent agrees to it, but if we're going to discuss anything we have to start off with a few basic premises. One of them being that in this setting, you're attempting to have the most even match as possible.
Do you believe, then, that in this setting you are talking about, players should always play with the same list as their opponent? After all, that is the the most even match possible. You mean, therefore, that in any serious game setting, all players play with identical lists, to ensure the most even match.
I will take the liberty of assuming that you will say no. I agree. Because list-building is part of the game, and part of the skill involved in the game. List building is a skill of anticipation, optimisation, planning, and combination, which we can call 'strategy' for these purposes. It seems to me a strange conceit to say that anticipating a range of 'competitive' builds and making an efficient list to succeed against that is a sign of great skill, while anticipating a range of builds peculiar to a particular Codex, or a particular opponent, and making an efficient list to succeed against that is a sign of no skill at all. Both involve the same principles of strategy. There may be an argument to make that planning a strategy with knowns (such as a known opponent) takes less skill than planning a strategy with no knowns, but I don't really think that's the case. That is a different argument, though, and I want to address these points separately.
It seems a similarly bizarre conceit to suggest that tailoring a list to make it more optimal is a sign of lesser skill, because it makes the list more powerful and thus easier to win with. That's clearly ridiculous on its face. Were that the case, people would play with the weakest, least efficient units in their Codices, because optimising a list shows that you need optimal lists to win and thus you need that crutch. Obviously this is not the case - people make lists as efficient and powerful as they can, and they don't consider that to be a crutch or an unfair advantage, nor should they, because list building is part of the game.
Far too many respondents seem to believe that I am in favour of people furiously rewriting lists in front of each other to get some sort of advantage. I don't really want to respond to things like that, because I would rather people just read what I wrote in the first place. As I said initially, I do not mind personally any more if I turn up for a random pickup game against a random pickup opponent, and he looks over my list and pulls out a preplanned list from a pile that is optimised to beat mine. To me, that shows forward planning, strategising in advance, and increased preparation. In every other kind of contest in the world, these things are rewarded. Only in 40K do people apparently consider them worthy of mockery. That said, I am aware that to many people this can leave a bad taste in the mouth, and that my opinion will always remain a minority one. And for that reason (ie. making your opponent feel cheated), I would not suggest making such a practice more widespread.
40938
Post by: althathir
All right Flavius Infernus im bored so Im gonna try to explain why I feel that this style of play is not a better way to play game. In my earlier post I tried to explain that I don't consider this "list tailoring" and that by calling it that the OP overshadowed what he was posting about. I'm gonna over the OP, and then one of recent posts that I think sums up your agrument the best. My response will be embedded within the posts and underlined
Relic_OMO wrote:The prevailing dogma on these forums is that list tailoring, ie. the practice of altering ones army so as to be optimised against a particular opposing race or to win a particular scenario, is taboo. It's wrong, it shows lack of skill, it's downright cheating. I think this notion is, quite frankly, idiotic, and challenge it unreservedly.
His initial list argument is tailoring in all its forms is ok. Lets say that scenario is rick the new kid, and he makes a list to beat him using his huge model collection and the information about ricks list. There isn't guesswork involved he does have to recognize what units provide good counters but thats a simple concept during the he just has to get the matchups he wants. This should be Taboo its dick move.
I'm not even sure the philosophy that opposes list tailoring is coherent, but it seems to be 'playing a list that isn't all-comers shows you're bad. Making a list specifically designed to exploit opponent's weaknesses is bad.' This seems to be rooted in tournament-style gameplay, where you don't really know what you'll be facing, so you make as generalised a list as possible so you don't get caught out being unable to compete against any given opponent. Somehow, this bit of tournament common sense got inexplicably blown into the idea that if you ever play anything other than a completely generalised list, you suck. That's, to put it politely, insane. For instance, if you regularly leave the house before the sun comes up, like I do, you might not know what the weather's going to be that day, and you might wear layers and/or pack a small umbrella. If people were to then bizarrely blow up that bit of common sense into 'well, if you check the weather report and dress accordingly, you're a n00b', you'd think they were nuts. Yet that's pretty much what this anti-list tailoring philosophy boils down to.
It's not even an internally consistent philosophy. As an example, it is well known that in the current meta, vehicles and all vehicle lists are common, and thus anti-armour weaponry is a good idea. (Hmm, tailoring a list to kill vehicles, that seems very... tailory.) With that in mind, several tournament lists will deliberately take no vehicles and thus run infantry spam to exploit a weakness in those lists that run few anti-infantry weapons. This is considered not only acceptable, but smart, even though it's tailoring your list to exploit known, predictable weaknesses. Yet if someone were to say, 'well, I know that I'm going to play Bob on Sunday, and he usually plays a ton of IG infantry blobs, so I was thinking of packing a ton of flamers to beat him', that person would be universally derided all over the forum. If that same player saw a light infantry horde packed into a small area, and manoeuvred a few flamers over and roasted them during a game, those same haters would be praising him for seeing the opportunity and having the skill to get the right tool into position. Yet somehow the fact that he has the foresight to see it coming days ahead of time and make the same strategic decision makes him a target of derision. It's bizarre.
At this point the OP should have either defined what his version of list tailoring is too narrow the conversation, or explain how the scenario he is putting forward improves the game. Relic_OMO did neither so what he is proposing is ignored and it should be expected when you bring up a subject related to controversial topic
Look, I get that list tailoring under some circumstances can be a bit lame. If, for instance, you turn up at the store for a random pickup game, find a random pickup opponent, and he looks over your list and then riffles through a stack of paper and pulls out List 47b-omega designed specifically to beat orange-painted Tau, then you might feel a bit hard done by. Especially if you have orange-painted Tau. But what's lame about this situation is not that he tailored a list ahead of time to beat you. It's that you didn't have a similar opportunity, not knowing his list in advance, and thus he has a pretty significant advantage, which is a bit unfair. We could argue that the player in this situation is clearly more prepared, since he has taken the time to evaluate many different possible opponents, and the time to pack a variety of models to play different lists. Typically, in contests of skill, we applaud those who make more preparations and spend more time thinking about strategy, rather than calling them names and praising those who show up with no idea about the opponent and who plan on winging it as they go. Apparently, only in 40K, being prepared is a sign of being a bad player, and being more prepared than the other guy does not mean you deserve an advantage. How strange. Still, having said that, I agree that this specific situation does feel a bit lame, only because of the immediate advantage given to one opponent. Certainly it has bugged me before when it's happened to me. After some thinking about it, though, I realised that I was being stupid, because in contests, more preparation is to be applauded.
I have no problem with an opponent having an anti-eldar list againist me I'll be impressed if they already have it written up, at this point the opposing player has made a list based on assumptions while he may gain some advantages its also possible he wasted some points. I also have some assumptions there will be infantry, either vehicles, MCs or both, and they probably have power armor and/or a psycher.
And that's really the crux of it. We all agree that list building is a key skill in 40K. We all agree that knowing your opponents strengths and weaknesses is a key skill. Even Sun Tzu agrees on that one. Yet, inexplicably, so many people on these boards think that combining these two key skills is somehow something to be shunned, and to do so is the sign of a bad player and borderline cheat. It's mind-blowingly silly.
Many say it's a crutch. That making strategic choices about your list with knowledge of your opponent in advance means that, somehow, you aren't as 'good'. How does this even remotely make sense? When you make a list, do you make strategic choices based on what might be effective, or do you take random units, because taking effective units would be a crutch? When you see an opponent's army across the table, do you consider the weaknesses of that army and try to exploit them, or do you shoot randomly, because taking your opponent's army into consideration would be a crutch? (These are rhetorical questions.)
Right, I get it - you're supposed to take effective units, and you're supposed to know everything the opponent's army can do, but you're not supposed to take units that are effective against his army, because making good strategic decisions makes you a worse player. No, that's not right, you should make good strategic decisions when making a list, but you have to pretend that what the opponent takes doesn't matter, because reacting to your opponent makes you a worse player. Or is it that you are supposed to react to what your opponent does, but it's only skilled if the units you do it with aren't good? Or is it that you're unskilled if you make a list with excellent, point-efficient units, because that's a crutch, and you're only a better player if you play with a list full of... excellent, point-efficient units? I'm sorry, I can't seem to keep the arguments straight, probably because the arguments are all so frigging stupid.
Again, I actually do understand. The conceit is that if you play every game like it's a tournament, and thus play as generic a list as possible, you're somehow becoming better. That taking units that would be better against a particular opponent makes you worse, because you're using more effective units, and somehow playing with more effective units makes you a worse tactician. If these were true, and you really wanted to train yourself tactically, would it not make even more sense to therefore use a really bad army list filled with inefficient choices, and find a way to win with that? Of course not, you say, because list-building is part of the skill of 40K. Exactly.
I love swooping hawks I mean i look for excuses to run them, they suck but im a much better player because I stuck with them, I wouldn't run them in a tournie but they did in fact make me better, there was a process to it. When I first starting playing I didn't really use tactics I knew what was good and I just tried to use it againist what it was best againist i.e. point and click. It took me a while to really have a cohesive plan, and longer to learn when to change it on the fly and thats when I got better.
That said, I don't think most players goal is to create one TAC list to play every game with most of us get bored or realize most armies have more options than the internet thinks they do. It is also important to note that some players don't have the money to tweak their lists much
40K skills involve decision-making, analysis, and an element of vision and creativity. Building the list, making good strategic choices, looking at your opponent, sizing up his strengths and weaknesses, making good decisions - all of these are part of the skills required to play 40K. It is a ridiculous conceit to suggest that sizing up an opponent's strengths and weaknesses when figures are on the board is good, but doing so when planning a game is bad. It is similarly ridiculous to claim that using units that are good at defeating an opponent is using a crutch, but using units that are more efficient and powerful is smart list design and a sign of skill.
There's a time and place for testing a generic tournament list against random, unknown opponents. But even if you simply have to test your generic tournament list at all times, because ninjas confront you in the middle of the night and challenge you to 40K games with unknown lists and you'd better be ready, it's still laughable to suggest that the key skill of list building actually means that you only pick the most efficient units, come up with a gimmick that you can use against any opponent, and play 'your game'. That's not The Art of War, that's Magic:the Gathering. It doesn't make you a better player, or a better strategist or tactician. To be honest, I think it actually makes you a little worse tactically and strategically, but that's a different argument. My point is that revisiting list design and coming up with different strategies, different unit combinations, and thus different tactics for different opponents is extremely strategic and tactical, and in fact the cornerstone of these things. NFL teams don't say 'well, we can't adapt our personnel, gameplans, and playcalling to our particular opponent, because then we'd be making ourselves worse players and leaning on a crutch'. It's part of the game. And treating it as part of the game makes you better at the game.
First good armies don't have a gimmick, or one set tactic they are flexible and can adept they do have a strong theme and because the meta is always changing the list isn't set in stone. Take the NFL example they still use their best players, and construct their team around strategies for example green bay drafts defensive personal based on how they fit into a 3-4 defense. That said even though the won the super bowl they will still try and get better
There are lots of reasons why tailoring your list makes the game better and more interesting, but here are a couple.
List building is a skill. Everyone agrees on this. It's a part of the game, and you should treat it as such. And it's always a skill, not only when you're making a gimmick/spam list at 1850 or 2500 or whatever points level the cool kids play at. It's strategy, and it's a skill that is lost when you just use the latest power list or only play a certain points level or come up with some gimmick so you can be known as 'that guy with all the dreadnoughts' or something. Strategy is very different at 1000 pts, at 1500, at 2000. Strategy should be different when you're facing different opponents, different combinations. The process of inventing these strategies, of analysing multiple situations, points levels, and unit combinations, makes you a better strategist, and makes you a better player.
ok to the meat of the post, first of all this point makes me think he is still trying to point & click. Saying someone is the dreadnought guy doesn't mean much, strategy in my mind is a basic overview of what my armies strengths & weaknessess are, a very general plan for each basic mission, and a basic plan for the opposing armies even with a fixed listed they aren't constant because the game is always changing. I can see how using different combinations of units can make you better but wouldn't they make you better regardless of the opponent
More variety. It's obvious that there are many units in the game that are not useful in tournaments - they're not efficient or useful enough against the current meta. In the environment of list tailoring, these units see the table again. They become useful, and this adds to the variety and the possibilities of tactics and strategy. It increases your tactical pool, and broadens the tactical experience - you're seeing units you don't normally see, you're seeing combinations you don't normally see, and you have to learn to analyse and adapt to your opponent, recognising opportunities as they occur. This doesn't make you a worse player. It is always going to make you a better tactician, and a better player.
In a narrow sense I agree with this, some units are better againist certain armies, but you can learn a lot about unit in a bad matchup as well you don't have to look for the optimal matchup
New dimensions to the game. The vast majority of 40K games are not tournament games. They're played by a group of extended friends or clubmembers, who meet regularly and play in a localised environment. Adapting lists, remembering the tendencies of a certain player or his favourite units, taking that into account and finding a counter, and then starting the whole cycle again when he finds a counter to what you did, makes the game better, and improves the players involved. That's actual evolution of strategy and tactics right there. That's how players improve, right there - they evolve their strategies, and they learn from the variety they see and do. And then there's even guesswork; 'Jeff packed a huge amount of S6 last time with very little melta capacity, so I could play a lot of AV14. But what if he expects that this week?'
That's my favoured playstyle these days. Games where both opponents know the opposing race and the mission in advance, with a predetermined points value. Both can then field lists designed to achieve objectives and beat a particular opponent, with an element of guesswork and headology thrown in. It incorporates all the skills of the game - list design, decision making, analysis of strengths and weaknesses, and creativity. Some may call it list tailoring. It sure is. It's a strategic and tactical game - play it with strategy and tactics.
If two players play a series of WAAC games where both players look for every advantage, it can make for a better series of games, but it is inherently better than a pickup game? I can accept it as a possibility but what if it is a lopsided matchup? I don't think its a better way to play the game like the OP states.
Flavius Infernus wrote:Well the key difference between rock, paper, scissors and 40K is that in the one you only have three choices, whereas in the other you have a huge number of choices. So if both players are tailoring, anticipating your opponent becomes much more challenging than in rock, paper, scissors.
It adds another element but it also adds restrictions unless your tailoring across several armies because most armies do have a couple unifying themes.
And also, unlike rock, paper, scissors, if you choose wrong you don't automatically lose. You could be facing an uphill battle, which I agree with many of the posters here is a good way to improve your gameplay (if you're the one with the weaker army). So the difficulty moves out of the realm of building an optimized all-comers list, and moves into the realm of anticipating your opponent.
But I'm not sure who gets to decide what the "standard boundaries" of the game are. Tailoring is not against any rule.
No but there are different degrees of tailoring and in this case it wasn't a big deal, but instead of saying a series of WAAC games againist the same opponent without set lists adds a new dimension to the game he made a vague statement about tailoring not being bad.
A player's collection of models is always a factor even with all-comers lists. Very few can afford all the models to make an optimized TAC list for more than a few armies.
Agreed
Like Dash, I like it when my opponents attempt to tailor to my all-comers lists. I may not win, but it's a challenge.
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
List taloring is bad because it creates a false environment.
#1 Oh noes I losts! He had lot of infantry so I'll take flamers and he has 3+ saves so I'll take AP3 or better to.
Goes and Tailors - Wins.
#2 Damn his flamers owned me. I know I'll take walkers and vehicles~! Tailors - Wins.
#1 Stupid walker don't die to flamers, well they can go, and all my Ap2 as that was useless too. I know! Str 8 Spam. Tailors wins.
#2 My vehicles Noooooo! Good thing he wasn't packing anything that hurt my guys when there were on foot. I'll....
Slowest game of Paper Scissors Rock ever.
However if one was to tune ones list instead of tailoring it, it would eventually be able to handle any threat, the next step is to tune it to the correct level of hate for each thing.
36940
Post by: Anvildude
I think I see where the OP is coming from now. He's not saying that it takes more skill to play with a tailored, or shall we say, optimized list.
He's saying that the ability to know enough to create an optimized list is in itself a sign, or use of gaming skill. The skill is in choosing the right tool for the job, instead of figuring out how to use your favorite hammer to close a leaky pipe.
Oh, and Dash? I think Flavius is talking about pure LOGIC, as in the proper language and method to explain arguments through. He's trying to get you to go all debate-club on here, point, counterpoint, etc.
For example, apples are red. That, logically, is a false statement, because it's missing a critical word- some. The statement "Some apples are red" is correct, true, and can be logically and empirically proven, while the statement "apples are red" is, logically, claiming through omission, that All apples are red, since 'apple' is being used as a category, etc, etc...
And Flav? You might want to dial down the Vulcan. This is a forum, after all; not a place really well known for its logic and reason.
5111
Post by: MikeMcSomething
Relic_OMO wrote:
Far too many respondents seem to believe that I am in favour of people furiously rewriting lists in front of each other to get some sort of advantage. I don't really want to respond to things like that, because I would rather people just read what I wrote in the first place. As I said initially, I do not mind personally any more if I turn up for a random pickup game against a random pickup opponent, and he looks over my list and pulls out a preplanned list from a pile that is optimised to beat mine. To me, that shows forward planning, strategising in advance, and increased preparation. In every other kind of contest in the world, these things are rewarded. Only in 40K do people apparently consider them worthy of mockery. That said, I am aware that to many people this can leave a bad taste in the mouth, and that my opinion will always remain a minority one. And for that reason (ie. making your opponent feel cheated), I would not suggest making such a practice more widespread.
So the difference is they printed the tailored list at home instead of wrote it down in front of you? If you and your opponent have a sufficiently large set of lists or they happen to have randomly written the one that is the perfect counter to yours, then the difference that you outlined between people "furiously rewriting lists in front of each other" and exhibiting "forward planning, strategising in advance, and increased preparation" is purely cosmetic - the opponent is fielding a list perfectly-tailored to beat yours, the only difference is you didn't watch him physically print the papers and put them in his army transport.
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Anvildude wrote:
For example, apples are red. That, logically, is a false statement, because it's missing a critical word- some. The statement "Some apples are red" is correct, true, and can be logically and empirically proven, while the statement "apples are red" is, logically, claiming through omission, that All apples are red, since 'apple' is being used as a category, etc, etc...
Perhaps. But when you ask me to empirically prove that some apples are red because its only my word versus yours.....I walk away and decide the conversation isn't meaningful enough to engage in.
17892
Post by: th3eviltwin
I think the OP is using the term list tailoring with out knowing what it really means , for example knowing the plp in your meta play mech you be an idiot not to take some kind of anti-armor .List tailoring would be knowing Bob dose not have any weapons with a strength higher than seven in his list and then run your all Land Raider list vs him.
527
Post by: Flavius Infernus
I'm still surprised that mostly no one is even willing to go as far as saying, "well, if tailoring is the way that your group wants to play, then fine." With the understanding that list tailoring won't necessarily improve your tournament-play skills.
Instead, most everyone is characterizing list tailoring as "false" or "outside" what's acceptable, or as being a jerk or a noob.
A couple of months ago I really enjoyed Dash's essay on his blog about being the only competitive player at the casual gaming store, and that really stuck with me because I've seen the same thing happen over and over again at various different stores. I totally understand where everybody is coming from in pointing out that competitive/tournament players--who play TAC lists because there is no tailoring possible in tournaments--tend to beat casual players. And then the casual players start tailoring to try to beat the competitive player, and so on.
We've all seen that, and it makes sense that if you're trying to win games or do well in tournaments, the best approach is clearly to play TAC lists. You just win more games that way.
But I have to wonder when did Dakka become so absorbed in tournament-style play that we started acting like it's the only correct way to play?
29187
Post by: TRISKELION7
I sort of agree with the original comment. That's why I think in battle companies, good for all occasions.
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
As far as I know dakka has always had a fairly even balance of Hobbists and Competition Gamers, it's what made the site stick for me in the first place.
I can't remember who posted the comment most recently but it's basically "There's two types of players, one's who write lists to win and are open about that. And others who write lists to win but complain when their list loses." And that's that.
If one's not intending to win then one takes 'fun' and should not be annoyed when a TAC (Tactical, take every challenger) list eats them. They were playing for fun, so why care about losing?
And there is the players who want to win the Wargame... it's war, right? So why on earth would taking something that I feel is ineffective, gelded and lame?
40780
Post by: Varl Sigmund
I am now going to jump onto my soap box...
the argument here is more about Strategy vs Tactics...
this is a Tactical war game... not a Strategic one...
every single 40k player is looking for that one broken unit or combination of units that will give him an insane advantage over his opponents...
all you need for proof here is the present GK Monkey army debate going on...
Strategic brilliance is the ability to plan games in advance so from that stand point list tailoring is both commendable as well as the right thing to do...
Tactically it is neither... no battlefield commander has all the right tools available on hand for any adversary... and as I stated earlier... this is a TACTICAL GAME...
they way I look at it is that my Wolf Lord has army "X" on his battle barge... wether he chose those units because he knew he would be invading a Chaos demon infested world, but might also have to contend with DE Reavers and a Waagh! that is forming in a nearby system is immaterial... that is a STRATEGIC decision... and would only be aplicable in Armagedon or Epic...
The game most of us are playing is a piece of that pie... one slice in a larger conflict and the spirit of it is to take the role not of supreme commander but of a battle leader... you have "y" forces available to you when you walk into a Ork ambush...
I know most of you will flame... but for me the fluff is the reason we play 40k and not RISK... so if you are bringing a 20 possible lists to the table I find that offensive... as for me it breaks the SPIRIT of the game...
pre knowledge of events (in present day military jargon that is called intelligence) is part of the game so list optimization is also part of the game... but tailoring to the level that you have the perfect foil for a specific challenge on hand always for me is sad.. not wrong... just sad...
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Varl, you're making some assumptions (and bad ones I think) that are the foundation of your beliefs.
1. Every single player is looking for that one broken unit or combination of units that will give him an insane advantage over his opponents....all you need for proof here is the present GK Monkey army debate going on...
I disagree. The GK Monkey debate is a "what if" discussion where players discuss what is possible within the codex - the same thing happens with every codex when it is released. Nor do some GK players (or potential players) discussing the potential of a single codex merit lumping the entirety of all 40k players into the absurd notion that we are ALL looking for an insane advantage over our opponents. However, I'm never comfortable pretending to speak for other people (especially on the scale you just did), so I'll only speak for myself in disagreement.
I have Orks, Dark Eldar, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Vanilla Marines, the ability to make a GK army, and Necrons. Why would I play Necrons if I were looking for an insane advantage? Why do I keep whipping out my Necrons if someone isn't up to a GT level game?
2. Secondly, you have a note that no battlefield commander has all the right tools available on hand for any adversary.
Are we talking in real life or in game? In real life.....it depends on perspective. I don't recognize your country flag, so I can't speak to the capabilities of your national armed forces - but having spent most of my professional life in the U.S Army, our commanders *do* have the tools to deal with any challenge. I didn't stay in the army long enough to become a field grade officer, but I did graduate from the finest military academy in the world AFTER being an infantryman for a couple of years. As a platoon leader or company commander, I either have the assets I need, or can draw resources from batallion or regimental assets for the mission at hand - which has been tasked to me by the "battlefield commander" based on the capabilities of the "unit" being addressed. Much like in 40k where you have an "army list" and task each unit in it for specific missions every turn (move/shoot/assault).
If you're talking about in-game, I have to repeat an oft-repeated mantra: Battlefield commanders *do* have all the right tools on hand for any adversary. Just because you haven't figured out how to do it yet doesn't mean that others haven't. And again, using myself as an example - all the armies I play (even Necrons!) have all the tools needed to defeat any adversary. Whether I defeat my opponent depends on how we each use the tools at our disposal.
Why don't you take a look at my Dark Eldar army. In my signature. Look at it carefully. Tell me what adversary I *don't* have the tools to defeat? You can't. Because I have those tools. I have a well-rounded capable list. And if you think that you can put together a list tailored to beat mine.....go for it! I'll probably spank it. I say that because I *know* the strengths and weaknesses of my list, my generalship skills....and can make some assumptions about people who don't believe its possible to have a TAC list.
The biggest hindrance to excellence around here is that people refuse to see beyond their own limitations. Instead of "How can I improve," you get "Improvement is not possible."
40780
Post by: Varl Sigmund
thanks for the flame...
I retract my generalization...
True not every guy is trying to find a Broken Unit... But every Player is trying with their "what if" scenarios to find an edge.. or to exploit a perceived weakness... and that is what is I was trying to say... apologies for any offense...
the game needs the above to evolve... otherwise we would all still be playing chess...
as for having exactly the right tool right here when you need it? ... no one ever has! not the US of A's army or the Munitorum of the Imperium...
it was after all the G.I.'s that coined the phrase S.N.A.F.U.
what you are referring to is Tactical brilliance.. the knowledge and experience to use the tools at hand to their best... and to know what your "never leave home without" items are...
My comment was based on the OT's comment about someone whipping out a list spur of the moment...
In my head I walk into a game with an army... my requisitions, recruitment, training and victualing is done... but that might just be me... maybe I am visualizing the fluff to much and can't see it for a bunch of toy soldiers with stats attached...
I f I know the general types of opponents I am facing I will try and counter their known strengths... but I rather try and focus on minimizing my weakness and focus on what my codex does best... (in the SW case that is drinking and carousing)...
11151
Post by: Dashofpepper
Varl, flaming is when someone tells your ideas are stupid, and you have no idea what you're talking about.
Debate is when someone provides evidence and arguments to counter your own claims that don't involve the above.
36542
Post by: Radical
Relic_OMO wrote:Do you believe, then, that in this setting you are talking about, players should always play with the same list as their opponent? After all, that is the the most even match possible. You mean, therefore, that in any serious game setting, all players play with identical lists, to ensure the most even match.
I will take the liberty of assuming that you will say no. I agree. Because list-building is part of the game, and part of the skill involved in the game. List building is a skill of anticipation, optimisation, planning, and combination, which we can call 'strategy' for these purposes. It seems to me a strange conceit to say that anticipating a range of 'competitive' builds and making an efficient list to succeed against that is a sign of great skill, while anticipating a range of builds peculiar to a particular Codex, or a particular opponent, and making an efficient list to succeed against that is a sign of no skill at all. Both involve the same principles of strategy. There may be an argument to make that planning a strategy with knowns (such as a known opponent) takes less skill than planning a strategy with no knowns, but I don't really think that's the case. That is a different argument, though, and I want to address these points separately.
It seems a similarly bizarre conceit to suggest that tailoring a list to make it more optimal is a sign of lesser skill, because it makes the list more powerful and thus easier to win with. That's clearly ridiculous on its face. Were that the case, people would play with the weakest, least efficient units in their Codices, because optimising a list shows that you need optimal lists to win and thus you need that crutch. Obviously this is not the case - people make lists as efficient and powerful as they can, and they don't consider that to be a crutch or an unfair advantage, nor should they, because list building is part of the game.
Far too many respondents seem to believe that I am in favour of people furiously rewriting lists in front of each other to get some sort of advantage. I don't really want to respond to things like that, because I would rather people just read what I wrote in the first place. As I said initially, I do not mind personally any more if I turn up for a random pickup game against a random pickup opponent, and he looks over my list and pulls out a preplanned list from a pile that is optimised to beat mine. To me, that shows forward planning, strategising in advance, and increased preparation. In every other kind of contest in the world, these things are rewarded. Only in 40K do people apparently consider them worthy of mockery. That said, I am aware that to many people this can leave a bad taste in the mouth, and that my opinion will always remain a minority one. And for that reason (ie. making your opponent feel cheated), I would not suggest making such a practice more widespread.
Because it is really simple, I outlined it in my first post. When one opponent has an advantage that goes outside the confines of the game and can adapt beforehand, the game is no longer balanced. List tailoring is building a list to defeat a particular opponent right then and there. The specific opponent you're playing is already at a disadvantage and had no potential for a counter to your list tailoring to begin with. You're no longer playing Warhammer 40k in the general sense, you're playing a drawn out game of rock/paper/scissors against your opponent and he has to show his play first so you always get to make the right decision. Anyone with enough models to work with can look at their opponent's list, see how it works, and then build a list specifically meant to counter that build. Just because you already knew and wrote down lists to counter specific builds doesn't make it any better. It is the same thing, except you just saved time for everyone else by not doing it on the spot.
In your example, suppose to people of the same ilk encounter each other. Each have dozens of different lists meant to work against a variety of builds specifically. Both of them would require to see the other person's list before they could begin. It then boils down to who picks their list last, and the entire strategy to optimized all-purpose list building has gone out the window. List building when adapting to meta is entirely different, because you're looking at trends the pop up do to the rules of the game itself. 40k rules and codexes lend itself to being mech oriented, so building a list with a suitable counter to mech heavy lists is going to be part of building your list. However, you're still going to have to consider all other factors and types of armies you may encounter and plan accordingly. It isn't going to be the same as building a list specifically meant to counter one particular build.
The fact that these concepts escape you is baffling. You're trying to apply the same line of thought at the macro and micro level of 40k, and it simply doesn't work. There isn't a competitive sport or game in the world that works like you're suggesting.
41201
Post by: Artemo
It seems to me that there are two sorts of 'list tailoring'.
One is where you see your opponents army, either laid out as models or you read his list and then you pick your own force to exploit its weaknesses. This ultra-precise knowledge seems rather unreasonable to me.
The other sort is where you know what sort of army he will play and (in some circumstances) the mission that will be played and who attacks and who defends and you then select your list. This seems more reasonable given your opponent can therefore avail himself of exactly the same opportunity and there's scope for second-guessing. It's also justifiable from a 'realism' point of view because in many scenarios (though not all) the concept seems to be that the force is indeed selected for the mission (hence force organisation charts).
Obviously an 'all round' force is more balanced but in all honesty if a space marine commander has to drop his men onto an ork held world, I think he might beef up the number of flamers he equips his force with somewhat... and equally the ork commmander would be thinking of ways to thwart a space marine assault, assuming of course he knew it was coming.
I'd add that I'm not convinced 'all comers' is necessarily 'harder' because it actually encourages perceived 'safe' builds so with a balanced force, one's tactical options are likely to be more constrained game to game than with the second sort of list tailoring where you might field quite different sorts of forces from the same army from one game to the next. 'All comers' fosters a 'make do' approach, the 'decent' sort of tailoring option fosters a more imaginative approach. One is not necessarily harder than another.
40938
Post by: althathir
Flavius Infernus wrote:I'm still surprised that mostly no one is even willing to go as far as saying, "well, if tailoring is the way that your group wants to play, then fine." With the understanding that list tailoring won't necessarily improve your tournament-play skills.
Instead, most everyone is characterizing list tailoring as "false" or "outside" what's acceptable, or as being a jerk or a noob.
A couple of months ago I really enjoyed Dash's essay on his blog about being the only competitive player at the casual gaming store, and that really stuck with me because I've seen the same thing happen over and over again at various different stores. I totally understand where everybody is coming from in pointing out that competitive/tournament players--who play TAC lists because there is no tailoring possible in tournaments--tend to beat casual players. And then the casual players start tailoring to try to beat the competitive player, and so on.
We've all seen that, and it makes sense that if you're trying to win games or do well in tournaments, the best approach is clearly to play TAC lists. You just win more games that way.
But I have to wonder when did Dakka become so absorbed in tournament-style play that we started acting like it's the only correct way to play?
Its more that the OP made a broad statement saying that list tailering is a better way to play in the thread title I don't agree with that. I've tried to make it clear that I don't think what Relic_OMO is proposing is bad, and that I don't consider it "list tailoring" just that it isn't a better way to play imo based on the agruments Relic_OMO provided.
That said by making that statement Relic_OMO created a different debate, because the post is basically says tailoring in all its forms is good, and there are a lot players that have had bad experiences with tailoring and they have every right to disagree.
If the OP had said that having a series of games againist the same opponent during which changing your lists to be optimal againist eachother was encouraged, adds new elements to the game and is a better way to play. Or had asked is having different army lists for each fraction a bad thing because it allows you to try new combinations of units and tactics. The discussion would be closer to what Relic_OMO had intended.
|
|
