List Tailoring: a better way to play the game

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**Flavius Infernus**

[edit] double post

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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?

**TRISKELION7**

I sort of agree with the original comment. That's why I think in battle companies, good for all occasions.

**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?

**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...

**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."

**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)...

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.