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.

If I know what friend I'm fighting (and therefore the army) I bring stuff better against that army, but I don't change my list once I'm already there and see their actual choices. It's kind of a douche thing to do, and even if you're both doing it someone has to say, 'Just feth it.', first and stop making changes. So it's never going to be totally equitable.

As most of my club players are SM or CSM players (with the odd necron, ork or bug player), I just take a list that can handle SM.

I've been taking ny DH recently. They do ok. The psychic hood on the =I= is good for shutting down psykers (and his null rod works well, too).

I don't really tailor my list all that much, though I don't generally find myself playing outside of my known group of people... though when we were starting off, my friend and I tended to tailor around eachother's lists... though he plays necrons, and I've helped him build his list from the ground up...

I am primarily a tournament player so I tend to run the same list over and over again once I have it fully tweaked. I prefer to field a balanced list that can take on all comers. Personally I look down upon the practice of tailoring a list to specifically beat what you know or think your opponent will field. I used to play in a club where this was a fairly common practice... It got so bad I would say I was bringing one army but actually field another... That finally sank in and they stopped tailoring their lists to specifically beat mine. Later on in a very competitive league it started up again. You had to use the same codex throughout the league but did not have to field the same list/core. To counter tailoring this time I had two army lists... One was designed to do well but still be a fun army to play against while the other list was a total beat stick. I would wait to see what my opponent was fielding and if I felt they had tooled their list against my race then I would bring out the beat stick army.

G

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I let my opponent know what book I'm playing, that's about it. Honestly, the whole point of military intelligence is to bring what you need though. If I'm fighting Orks, why would I need any Icons of Slaanesh? I say let each side know what book you're playing and let them swap a few points. It's not only more realistic but makes the games more fun.

Uh... what?

Chaos marines would stop worshipping Slaanesh because they're fighting orks?

I don't think the fluff rationale really works that well, outside of an ongoing campaign or something. For one thing, it's illogical to assume that you would always have that level of intel on what you're going up against, especially against some enemies (Dark Eldar? Alpha Legion?), or the capability of switching out equipment (or entire squads) right before a battle. For another there's already a huge amount artificial leveling already going on, with point limits, force organization charts, table edges, etc.

Most of my games are pick up games at a local club. I bring all of my stuff with me, when someone says they'd like to play, I ask how many points, and then write a list real quick. It's allowed me to be fairly flexible in what I play, like when 2 others showed up, and we did a pick up APOC game, their 2 3k armies vs most of what I'd brought (I typically carried 7K of necrons with me, if I maxed out all the silly stuff, like disruption fields, and threw in a formation or two.)

My lists always follow a general format, and I dont tailor them to my opponent (I'll still throw in my tzeentch screamers even if I know my opponent isn't bringing armor), simply because the list I usually use has them, and I'm getting in practice for tournaments. While it may not be the same point total as a tournament coming up, getting used to having a unit or two that suddenly isn't much of anything other than a speedbump, or to keep fleeing units fleeing, is a handy learning thing. And I've had some interesting point levels. Recently I had a 1500 point battle, followed by a 500. Had 650 once, because that's what someone had brought, then a 2075 because that's all someone had of an army he just bought and wanted to see how everything worked.

In real wargaming there is a type of tourny refered to as a "multi-list". It's quite common in ancients tournements. You submit two or three different lists (as long as they are the same army and era) at the time of registration and you are free to use any of them during the course of the event. However you have to make that choice after seeing the terrain and hearing what army type your opponent would be playing, but before anything is actually deployed. So for example when creating lists for my current Ancient tourny army of choice (my 12th century Byzantines) I might have my standard army with the full complement of shock cavalry, but I might also have a list with alot more infantry in case I draw a board with lots of terrain or a pike or archer heavy opponent.
So "tailoring" a list is not unknown outside of GW.

I usually don't do this very often...usually only when I expect my opponent to do the same.
For example a while back my "Friday Night Old Fogey 40k League" had a little "king of the hill" thing going. We decided that whoever won the night's game should come back the following week with the same list and take on somone else who was trying to upset his position as top dog. He would continue to retain that army until someone managed to beat him. The result was alot of tooled out armies designed to beat a specific opponent, but it was alot of fun. For instance one of our Ork players held the top spot for three weeks in a row untill I made a nasty anti-ork shooting army to beat him. I promptly lost the following week as my tooled out shooty army was unable to take on a Blood Angel force. Etc..

TR

My thought process is this: Once you climb into that dropship and hit dirtside, what you brought is what you got.

"You go to war with the army you have, not the one you wish you had"? hehe
I still don't understand why he got all the flak over saying that, because it's largly true. But anyway...

TR

This is a good discussion, with people expressing their views intelligently while respecting other people differing views. Kudos to . . .us! If anybody here has a problem playing against an opponent with a custom tailored list, I'm sure a mature discussion like this one with your opponent prior could solve/avert any issues.
Good luck and happy gaming.

Liquidwulfe: I agree wholeheartedly. However, it all does come down to a reflection of pre-drop intelligence, doesn't it?

I really enjoy pick up games where I have no idea what my opponent is until deployment. Get into the best scraps that way.

Trench-Raider: I really like that multi list concept you mentioned from historicals. I might use that someday, if I am ever caught dead running a tourney. I think it would be really fun, and would reflect the terrain analysis and enemy analysis aspects of generalship somewhat better than a single list.

I can't afford a tailor.

Steamroller tournaments allow Warmachine/Hordes players to bring two lists and decide
before they start which one they want to use. I think the minimum information you
have access to is the faction you're playing against. That way you're not fielding an Agonizer
against Warmachine factions or Machine wraiths against Hordes factions.

I like the rule, though the people I've met seem to stick with one list since it's easier on the
brain and carry trays.

Never

I am a list in hand kind of guy. The biggest inconsideration from my point of view is my opponent expecting others to wait patently while he spends 30 minutes trying to figure out what units would be effective against them when they were ready to set up in play right at the drop of the gate. My gaming group would decide on point value before meeting – it was supposed to be a set up and play type situation.

One guy would I knew would do every thing he could to tailor. When he was told he couldn’t waste time making or changing his army list he would bring multiple list and used whichever he felt gave him the greatest edge. I combated this by bring multiple list myself and randomly rolling which one I would use after he made his pick. I also would bring my army in a covered box with my army list place on the table upside down. When he had his list I would show him mine. I could do this because I played multiply armies. Other people he gamed against were screwed because they only had 1500 points in miniatures. I lent them my armies on some occasions mostly to give them variety to their game, but throwing a wrench in his designs gave me some satisfaction.

Even with these restrictions he would find a way. One trick he played repeatedly was he would dedicate a large chunk of points to a unit that he would forget to pack; he would discover that the unit was missing usually during deployment. But luckily he had plenty of units he could replace them with. I fought this by supplying him with stand ins for the missing unit.

People should attempt to be considerate of their opponents, most people find tailoring rude, and it victimizes people who do not have a lot of models and end up bring the same list to all of their games. I really felt for the people would end up fighting an army completely designed by someone who knew exactly what they were bringing and created a list to beat them.

For standard pick up games a take all-comers list is the fairest way to play the game. Tailoing when your opponent hasn't is just making vitory easier for you with an unfair advantage.

But there are many situations where tailoring is fine, usually if both players agree in advance that they will be playing each other and agree to tailor a list beforehand then neither side has an unfair advantage.

The tailoring/all comers thing simply comes down to don't try and gain an unfair advantage.


I'm currently running a campaign and I've got an interesting system for making lists.

Each player has to a submit a 3000master list.

Then for each game we play they can design a new army but all the units and equipment they use must come out of the 3000pts. It works kind of a like a sideboard in magic, letting you use the same basic army but allowing you some leeway with missons and equipment. Say I decide to make everyone play that old gauntlet mission from 3rd ed. The IG player couldn't go out and make an entirely mechanised list but he could use much more fast units and mechanised infantry in that mission than in the take and hold game I made him play the week before.

First, are we talking about building a list once you know who your opponent is or after you've seen their army list?

The first I don't have a big problem with - if you're facing orks then you can guess at his army composition but you might be wrong. I've seen people screw themselves by tailoring too heavily to what they thought the other guy would bring. (e.g. gearing up 100% for gaunt hordes and facing nidzilla) The second is completely un-acceptable.


Against regular opponents it's a bit different though. I've been playing some of these guys for 12-14 years or more. I know exactly how they play, what models they own, etc and they know the same about me. Of course, sometimes we'll make point of pulling something unexpected out.

I agree that it's practically cheating to tailor your list once you've seen the opponent's list/force.

However, most of the time I know which army I'm playing against, and I think it's part of the game to build a list to fight a specific enemy. Otherwise you'd just pick the best, competitive, all-comers list in the codex and not change it for five years. Bo-ring....

In fact, in our group it would be considered TFG if your opponent WOULDN'T tell you what army he was bringing...some people only have one army, so they'd be at an immediate disadvantage...

ArbitorIan wrote:I agree that it's practically cheating to tailor your list once you've seen the opponent's list/force.

Agreed, doing this is my all time pet hate for wargaming.

I don't 'meta' my lists unless there is an agreement or expectation to do so. "Do you want to fight my Space Marines with your Eldar next week," would be a legitimate reason to build an anti eldar army.

Building lists to counter things that your regular opponent(s) 'always bring', "I have a dispel scroll for all my wizards because you always bring lots of magic," is also legitimate.

I don't think there is anything wrong with sitting down to write your list and thinking 'hmm, as an ork player, due to face (ImpG) I should look for some amount of solid (tank-killa) ability in the army.

Knowing that someone always takes a certain thing (hows about the SM player who takes LRs due to the ork players difficulty in killing them) there is nothing wrong with taking something in the list to counter it (and I like field testing different units).

Knowing someone's specific list and countering it is cheating.

Knowing the army type you're facing and creating a fair list to counter it is prudent.
In showing up with my orks, I am not suprised to find pie plates being laid down on the table by the opposition.

What you do is keep your army in the box untill you have both lists on the table. That way you cant switch lists.

Of course if you have a TFG who does it, use the old bait and switch

Trench-Raider wrote:"You go to war with the army you have, not the one you wish you had"? hehe
I still don't understand why he got all the flak over saying that, because it's largly true. But anyway...

TR

In a club I was in about 15 years ago, we used to do a campaign of attrition.. You started out with 5000 points of troops and when they died, they died. You could absorb a partial unit into another partial unit, but once you lost the troops you could bring them back. Also, if you lost all 9 of your speeders in the first mission, that was it for you, no more speeders..

it was quite fun, especially with random list limitations throughout, where many army were disadvantaged and some were even overwhelmed..

I'm sure there were those who were pissed off when they drew a mission where they were the underdog, but we tried to play it as true to current warfare as we could.

I was on the receiving end of an ambush type mission where my opponent had me outnumbered 1.5:1 but he was allowed double the heavy selections and I was not allowed any fast attack or elite choices and was only allowed 1 heavy choice.

Of course, if you think of an ambush, the ambusher usually has the upper hand.

I've also played with one trick pony lists, tooled to specfically take out one army and one army only.. while it's fun with people you know, I'd never do that to a new player (until I got to know them of course) and I still try to do the ol' see what I can do with the same ol' list..

I always bring an all comers list. Lately though I notice people at my local store making lists after me. Happening because I been playing LR heavy lists of late. All of sudden everyone is bring Lascannons.

I almost thinking about calling some people out on it.

I always bring an all comers list. Lately though I notice people at my local store making lists after me. Happening because I been playing LR heavy lists of late. All of sudden everyone is bring Lascannons.

I almost thinking about calling some people out on it.

tastytaste wrote:I always bring an all comers list. Lately though I notice people at my local store making lists after me. Happening because I been playing LR heavy lists of late. All of sudden everyone is bring Lascannons.

I almost thinking about calling some people out on it.

Next time that happens, just quickly swap it out for a mass infantry list and go "HAHA!"

I tend to stick to one or two lists. This is a definite downside to themeing your army to a silly degree.

For example, my current project, Savage Orcs. Got all the models, list is set for 2,000 points. I've recently bought some non-savage stuff to give me a little variety, but you will always know what my Core choices are (2 Savage Unit, 1 Big'Un Savages) and that the Warboss on Wyvern will be present. Yet to swap any stuff out at the moment, as the additional purchases were more about expansion than variation!

Dark Elves, I tend to stick to the same list as well, with Dragon, Manticore, 2 Hydras. Been playing this list for....5 or 6 years now. Usually I'll very my Magic Items, but the core of the list is generally pretty static.

Now, I don't mind people gearing up to thrash my monsters, adds to the fun. But my Savage Orcs, please don't. It's a small, expensive list which depends upon getting into combat asap before I get smashed by shooting. So if someone writes a specific Gunline list against me, things get dull.

Overall though, the worst behaviour is finding out EXACTLY what I have before writing your list. At that point the game ceases to be a contest of wit and strategy, and becomes an exercise in list writing, which I find dull as dishwater.

I was thinking it may be a good idea to bring a few versions of your list, and use the version that would best suit your opponent. So you are kind of "pre" tailoring, in that you don't waste your opponents time writing up a new list. It seems if you only bring 1 army and only have enough minis for 1 roster than you may be at a disadvangtage when you face the guy who has 3 armies and can make many rosters.


GG

Well the only Kind of tailoring I feel is acceptable is "Ok I know I am Playing Guard" kind of tailoring.

However, "Oh he is playing x type of Guard Army quick lemme get the anti "x Type of Guard" list" is unacceptable IMO.

Of course, its all a delicate balance, such as if someone brings and all Chimera Mounted list and you have just 2 Lascannons say (to which I say suck it up all them chimeras means less squishy things for you to kill)

Now I think were just "slicing the onion". There are different levels of making a list, are you making a "nuke the guard on the first turn" list or are you making an "I just want to be competitive" list to face guard.


GG

Jon Garrett wrote: The second is if I'm playing games under 1000 points I'll ask my opponent if he's capable of taking out armored units, and not use them if he doesn't have that ability.

That's common courtesy!

I have a pretty all round force, but come on!
I should at least know what army I'm playing! I mean there has to be some sort of intelligence in the 40k world.

I don't need to see your list, but if your playing an all tank division. It's kinda ridiculous to expect the person your playing to just suck it up.
My problem with the no peeking - you can't change any part of your list or your a jerk mentality.
Is that if that's how your going to play, I guess we should all just bring the ork biker list/nidzilla/tank company. Because most of the time (80%) you have no chance in beating (or even giving them a run for their money) these armies unless you can tool up at least some of your force.

Now in a GT/or whatever, sure fine that's part of the game, but I have no wish to play like that for fun or on a regular basis.
Well that is unless I have the ork biker list/nidzilla/tank company/random OTT list (or even all of them).

No one is saying you cannot know what army your opponent is playing, in fact it's actually the first part of organising a game (BRB Page 86, Agree Points limit and choose forces) so it's actually required to tell your opponent what Army you are using before the game (not what's IN the army of course)

tastytaste wrote:I always bring an all comers list. Lately though I notice people at my local store making lists after me. Happening because I been playing LR heavy lists of late. All of sudden everyone is bring Lascannons.

I almost thinking about calling some people out on it.

Honestly, that's not your opponents' fault. What do you expect them to do? Purposefully hamstring themselves just because you don't diversify your lists often enough? If you mowed me down with Land Raiders the last 3 games and I have a reasonable expectation that you're going to use a similar list, you're darn right I'm going to be loading up on lascannons. Tailoring a list on the spot after seeing an opponent's list is cheesy. Tailoring a list based on past experience with an opponent is sound tactical judgement.