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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'm sorry, I play warhammer, Not rock-paper-scissers.

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).

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.

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.