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.

Samus_aran115 wrote:

Illumini wrote:Tailoring is the sign of a poor player, and it is much worse than having a good list, even a "cheesy" list

I don't really understand what you mean. One list can't work against everything. Tailoring is a completely reasonable thing to do. If I can't beat tyranids because I don't have enough templates, I'll tailor my list. If I can't beat guard because I don't have enough tank hunting stuff, I'll tailor my list. It certainly does NOT make a bad player. Any half competent person tailors their list for every game.

[rage]
No, just poor players tailor their list to every game. If you can't build a decent list that can handle everything and use something called "tactics" to beat your opponent rather than a formula of "UnitA>UnitB. Enemy's army has many UnitB, I take many UnitA." Any idiot can spam 20x missile launchers and 5x flamers against tyranids. It takes a good player to adapt his 5x meltas and make do with 5 missiles and 1 flamer against nids and win, then turn around and play against Eldar with the same list and maybe win, then turn around and beat Space Marines.

When people ask me what army I play before they get their stuff I simply reply "you don't need to know until deployment."

About 2% of people take offence, cry about how they told me what they play so I'll probably tailor. I beat them and they cry cheeze. Then in half an hour when I play someone else and deploy the same army they realize, and in about 2 hours when I win or tie they begin to see its not tailoring.

The other 98% agree with me and so the game goes smoothly.

The thing is, even with tailoring a good opponent with a good list will at least tie you. Why? Because they know the strengths and weaknesses of their list. They know what things can do, and they know how to prevent you from using your advantage. Now if you both tailored, or neither did, or you were both given armies at random with balanced lists, he will beat you EVERY time (bad luck being the exception).

The #1 example I have seen of this is a type of ultimate duel. Its a best of three games (yes it takes a good 6-7 hours plus a lunch break). Two people each write 3 armylists that must be from 3 different books, their freinds or themselves donate the models to go with them. Each player rolls a D6, and each number corresponds to an army list out of the 6 that have been written (Reroll if you get the same number). They play. The two armies that were played are eliminated, and each player rolls a D4, and so on until the 3 games have been played. This kind of thing shows true skill level, unlike tailoring.
[/rage]

Wow. That has got to be one of the biggest rages I've done in awhile

Illumini wrote:Tailoring is the sign of a poor player, and it is much worse than having a good list, even a "cheesy" list

So you outdo a three Landraider list with the same list that you stomp a Green Tide or Endless Swarm list with?
Most people tweak their list, depending on who they are playing. Take-all comers lists work, sometimes.

Are you one of the guys who'd post his w/l/d record on this site, as something incredible like 48/2/4, for all three of his huge armies? I'm getting that vibe.

You know guys, it's possible to share your opinions on list tailoring without being an ass about it, or denigrating other people's play preferences.

Heck, I could swear someone already did that, on the previous page before most of this nerd-rage started.

Let me see if I can find that post...

Mannahnin wrote:List tailoring is its own debate.

Folks who mostly play with a few friends often do it and enjoy it. Folks who mostly play competitive tournament games or pickup games with strangers usually prefer to design a take-all-comers list, and consider that challenge part of the skill of list design. List tailoring is neither wrong nor bad, although it's poor form to do it if your opponent's not also able to.

Everybody chill out and be nice, okay?

Che-Vito wrote:

Illumini wrote:Tailoring is the sign of a poor player, and it is much worse than having a good list, even a "cheesy" list

So you outdo a three Landraider list with the same list that you stomp a Green Tide or Endless Swarm list with?

Yes. If I can't, then it's not an all-comers list. Will they have bad matchups? Yes. That's part of an all-comers list.

Che-Vito wrote:

Illumini wrote:Tailoring is the sign of a poor player, and it is much worse than having a good list, even a "cheesy" list

So you outdo a three Landraider list with the same list that you stomp a Green Tide or Endless Swarm list with?
Most people tweak their list, depending on who they are playing. Take-all comers lists work, sometimes.

Are you one of the guys who'd post his w/l/d record on this site, as something incredible like 48/2/4, for all three of his huge armies? I'm getting that vibe.

Personally, yes. My army lists have the ability to deal with triple land raiders and green tides, and Mechanized lists, and deep-striking tyranids and daemons...and everything else, all wrapped up in a point limited sheet of paper. Just because you aren't good enough to do something doesn't mean that other people aren't - that's not a safe assumption.

Personally, I *am* one of the people who posts my W/L/D record. I started doing it because I got tired of trying to give advice, and people who didn't know their butt from their head calling me out on giving stupid advice without grounds for disagreeing with me other than their personal and usually unvalidated opinion. I play Orks and Dark Eldar. I play them exceptionally well. I give advice about Orks and sometimes Dark Eldar. Sometimes I give advice to people asking how to play against those two armies. I pretty much stay out of everything else, because I'm not a SME on them. And...my win/loss/draw record is pretty easy to validate through battle reports and tournament results if you really care - because I don't track my perfomance outside of them. I did at one point (and my DE record was like 92 wins, 3 losses or something) but I picked up a ridiculous amount of flaming....and at the end of the day, most of the people know who I am, or at least aren't so petty as to denigrate something like that for a variety of reasons - its really nice to go to a grand tournament somewhere in the country and have great connections and social outlets because people recognize you.

You're fine to tailor your lists. All that means is that you're not familiar with competitive 40k....which is *fine.* Not everyone is a tournament gamer. I encourage my opponents outside of tournaments to tailor their lists to fight me (big head syndrome kicks in) so that I have a better challenge. I can name a dozen people off the top of my head around the country that if you don't take a tailor-made list, you WILL lose - and even with it, they're good enough that you're probably still going to lose. Hell, for all my achievements, I've yet to have to face off against Hulksmash in any of the grand tournaments we've been to, and I count myself lucky.

i agree with the Dont tailor your list people. I like to play a fun list most of the time, one that i dont tweak much if at all when i face a certain player. Then again.... If the same guy keeps winning local tourni and bragging about how cool his list is, then i will generally tailor my list so that it will still beat most lists i know to be at the tourni, but against his list i will kick butt. A recent eldar player comes to mind. He said we all suck at 40k. He called out people he had never met or played against in the local forum. His list was an all mech list that he would try to put in reserve and then rush out to steal objectives, or play as a VP denial list. I took maxed out autocannon and ML. Worked against everyone i faced including him. I came in second that tourni but crushing him in the first round was worth every second i played there.

i realize this discussion is coming to a close, but just to throw in my two cents, i think that list tailoring is a viable method of having fun. no one is forcing anyone to play against someone who is tailoring their list. i'm sure it gets expensive and having a vast army with dozens of units to choose from is probably appealing for a lot of players, but i'd have to agree with the majority of the thread. list tailoring is largely a symptom of non-ingenuity. when it's brought up i think back to my early days of playing the game, when it was just me and a couple friends. whoever bought the newest unit had the upper hand, so it stimulated this whole episode of wasted time and money, started big arguments and thickened rivalries.

i recognize that it's my own (and apparently many others') personal preference to devise lists that could stand up to any threat and play them repeatedly until they can do so consistently. this doesn't suggest that anyone who builds lists differently is any worse of a gamer than i am. hell, i think the best way to have fun in the game is to build a fluff-based list and see what sorts of uphill victories they can accomplish :-P but then it comes to competitive play...

too many wargamers seem to invest their ego into their toy soldiers, doubtlessly compensating for social ineptitude or other self-perceived flaw. i'm not ashamed to claim that i can relate. fortunately for tailor-haters, there aren't too many tournaments out there that allow mid-tournament list changes. it probably all boils down to manners. are you polite enough to cope with an opponent building a list to counter yours without saying anything? if not, then there's no one trying to convince you to start. but in defense of list tailoring wargamers, they just want to compete too. isn't that what it's about? playing a fun game?

yeesh, i apologize for the tale of two cities re-write. i'll keep my comments on lash brief, since most of it has been hammered out anyway. metagame has not been friendly to lash, but the opposite is just as true. it can still have a deadly impact on a lot of armies and if you don't invest too many points into it (such as taking princes with a land raider to hide them,) then the well-psychically-defended match ups won't have such a severe impact. personally, i only take one lash prince in a land raider with slaanesh terminators. if the opponent has psychic defense, then the unit functions similar to a "real" HQ. however, if they don't have the means of stopping lash, then i'm still not stomping them to complete dust, as only one unit can be targeted per turn. still, Her Golden Apple Corps is strong.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Illumini wrote:Tailoring is the sign of a poor player, and it is much worse than having a good list, even a "cheesy" list

So you outdo a three Landraider list with the same list that you stomp a Green Tide or Endless Swarm list with?
Most people tweak their list, depending on who they are playing. Take-all comers lists work, sometimes.

Are you one of the guys who'd post his w/l/d record on this site, as something incredible like 48/2/4, for all three of his huge armies? I'm getting that vibe.

Personally, yes. My army lists have the ability to deal with triple land raiders and green tides, and Mechanized lists, and deep-striking tyranids and daemons...and everything else, all wrapped up in a point limited sheet of paper. Just because you aren't good enough to do something doesn't mean that other people aren't - that's not a safe assumption.

Personally, I *am* one of the people who posts my W/L/D record. I started doing it because I got tired of trying to give advice, and people who didn't know their butt from their head calling me out on giving stupid advice without grounds for disagreeing with me other than their personal and usually unvalidated opinion. I play Orks and Dark Eldar. I play them exceptionally well. I give advice about Orks and sometimes Dark Eldar. Sometimes I give advice to people asking how to play against those two armies. I pretty much stay out of everything else, because I'm not a SME on them. And...my win/loss/draw record is pretty easy to validate through battle reports and tournament results if you really care - because I don't track my perfomance outside of them. I did at one point (and my DE record was like 92 wins, 3 losses or something) but I picked up a ridiculous amount of flaming....and at the end of the day, most of the people know who I am, or at least aren't so petty as to denigrate something like that for a variety of reasons - its really nice to go to a grand tournament somewhere in the country and have great connections and social outlets because people recognize you.

You're fine to tailor your lists. All that means is that you're not familiar with competitive 40k....which is *fine.* Not everyone is a tournament gamer. I encourage my opponents outside of tournaments to tailor their lists to fight me (big head syndrome kicks in) so that I have a better challenge. I can name a dozen people off the top of my head around the country that if you don't take a tailor-made list, you WILL lose - and even with it, they're good enough that you're probably still going to lose. Hell, for all my achievements, I've yet to have to face off against Hulksmash in any of the grand tournaments we've been to, and I count myself lucky.

At the end of the day, "competitive 40k" is tailored lists for specificially expected tourny conditions. How far do you want to take that argument? Would you play a DH/Necron/Witch Hunters/Tau list, today; as you would've in a 4e or 3e tourny? No. The field of play is different, and you change your army to match it.

imweasel wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Illumini wrote:Tailoring is the sign of a poor player, and it is much worse than having a good list, even a "cheesy" list

So you outdo a three Landraider list with the same list that you stomp a Green Tide or Endless Swarm list with?

Yes. If I can't, then it's not an all-comers list. Will they have bad matchups? Yes. That's part of an all-comers list.

Please, share these lists.

Che-Vito wrote:

Illumini wrote:Tailoring is the sign of a poor player, and it is much worse than having a good list, even a "cheesy" list

So you outdo a three Landraider list with the same list that you stomp a Green Tide or Endless Swarm list with?
Most people tweak their list, depending on who they are playing. Take-all comers lists work, sometimes.

As other people have said, yes, my all comers lists will take on those lists with at least a decent chance of winning, and I actually like playing the bad match-ups more than the good match-ups because I have to be much more tactical to win.

Che-Vito wrote:Are you one of the guys who'd post his w/l/d record on this site, as something incredible like 48/2/4, for all three of his huge armies? I'm getting that vibe.

No, I do have tourney reports in my sig though, do they count?

Illumini wrote:
No, I do have tourney reports in my sig though, do they count?

The biggest tourny in Norway brings together 26 players???
In the U.S., that's more along the lines of a local gaming event.

I'm going to go with a "no", although I do want to compliment the detail you've put into your lists with naming units, the photographs, and your performance at these events!

Che-Vito wrote:

Illumini wrote:
No, I do have tourney reports in my sig though, do they count?

The biggest tourny in Norway brings together 26 players???
In the U.S., that's more along the lines of a local gaming event.

I'm going to go with a "no", although I do want to compliment the detail you've put into your lists with naming units, the photographs, and your performance at these events!

No, 50 people is the biggest 40k tourney in Norway. I had misunderstood. (was new to the tourney scene at that point) It was the biggest "gaming convention". Norway has a small population and long distances though, so it is hard to get more people to attend each event. I'm going to the 50-man tourney next month, and it will cost me about 350$ in travel and hotel, and that is a moderate distance

Che-Vito wrote:[At the end of the day, "competitive 40k" is tailored lists for specificially expected tourny conditions. How far do you want to take that argument? Would you play a DH/Necron/Witch Hunters/Tau list, today; as you would've in a 4e or 3e tourny? No. The field of play is different, and you change your army to match it.

Che-Vito, you're changing your stance from *everyone tailors their list in games* to *everyone tailors their list to meta,* and its still a false assumption. YOU change your army to match differing conditions. My Orks have been the same since 2008. Since then, we've had Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Tyranids, and Dark Eldar be released. Also a hefty FAQ that made DA and BT potent. The Orks I use haven't changed a bit...although I have learned to use the orks I use in DIFFERENT ways. Deploying against SW is different than deploying against Tyranids.

I hate to do this, but I have to simply beat you down by weight of fact. The *metagame* is different in different regions throughout the country. I don't change my list when going to different regions of the country - and I'm a well traveled gamer. The same Dark Eldar I played in Florida are the same Dark Eldar I'll play in California this year, in Louisiana, in Texas, in Washington D.C., in Mississippi......in fact, if you really cared, you could find my army list on Dakka, print it out, bring it to the Nova Open in 8 months, and find that its the same list that I brought. Last year, some folks did that with my Orks.

That's the point of a take-all-comers list.

It DOES NOT have to change to accomodate different "metagames." It does not have to shift to accomodate new codexes. And again, I beg you - realize that just because you can't do something doesn't mean it isn't possible. It just means that you can't do it. How many countless times throughout human history has someone said, "That's not possible" and scoffed at someone else for an idea or action....simply because they aren't clever or inspired enough to comprehend what's before them? Approach this with an open-mind. You're saying that everyone tailors their lists. I'm saying that tailoring your list is the sign of an amateur, and that there's a level of tactical skill beyond this where people can take the tools at hand to defeat almost any obstacle.

Are you willing to believe me? I *do* have a big ego, I won't lie. I'm the guy that goes around asking people to tailor their lists against me. Who offers to pay people if they can beat him. That's caused plenty of drama - free battleforce box if you can take me down. While I might be the loudest of the *elite* I assure you that I'm not the only one, I'm not even the best of them - I bet you that there are a half dozen people reading this thread and not posting because they don't like getting pulled into arguments, having the spotlight shown on them, or being in the middle of something. I'd even name them off, but it would probably earn me some enmity, and there are some friendships I cherish.

For those who aspire to achievement, there is a caliber of person who has a competitive nature to match a keen intellect and when they combine those with a comprehensive understanding of this particular wargame, can shine. It takes all three of those though. I daresay that most netlists are the armylist of someone respected that other people are trying to emulate success with. My own Orks, successful as they have been, have been the target of a *lot* of derision - in part because others haven't been able to replicate my success with the same list, and in part because on paper playing theoryhammer they don't stack up in equal terms with other lists. I've even been graced with several topics by the infamous netblogger "Stelek" about how Orks suck, and my list in particular sucks. I turned around and went 7-1 at the Nova Open with those Orks...the same as Stelek did with his MSU razorbackspam triple longfang space wolves. And that was before I really understood Space Wolves.

My point: Individual ability is more important than a list. It is what brings a list to life and makes it perform. My Necrons have no business being undefeated but they are. I don't pretend it will last - I generally use them as a tool to illustrate the invalidity of "cheese" whining.

And since individual ability is more important than a list, those individuals with ability can craft a list with the ability to take on all other individuals. At the risk of making him mad, let me give you an example: Dakka's own Hulksmash. By my estimation, he's better than me, which has to make him one of the best players in the world, because I'm damn good. He plays Space Wolves (and apparently also daemons and guard now...foot-slogging guard no less). Take ANY list you want. Tailor a list to beat him. You won't be able to...he's really that good. There are more folks just like him.

Enough rambling from me now - just please, understand that list tailoring is fine for those who need or want to do it. I have no qualm to people who wish to do it - however, my professionalism and pride in my skills take offense to the notion that you believe everyone has to rely on the same amateur crutch. Skip the generalizations and assumptions, and I will stop calling you out and proving you wrong.










So you outdo a three Landraider list with the same list that you stomp a Green Tide or Endless Swarm list with?

Dashofpepper wrote:
Are you willing to believe me? I *do* have a big ego, I won't lie. I'm the guy that goes around asking people to tailor their lists against me. Who offers to pay people if they can beat him. That's caused plenty of drama - free battleforce box if you can take me down.

That's all I really need to read. Quite frankly, the entire post boils down to the above lines....the rest is irrelevant.

Che-Vito, I can see now that I've been wasting brain-power and time trying to help you when you're too obtuse to look beyond the narrow vision that that you generalize our hobby with. I pity you; there's so much more to this hobby that you're missing out on.

Without you having the capacity to learn and grow and benefit from the experience of others, I'd be beating my head against the wall to stay in this thread, which is already decidedly off-topic from talking about dual lash.

I'm out!

There's absolutely no need for anyone to make this argument personal.

I don't see the thread going anywhere productive or useful from here, so locked it is.