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.

akaean wrote:When you first start out, and come in to the store with your first 750 point list. You are fielding nearly 100% of your models.
You make an all comers list because you don't know what armies the local meta consists of, all you know is that you've just dropped ~200 dollars and you expect your all comers list to give you a good game, no matter who you play.
Then you walk into the store, and get ready to play a game. You ask for a small game because you don't have very many points.
They go, "Ok, I'll play a game with you, what army do you play?"
"Eldar"
*smiles sagely and proceeds to write a list specifically designed to crush elves in space*

You were playing some very egocentric people. There are games that take carefull planning to win, and games that are simply "i win" against a new guy where the winner takes nothing away except his ego grows several inches while be brags to his friends about how he smashed some new guy into the dirt.

Personally, given a new player in the store, i'll volunteer to play them. And against a new player i'll win. BUT i don't tailor my list at all, i'll lower it down to whatever level they are playing but keep the same things in mind (say i had 3A, 2B, 2C and 1D... then I'd take 2A, 1B and 1C).

Now, IMO, getting your arse handed to you is the best way to learn, during early 3E it is exactly what happened to me and i quickly got better, upto the point where i am now. I still get beaten occasionaly or have very close games, and i learn some very valuable information from each one. Learning what NOT to do, it better than steamrolling your opponents. While i gain little from these newbie games nowadays, i'm imparting knowledge in the most basic way possible and always assure that i have a nice talk with the newbie afterwards, and during the game...

I will point out if X unit is shuffled over 3" it'll provide cover to the more valuable Y unit for example, or that positioning X unit at that point will let it into charge range of a wraithlord that it cannot hurt in combat, etc.

After the game, i'll give pointers on the new guys list, suggesting little changes here and there without them having to buy a stash of new models. I'll also give some pointers on where they went wrong and the main points of the game that caused them to loose and things of that nature.

When i got back into the hobby properly the little group we formed consisted of 2 new guys, and at the recent RTT tournament we all went to those 2 new guys managed to both get into the top 50%, one of them i think reached the top 10% and came 3rd out of the players from our store (and this is the guy i used to play twice each week)

akaean wrote:At this point I stopped telling people what army I was running so it would be all comers v all comers.

its just stupid. Its not preparing, its basically saying screw you new guy I can do this and you don't have the models to do it back to me.

It really depends on who you play...

akaean wrote:I've gotten better since then, but I still write all comers lists. I go to various different stores to play so there is no "local meta" for me. I've built my 2000 point list, with units I like, and I expect it to fare admirably no matter where I play it.

List tailoring is WAAC strategy that is incredibly unfair to new gamers.

Designing a personalized list of units you like that can still do well in a casual all comers environment is a testament to skill, list tailoring is not.

While i agree creating a viable all comers list takes immense skill, there ARE times when tailoring can be both fair and show some skill at creating you list.
If you were to play in a mini-tournament with a group of your close friends with some sort of beer-related prize and you knew that all of them would be playing MEQ's... would you really take units to accomodate orc opponents? or IG power-blob armies?
While it would be a decent test of an all-comers list, mutual tailoring between friends could lead to interesting results

Dashofpepper wrote:However, if you would like a detailed explanation of why your agreement with the OP is based on faulty premises (of what skill is), skip back to the first page and look for my first post.

Actually, you didn't say WHY list tailoring require less skill, you only said THAT it requires less skill.

Furthermore, this is missing the OP's original point that list tailoring IS a skill. It's part of the subset of skill in list building.

In fact, you implied that taking a tailored list is a sign of a weak general because a tailored list will allow a weaker general to do better. What is a tailored list, though, but a list that is strong in the circumstances in which you're using them?

What this is implying, then, is that the stronger a list is, the less a player has to think on the field, which is the sign that they're a bad general. This would mean that only the most skilled players would bring the weakest lists possible, if having a horribly mis-matched list is a sign of a good player.

Generally, it seems to me that the opposite is true. The best players bring the best lists they possibly can. Knowing something about the army you're going to be facing against increases the ceiling of possible.

After all, what difference is there really between a person making the best list possible without knowing anything about their opponent, and those who build the best list possible while knowing things about their opponent? One could make the argument that the former are simply lazy, while the latter has put in the time and effort to do research, and planning a different list every time.

Ok its ok to tailor lists. Op ill play you, but just before it starts I wanna see your list first so I can change my list accordingly.

But... you want to change yours now right? Or else ill just pwn you. Ok you can change... but now I have to. There ok.. what? Now you have to change because I just hard countered your list again and it would be impossible to beat? Ok you can change... what? Infantry horde list? Ok ok I get rid of all my heavy weapons and just take templates and flamers. Sorry, now you have to change again?!

Let's just do that until the end of time. My distant ancestors can write lists with yours! Awesome dude!

I think that the perils of list tailoring can be explained by the following story:

There once was a new guy at my FLGS. He had just started DE, but had built up a 1250 point list for the first game. He had arranged to play against a player that was widely known to use Tau, so he geared up to smash mechanized or crisis-suit heavy Tau. When his opponent arrived, said opponent brought Blood Angels Dantewing and stomped him (less though than he should have due to poor dice rolling). Then I get up for the next game (I wrote my list two days before). Seeing my Tau, my opponent is quite happy, declaring that he "built his list to kill Tau". My Tau stomped him worse than the Blood Angels. What appeared on paper to be good ideas (Splinter Cannons for killing Crisis Suits, Dark Lances for killing Devilfish, and Wyches to kill everything) ended up falling apart as I blew apart the overly-confident glass cannon, especially since my list was less-than-conventional (1 Devilfish, 2 Railheads, 3x dismounted fire warriors, 1x mounted fire warriors, pathfinders, and a Command Squad).

One list to rule them all, and in the darkness table them.

List tailoring is a really sensitive topic because of the lengths people can go to. Im gonna steal an example that was brought up earlier, if a new player shows up with a 750 point army, and plays a vet that has a 750 point list for facing that fraction in most cases A) the premade list is gonna be off cause new players lists rarely are optimal. B) regardless of the tailoring the vet would spank him anyways because he probably has better idea of what the noobs army can do then the new player.

What bothers me is if a that new player agrees to a game, and the opposing players looks at his list and then designs a list to counter the specific units the new player has chosen. This scenario is why tailoring has such a bad repuation.

I'm shocked by the number of people who clearly have no idea whats being talked about in this thread.

The OP is not saying: "Look over your opponent's exact list and make one to beat it." He's saying "Both players should be aware of what army the other one is playing."

That is perfectly acceptable, IMHO. Take-all-comers works great in tournaments and for random pickup games at a FLGS (since you don't want to have to haul all your models to the store). But, for a friendly game, let both players know what army they'll be facing off against. It really does add a whole new level to the game.

And, I perfectly respect the die-hard tournament players that view friendly games as training and want both players to use TAC.

To each their own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the veteran vs newbie:

The veteran should absolutely list tailor. But, not to win, to take a worse army. The newbie he's going against has probably made a few mistakes in list building and doesn't have as good a grasp as the rules and tactics of 40k.

A vet will absolutely destroy a newbie if he uses his standard TAC list. He has to list tailor to tone the list down a bit and make the game fair.

That was kinda my point, it just that "list tailoring" is a fairly vague statement, building a list when I know i'm gonna play imp guard next, and these are the units my buddy uses i'll build a list to counter them both fall under the same terminology.

I agree with the OP, for the money and time anyone spends on building, painting, and crafting an army they should get, hell, they deserve the right to do whatever they damned well please with their army.

Grakmar wrote:Take-all-comers works great in tournaments

You know, I actually question that serious tournament gamers bring take-all-comers lists.

I mean, really, were I to go to a big tournament, I'd make my list to be good against mech guard, space wolves, and blood angels. You're not making a list to take ALL comers, you're making a list to take the most popular tournament lists.

The mission packs (most tournaments release them early) also have a lot to do with army list composition, for example if only one mission is objective based taking less troops than normal may be a good ideal.

Ailaros wrote:

Grakmar wrote:Take-all-comers works great in tournaments

You know, I actually question that serious tournament gamers bring take-all-comers lists.

I mean, really, were I to go to a big tournament, I'd make my list to be good against mech guard, space wolves, and blood angels. You're not making a list to take ALL comers, you're making a list to take the most popular tournament lists.

Do you see the relation to my objections to your theories that luck plays at the high end of gaming? >< Its speculation without reference. The best way to answer your question is this: Check out my Nova Open Orks (link in signature). Tell me what army it is poorly equipped to handle that isn't on your list there - Mech Guard, Space Wolves and Blood Angels.

A more general note would be that an army capable of dealing with those three is very capable of dealing with pretty much anything else too.

Dashofpepper wrote:Tell me what army it is poorly equipped to handle that isn't on your list there - Mech Guard, Space Wolves and Blood Angels.

A more general note would be that an army capable of dealing with those three is very capable of dealing with pretty much anything else too.

Exactly. It's not that you make a list that ONLY handles those three list, and utterly fails to handle the other things. It just so happens that good lists for handling those three armies can also probably sufficiently handle many other army types as well. That doesn't mean that the list wasn't build with certain armies in mind.

Furthermore, ignoring tournament meta doesn't strike me as the first step into creating the most competitive tournament list. Ignoring the meta doesn't actually make you a better player either, nor does failing to build a list around what you expect.

Ailaros wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:Tell me what army it is poorly equipped to handle that isn't on your list there - Mech Guard, Space Wolves and Blood Angels.

A more general note would be that an army capable of dealing with those three is very capable of dealing with pretty much anything else too.

Exactly. It's not that you make a list that ONLY handles those three list, and utterly fails to handle the other things. It just so happens that good lists for handling those three armies can also probably sufficiently handle many other army types as well. That doesn't mean that the list wasn't build with certain armies in mind.

Furthermore, ignoring tournament meta doesn't strike me as the first step into creating the most competitive tournament list. Ignoring the meta doesn't actually make you a better player either, nor does failing to build a list around what you expect.

Uh.....*sigh*

Dood. Not exactly. You're completely missing the point. My *personal* Ork list was designed before Mech IG. Or Space Wolves. Or Blood Angels. Or Tyranids. Or Dark Eldar. It was designed to be capable of the potential to deal with every single codex. And I *do* mean that I went through the wargaming of "This is how I'm going to deal with this marine build....and this Necron build....and this Ork build....and every permutation that I could think of in every codex."

I can't speak for all/most/majority/anything "serious tournament players," but the folks I discuss my lists and tactics with have the same philosophy.

Nor am I advocating that you ignore tournament meta. I'm advocating being prepared for ALL tournament meta. EVERYWHERE. At the same time. When I drive 11 hours to attend an event, do you really think I research what the local meta is like? Or when I spent a few months participating in a tournament circuit a couple states away that is comprised of a series of major metropolitan RTTs (still local) that my army changes?

That's what I consider skill. I can take the set of models that I've grown comfortable using together, and plop them on a table anywhere in the world, in any META, against any army, against any theme in any army, and be comfortable in the knowledge that I have the tools to prevail.

I can take the set of models that I've grown comfortable using together, and plop them on a table anywhere in the world, in any META, against any army, against any theme in any army, and be comfortable in the knowledge that I have the tools to prevail.

That would be the definition of a TAC.
And I support this statement. And in your case, Dash, I like that your way involves the "relationship" between the player and the list.
If you read forums and the guys tell you "Take this, it is good" and you have no idea what they talk about, then it makes no sense for you to stick to this advice in the first place.
You actually have to "be" the army in order to excel with it.

I didn't feel like reading through three pages of this before asking, but do you consider it list tailoring if you plan to play against a specific codex? Not knowing the models, but knowing which particular army you will play? If I know I'm playing against Space Marines, I'm gonna want AP 3 or 2 weapons. Bring some big guns for tanks, etc. But yes, knowing your opponents SPECIFIC list and running something against him designed to just beat that is lame. Unless your friend is running a cheesy/beardy list and you just want to teach him a lesson and you are already a better player.

I believe in tailoring to a specific army e.g daemons or MEQ or guard tanks, but not to a list.

timetowaste85 wrote:I didn't feel like reading through three pages of this before asking, but do you consider it list tailoring if you plan to play against a specific codex? Not knowing the models, but knowing which particular army you will play? If I know I'm playing against Space Marines, I'm gonna want AP 3 or 2 weapons. Bring some big guns for tanks, etc. But yes, knowing your opponents SPECIFIC list and running something against him designed to just beat that is lame. Unless your friend is running a cheesy/beardy list and you just want to teach him a lesson and you are already a better player.

Yes, I would consider that list-tailoring. Why would you want to build a list designed to kill one particular army well when you can build a list designed to kill EVERY army well?

Dash has a point, but rather than focus on armies I focus on common things you will see in lists:

Hordes
Power Armor
Mech Vehicles
Power HQs
FNP
AV 14

You need units to counter the above.

thehod wrote:Dash has a point, but rather than focus on armies I focus on common things you will see in lists:

Hordes
Power Armor
Mech Vehicles
Power HQs
FNP
AV 14

You need units to counter the above.

Hordes - Orks
Power Armor - More orks/bigger Orks (nobz)
Mech Vehicles - More orks again
Power HQs - Deffrolla/Nobz
FNP - More orks, rollas, nobs
AV 14 - Rolla.

Hordes - Basic DE weaponry
Power Armor - More basic weapons
Mech Vehicles - Well, troops to be fancy, but more basic DE weaponary
Power HQs - More SC
FNP - pew pew
AV 14 - DL Pew Pew.

There really should be enough basic solutions to them problems in any list trying to even claim to be TAC.

Dashofpepper wrote: Why would you want to build a list designed to kill one particular army well when you can build a list designed to kill EVERY army well?

Because no one list kills every army equally well.

There is no "one list to table them all", no "master list" out there. Indeed, if there were, then any competitor worth their weight in salt would only ever play that one list.

In the end, you have to make choices. You can make a list that does nothing "poorly" (which is perhaps what people really mean when they talk about a take-all-comer list), but it's impossible to make a list that does absolutely everything "very well".

You have to choose what you're going to be weaker against and what you're going to be stronger against. Either you make these decisions randomly, or you take into consideration what you're likely to face off against (aka list tailoring).

I'm pretty new to 40k, pretty new to wargaming in general. Started about a year ago with infinity, and now Im being convinced 40k is the way to go. So I'm proxying with some of their armies, mainly using SW or Tau to represent vanilla SM. My 2 friends each have 3 armies. So while they KNOW I'll be fielding SM, I have no clue what to expect. I can face Tau, Orcs, SW, CM, Deamons or Tyranids. Basicaly I lose everytime. And everytime I take the new information into my list. So I guess this would give me a sorta balanced list in the end, while they get better and better at stomping SM.

I like it alot better when I know ahead of time wich army Im going to face. I'm not talking about wich units he picks, just wich army. This way I can make minor adjustments to my list, of wich I think will help me against this particulary army. Offcourse my opponent can do the same and we both make a hard list to play against eachother. No last minute changes after seeing my opponents list, that is just lame. This way it is fair and equal.

Its a shame you can't take more lists to tournament. They could say you make a 1 different list vs every army, you can decide for yourself if you field the same against some. So offcourse I'll field alot of flamers vs Imperial guard, but the IG player should now this when he is going to face SM and try to make a good counter against it. I agree with the topic starter that this opens up a wider and possibly more interesting way of preparing for combat.

edit: I just thought of a good comparison: Street fighter 4

Ive played sf 4 alot when it just came out. Even entered some tournaments. Comparing the list building of 40k to the move set you use in sf4. Some people will always play the same tactic in sf4, no matter who they are facing. Wheter they face allrounder ryu, range player dhalsim, turtle guile etc. These people usually don't get very far in the tournaments, cause they don't adapt. Shooting alot of fireballs and then trapping him with an uppercut works ok versus a slow guy like zangief, but its horrible against dhalsim who just teleports away. So after playing alot of sf4 I developed different tactics against ALL the different characters. Moves(units if you compare it to 40k) I used alot againts 1 character, were horrible against other.

The same can be said for a lot of things. Adapting will make the game more fun and deeper. It would be horrible if in sf4 everybody just had 1 tactic and they always played like that, you get a random winner in the end.

Ailaros wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote: Why would you want to build a list designed to kill one particular army well when you can build a list designed to kill EVERY army well?

Because no one list kills every army equally well.

There is no "one list to table them all", no "master list" out there. Indeed, if there were, then any competitor worth their weight in salt would only ever play that one list.

In the end, you have to make choices. You can make a list that does nothing "poorly" (which is perhaps what people really mean when they talk about a take-all-comer list), but it's impossible to make a list that does absolutely everything "very well".

You have to choose what you're going to be weaker against and what you're going to be stronger against. Either you make these decisions randomly, or you take into consideration what you're likely to face off against (aka list tailoring).

As I keep telling you....you only believe that because you're a mere mortal playing 40k. Tell that to Hulksmash, who has retired his Space Wolves, because (and I quote), "It isn't fair for me to use them against mortals." Just because you aren't good enough to do something doesn't mean that it can't be done. And the "one list that can table them all" is only partly the models - it is largely the player. If I give you Hulksmash's Space Wolf list, will you beat everyone's face in with it? Nope. But he will. Most of the internet screamed at me for how ineffective my own Orks look, and all the things I needed to change to make them more effective, use more powerful units, etc.....and I beat face with them.

To be less tactful than I've been with you over three threads and about 18 pages of them...the only reason that you think its impossible to make a list that does everything very well is because you're not good enough to figure out how to make and use it. And you've no interest in learning since you steadfastly believe that luck is the ultimate determiner of 40k, not skill.

While your beliefs are commendably consistent, they are consistently inaccurate.

*edit* I refer you to my earlier challenge to back that belief up regarding my Orks.

You say that you can't make the "One list to table them all." I say that you can. And that I've done it twice. Assemble the list that is going to exploit all my weaknesses and bring it to the table, and see what happens.

Going to weigh in the debate
Ina way isn't the lists people take in tourney built to deal with mechanized armies because of their current dominance?

So isn't that in turn a form of list building.
I mean sure all comers have capacity to deal with infantry in some way, but aren't they currently more heavily leaning to any anti tank they can lay their hands on?

Also wouldn't making an all comers army be a form of list tailoring? In the way that your designing a army specifically to handle every threat a person can throw at you?

Asuron wrote:

Also wouldn't making an all comers army be a form of list tailoring? In the way that your designing a army specifically to handle every threat a person can throw at you?

Tailoring a list is a way of preparing your army to deal with a specific scenario.

I'm pretty sure that by definition, TAC is sort of opposite tailoring on the spectrum.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Asuron wrote:

Also wouldn't making an all comers army be a form of list tailoring? In the way that your designing a army specifically to handle every threat a person can throw at you?

Tailoring a list is a way of preparing your army to deal with a specific scenario.

I'm pretty sure that by definition, TAC is sort of opposite tailoring on the spectrum.

I think you are dealing with a scenario if you look at it in a certain way.

What I mean by that, is that your dealing with a scenario that you won't know what your facing and so design a list specifically to deal with that fact? That list being an all comers list
I think that if we follow with this idea, that we discover that we dislike only certain forms of list tailoring.

Like for example we dislike it when people know a list you have and specifcally tailor against it, taking units specifically designed to counter it, rather than playing on skill that using a all comers list requires.

I suspect a lot of the debate on here is being spawned by different people having different definitions, and uses of terms. It's propably only exacerbated (made worse) by the fact that we have people from different countries.

What exactly does the term ''Tailoring" mean to you in the context of 40k?

What is a "Scenario"?

Does "Tailoring" include only the list, or do you take into account the player using that list?

Is taking a 'fluffy' list "Tailoring"?



I ask, because I see people on here talking about 'tailoring' as choosing a list to counteract a race, others seem to think it means choosing units to counter specific units; some seem to believe you can 'tailor' weeks in advance, without knowing who exactly you'll be fighting, others look like they think it's only 'tailoring' when you build your list right before the battle.

What is the Dictionary definition of "To Tailor"? It's something along the lines of building or modifying in order to solve a shortcoming, right? And by that definition, every time you try a different unit, whether for TAC or Counter purposes, you are 'tailoring' your list, to better suit your own needs.

Well, I didn't read your whole post, Relic but the gist is - what's so bad about tailoring your list to meet your opponent. And I have to agree.

Now, I don't have any tournament experience and I don't know what the WH40K community generally feels about it but if you have, say 3000 points worth of an army and you know that you will be facing a mob of orks in one battle and some space wolves in another, why should you be forced to use the same army to fight both? You've got 3000 points worth of troops so take you pick from that lot for each battle.

I don't always want to play with the same force over and over, equally, I want the challenge of facing an army that has been designed, as best it can, to beat mine. I want to chop and change my force and try to outwit my opponent, not just on the field of battle, but before it by wisely choosing the right components of my force.

Surely it's far more challenging to have to alter your army and try to anticipate what your opponent is likely to field than to just draw up one list and face opponents who have used the same list in their last two/three battles or whatever. It's like a football match - I much prefer the build up to it, the possibilities, the options - to the after match analysis. To me, it's far more interesting to be able to take a different set up for each battle because I don't want to know the make up of my opponent's force before the battle and I want to be able to spring a surprise or two on him as well.

I think what might get people all hackled about doing that is that most folks believe that there's always a hard counter to every unit, or every list. That is, some combination that will always beat that list, if both players are of generally the same skill level.

Thing is, when you start mixing in combinations of units, synergization, Psychic powers and such, you will, in fact, not really have a hard counter (IMO). Of course, then the other thing is, everybody runs the same. exact. lists. So there's very little experimentation ongoing, trying to see how two units might interact when using them together on the tabletop. All you have to do to see that is post a non-standard list here on DakkDakka, and count how many people basically tell you to gut it and replace it with one of the standard lists. Orks for example: Say you take a list with Flash Gitz, Big Gunz, Tankbustas and Bikerboyz, with a Warphead and Grotsnik. You might be playing that because it's all you have, or you like the fluff, or whatever. But when you ask how you should use that list, you won't get advice on how to best use those units together; instead you'll get advice on building one of the 'standard lists', like Kan Wall or Wagon Spam.


This means that, hey, guess what, it's possible to tailor to a list, since you can know EXACTLY HOW IT'S GOING TO BE PLAYED. On the other hand, if it's a list you've never seen before, like a Boyz and Deffdredds list I saw a while back, your opponent won't know how you're going to use it, and as such will have a much, much harder time 'tailoring' a list against it.

I suppose this tactic of using, you know, non-standard lists (which everyone has seen a thousand times before, so, hey, guess what? There's known counters!) might be a bit difficult for codexes without much customizability and limited units (sorry Necrons) but hey, those folks are usually pretty creative in how they play anyways.

I only read most of the 1st page, but I want to respond to a few things that were typed.

It is not a bad thing in itself, but in cases, list tailoring can be rude. Let me give you a few examples.

1. When I played 3rd, just before Nids got their codex, we were playing a 2000 pt game. I was playing Nids out of the rulebook. I also had just barely enough models to make a 2000 pt list, hence everyone already knew what I had. Other people with more models and actually having codexes had a huge advantage.

2. Similiarly, someone having a limited number of models probably fields the same thing every game. Hardly fair, huh?

3. If I am playtesting for a tourney, I may ask someone to playtest against me. In that case, I want to face an all-comers list that I would typically see in a tourney. Not a list designed to show me how my list is vulnerable.