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.

Changing your army slightly (idk taking ap4 weapons instead of ap3) if you know what army your opponents bringing (not fully list countering).
Is this bad? Im kinda on a fence because on one side a list should be able to counter anything but on the otherhand a good general wouldnt bring terminators for their armour if the enemy had no ap3 weapons (some upgrades are just a waste).

ShadowPug wrote:
Changing your army slightly (idk taking ap4 weapons instead of ap3) if you know what army your opponents bringing (not fully list countering).
Is this bad? Im kinda on a fence because on one side a list should be able to counter anything but on the otherhand a good general wouldnt bring terminators for their armour if the enemy had no ap3 weapons (some upgrades are just a waste).

It's called list tailoring, and if you are purposely changing a weapon before the game in the list before you play your opponent then yeah, it's generally frowned upon. People prefer TAC lists where the opponent does not purposely build against their army so you as the opponent should either build a balance of strength and ratios to prepare for anyone or focus on one specific area without knowing the opponent and be prepared that they will be weak against some armies due to this decision.
If both opponents know the army the other will bring, list tailoring is kind of inevitable, but it happens on both sides. Changing your list after you have seen what your opponent has brought in this case is a big no-no. One you settle on the list, you should stick with it. Although it seems shallow, how you build your army can contribute to whether you win or lose a game.

Proper term is 'list tailoring'. Basing a decision on what to use based on any information about your opponent's army is technically list tailoring, but I tend to consider the acceptability based on how much you're actually changing. If you're swapping out one or two upgrade weapons it isn't that bad, but if you're (for instance) adding a whole GK allied detachment because you know you're going to be seeing Daemons you're out of line.

I think it is more commonly called list tailoring.

I would need more information that you provided to say one way or the other. If you opponent generally knows the army you bring, tailoring yours to better compete doesn't seem like and issue. But if you both haven't played each other and you find out what they play and they don't know what you play, I think it would be wrong to tailor.

Me personally, I don't necessarily mind list tailoring. It depends on the reasons. If you think a better game (read: closer) can come from it, I am all for it. This might mean intentionally weakening too. But if you are doing just to make your life easier or crush me even more handily, that's bad.

As for a general knowing what weapons the enemy has requires good, reliable intel which also cost resource themselves. Something not typically all that available, is easily countered, and not within the scope at the level 40K is played. You should not consider out-of-game knowledge the same as in-game-knowledge. Sending a friend to check (or even making use of what you have overheard) what your opponent is playing before you settle on a list is tantamount to cheating in my eyes and being a TFG and WAAC player.

Loat tailoring to make YOUR game easier to win is frowned upon, but my gaming group usually will Tailor just to make BOTH players game more enjoyable.

An example is, adding or subtracting Psykers, allowing proxies for anti tank/anti infantry, toning down a Deathstar, including/not including a flyer, borrowing from other players collection to counter any Superheavies... etc.

When I was thinking this is lets take khorne beserkers, if your going against space marines deciding to not give them chain axes as it is literally just wasted points, not changing the entire list depending on the opponent lol.

List tailoring to make YOUR game easier to win is frowned upon, but my gaming group will sometimes Tailor just to make BOTH players game more enjoyable.

An example is, adding or subtracting Psykers, allowing proxies for anti tank/anti infantry, toning down a Deathstar, including/not including a flyer, borrowing from other players collection to counter any Superheavies... etc.

But generally we bring a TAC list, and communicate before the game to see what both players agree to. If my Zombie Tyhu list is foing against an IG Leman Russ Company, I might switch things around to put more AT Weapons. Or if Im playing against Orkz, I wont being the Heldrakes. Adjustment for both players enjoyment.

Personally, I think it's good manners to give your opponent a general idea of what you're bringing if they want to know. For instance, if my opponent is running vehicle-heavy IG, I'd like to be aware so that my army actually has equipment that can damage said vehicles rather than a bunch of flamers. Most of the time just knowing what faction I'm going up against is fine.

The only other thing is if I want to bring my Hereticus Inquisitor. I like to kit them out anti-psyker, and in that case I generally ask if they are bringing any psykers, since it's hardly fun to bring that model and have it have no targets. Shes not overly powerful, but the game is more fun if you don't waste points on useless upgrades, like the chain axe example given in a previous post

 Servant of Dante wrote:
Personally, I think it's good manners to give your opponent a general idea of what you're bringing if they want to know. For instance, if my opponent is running vehicle-heavy IG, I'd like to be aware so that my army actually has equipment that can damage said vehicles rather than a bunch of flamers. Most of the time just knowing what faction I'm going up against is fine.

The only other thing is if I want to bring my Hereticus Inquisitor. I like to kit them out anti-psyker, and in that case I generally ask if they are bringing any psykers, since it's hardly fun to bring that model and have it have no targets. Shes not overly powerful, but the game is more fun if you don't waste points on useless upgrades, like the chain axe example given in a previous post

This. I'm a big fan of talking to your opponent in advance and intentionally "tailoring" lists to make for a better game. If you're intentionally bringing the perfect counter for a given army with the intention of smashing your opponent into the dust, that's lame and makes for a one-sided (read: unenjoyable) game. If you're just trying avoid taking worthless upgrades (like chain axes or soul fright weapons against marines), that's pretty reasonable. My eldar can be pretty cheesy if they have to be, so I generally try to get some idea of what my opponent is bringing with the goal of bringing sufficient tools to deal with their list while also avoiding overwhelming them with raw cheese.

Example:
If my opponent is bringing marines but I have no other information and know my opponent to have some competitive marine lists, I might end up bringing webway portaling wraith guard and an ulthwe strike force just to make sure I don't get overwhelmed by a gladius or something. If I instead know that my opponent is bringing a a casual marine list, I might pull out something like my banshee-heavy list that pairs well against it.

Ok thanks!