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.

ColdSadHungry wrote: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.

The biggest part of your lack of understanding is your professed lack of tournament experience. You don't KNOW what people are taking to a tournament. You may be playing against strangers. You have no way of knowing what challenges, what armies, or what you'll be facing. You're walking in blind, and the best you can do is bring all the tools required to deal with any challenge that you might have to face.

Its common sense. Which is more challenging? Me telling you that I'm bringing Dark Eldar so that you can pack your army full of autocannons, missile launchers, assault cannons and heavy bolters...or you not knowing what you're going to be facing or whom and trying to bring the tools to deal with ALL of it.

I went to a tournament today. Most of the people there I've seen before. I've won every other tournament I've attended there. I was the only Xenos player. There were FIVE Blood Angel players there, four of them with mechanized BA lists, tailored a list to beat me. Several IG armies too. So one of them had managed to squeeze some ungodly number of heavy weapon teams (all autocannons) into his army - like 17. His army was a couple of infantry units, two chimeras with vets, two stormtrooper units, and the rest autocannon heavy weapon teams. Does it take skill to make a list that can beat one particular army? Nope. If he had come up against a landraider army or god forbid...a NECRON army packing Monoliths...he'd have been screwed from the get go. Same with most of the BA players. Lots of autocannons, assault cannons, heavy bolters....only one of them was packing Lascannons.

Its pretty bad when I'm wishing I had my Tau or my Necrons in the tournament because they could stomp BA face.

Dashofpepper wrote:

ColdSadHungry wrote: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.

The biggest part of your lack of understanding is your professed lack of tournament experience. You don't KNOW what people are taking to a tournament. You may be playing against strangers. You have no way of knowing what challenges, what armies, or what you'll be facing. You're walking in blind, and the best you can do is bring all the tools required to deal with any challenge that you might have to face.

Its common sense. Which is more challenging? Me telling you that I'm bringing Dark Eldar so that you can pack your army full of autocannons, missile launchers, assault cannons and heavy bolters...or you not knowing what you're going to be facing or whom and trying to bring the tools to deal with ALL of it.

I went to a tournament today. Most of the people there I've seen before. I've won every other tournament I've attended there. I was the only Xenos player. There were FIVE Blood Angel players there, four of them with mechanized BA lists, tailored a list to beat me. Several IG armies too. So one of them had managed to squeeze some ungodly number of heavy weapon teams (all autocannons) into his army - like 17. His army was a couple of infantry units, two chimeras with vets, two stormtrooper units, and the rest autocannon heavy weapon teams. Does it take skill to make a list that can beat one particular army? Nope. If he had come up against a landraider army or god forbid...a NECRON army packing Monoliths...he'd have been screwed from the get go. Same with most of the BA players. Lots of autocannons, assault cannons, heavy bolters....only one of them was packing Lascannons.

Its pretty bad when I'm wishing I had my Tau or my Necrons in the tournament because they could stomp BA face.

Or if at the last minute you unpacked a battlewagon heavy ork list. If you're the guy they are tailoring a list to take it as a complement, bring multiple armies, and randomize what army you'll play before the tournament starts.

That would have been hilarious to see the look on their faces if you, the Ork Tactician himself, opened your bag and brought out a couple Moniliths.

I'm negotiating with my wife to complete the necron army.

I *have* all the models, and have for quite some time, but they're not field worthy yet.

Tailoring is... well, your really jipping yopurself if anything. If your playing a list to "beat" certain lists, but its not geared to fight others, how do you expect to win? Skill will only get you so far

Dashofpepper wrote:I'm negotiating with my wife to complete the necron army.

I *have* all the models, and have for quite some time, but they're not field worthy yet.

I'd be interested in seeing how far you could go in serious tournaments with them.
Like say Nova or things like that.
How much of it is left to be completed?

Asuron wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:I'm negotiating with my wife to complete the necron army.

I *have* all the models, and have for quite some time, but they're not field worthy yet.

I'd be interested in seeing how far you could go in serious tournaments with them.
Like say Nova or things like that.
How much of it is left to be completed?

Completed to playable standard, or to tournament standard?

I don't think the OP is talking about situations where one player tailors lists to play against other players who (1) aren't also tailoring and (b) are playing all-comers lists. Clearly, if you're tailoring and your opponent is not, then you're trying to make the match easier for yourself in a way that is arguably not fair. I don't think anyone would argue that attempting to substitute list-tailoring for actual game skill is a good thing.

I think the OP is saying that, when both players are tailoring to play against each other in a set match, it can add an extra dimension to the game. Again, doesn't seem controversial to me.

So arguing that tailoring lists in tournaments is cheating or is less challenging or less effective are all straw man arguments, since I don't think anybody is claiming otherwise.

Our FLGS actually tends to work in "seasons". By this, I mean that if there is no GT coming up, we arrange games with players in advance. Now this doesnt mean that we list tailor, but everyone knows what everyone has, so if I want to fight my friend bob for example, he knows that im currently giving my necrons a run out (i rotate my army (by this i mean race!) around once a month), and I know he is trialing vanilla marines. We both have enough points to draw from a large model pool, so while we knoe what race we will be fighting, we dont actually know what we will be facing on the night (except for bob, as necrons dont have many builds!!!!).

When GT's draw near, this tends to go out the window, and we all agree to play 1500(well 1750 now), not knowing what race/build anyone is going to take. More impromptu games take place this way, as that adds to the element of surprise, accurately simulating a tournament environment.

I can completely see where the OP is coming from. I just think you have to adapt your approach depending on the current metagame situation.

Flavius Infernus wrote:I don't think the OP is talking about situations where one player tailors lists to play against other players who (1) aren't also tailoring and (b) are playing all-comers lists. Clearly, if you're tailoring and your opponent is not, then you're trying to make the match easier for yourself in a way that is arguably not fair. I don't think anyone would argue that attempting to substitute list-tailoring for actual game skill is a good thing.

I think the OP is saying that, when both players are tailoring to play against each other in a set match, it can add an extra dimension to the game. Again, doesn't seem controversial to me.

So arguing that tailoring lists in tournaments is cheating or is less challenging or less effective are all straw man arguments, since I don't think anybody is claiming otherwise.

Its a combination of two factors thats kinda of took over this discussion

the terminology - when people say list tailoring, its covers a wide range of actions. For example I know of people that will tailor a list to beat certain people, the worst part is they get a bad rep and then start beating on the new players who they have an even bigger advantage over due to collection size. I was luckly enough to start with a good group of people so I didn't have to deal with it too much but if I had i'm sure that just seeing list tailoring and a better way to play the game would just piss me off and overshadow the first post. I play eldar and I have no problems playing againist people changing their army based on the fact but I don't equate that with the phrase "list trailoring" thats more planning a pick up game.

The scenario that Relic_OMO brings up at the end of the op saying that a predetermined mission, point level, and knowing the army your facing adds more depth to that game is generally false in my experience but regardless by adding the controversial phrase "list tailoring" to it his post he added depth to the discussion (see what i did there ).


Secondly Dashofpepper and other posters are basically calling "BS" on his points, which I agree with.

1) List building is actually easier when you know what your facing, for example if a nid player is playing eldar he should know to go with hive guard over zoanthropes, cause runes of warding screws them. Knowing each armies strengths and weaknesses is important but it takes more skill to use what you have to expliot a weakness, then to design a list too.

2) It doesn't add more variety bad units are still bad units, it changes what good units are fielded but its not like swooping hawks all the sudden become MVPs.

3) I don't think it adds depth to the game, guessing what your opponent might bring is a weak agrument in my mind. For the most part it takes depth from the game because you've built a list of counters, at that point all that matters is if you guessed right

liam0404 wrote:Our FLGS actually tends to work in "seasons". By this, I mean that if there is no GT coming up, we arrange games with players in advance. Now this doesnt mean that we list tailor, but everyone knows what everyone has, so if I want to fight my friend bob for example, he knows that im currently giving my necrons a run out (i rotate my army (by this i mean race!) around once a month), and I know he is trialing vanilla marines. We both have enough points to draw from a large model pool, so while we knoe what race we will be fighting, we dont actually know what we will be facing on the night (except for bob, as necrons dont have many builds!!!!).

When GT's draw near, this tends to go out the window, and we all agree to play 1500(well 1750 now), not knowing what race/build anyone is going to take. More impromptu games take place this way, as that adds to the element of surprise, accurately simulating a tournament environment.

I can completely see where the OP is coming from. I just think you have to adapt your approach depending on the current metagame situation.

I agree, if you know the race but not necessarily the list then "tailoring" isn't as big a deal, especially in friendly matches amongst people who are playing because they enjoy the game.

It really is this simple: If I don't know who or what I will be playing I will write a list accordingly, and if I do know, then so will they, and we will likewise write our lists accordingly. What's the problem?

Guitardian wrote:

It really is this simple: If I don't know who or what I will be playing I will write a list accordingly, and if I do know, then so will they, and we will likewise write our lists accordingly. What's the problem?

Um the "better way to play the game" part of the OP.

althathir wrote:

Guitardian wrote:

It really is this simple: If I don't know who or what I will be playing I will write a list accordingly, and if I do know, then so will they, and we will likewise write our lists accordingly. What's the problem?

Um the "better way to play the game" part of the OP.

Well then of course he's wrong. Thread concluded, good work everyone.

Wow thanks do I take bow or something?

Dashofpepper wrote:

Asuron wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:I'm negotiating with my wife to complete the necron army.

I *have* all the models, and have for quite some time, but they're not field worthy yet.

I'd be interested in seeing how far you could go in serious tournaments with them.
Like say Nova or things like that.
How much of it is left to be completed?

Completed to playable standard, or to tournament standard?

Which one would you need to compete in tournaments like Nova?

Also I think the OP was objecting to the widespread negative view that Dakka has toward discussions/questions that involve list tailoring.

I've noticed this attitude also (all you have to do is look back on this thread). If somebody were to create a post on the Tactics forum that said "I want to talk about how to tailor lists in this particular way," I believe fifty responders would dogpile on the thread with shouts of "tailoring = bad!" and squash any possible discussion.

Regardless of what one believes about list tailoring, I don't think there's any rational basis for squelching discussions of list tailoring.

Its more that I think what he is suggesting is different from list tailoring, basically what he is saying is that when playing in a predetermined game (mission, opponents army, point level) can add a new level of complexity to the game. I disagree because in most cases it allows you to narrow options making list building easier. For example if I know the game is kill points, why bother with more than the two troop choices, furthermore I can look for hard counters to units I expect him to use which in my mind doesn't take more skill.

Regardless imo this a lot different than what most players consider list tailoring. I think most people define List tailoring as when one party designs a list solely to gain an advantage they wouldn't normally have over a particular opponent for that game. The key part of that statement is the one player part, two regular opponents changing a couple of units in their armies or even their whole armies when they face eachother is perfectly fine (its not cool to do it the noob though). Its also different than asking for help againist a particular opponent or army because, for the most part if your struggling it is due to a weakness in your existing army that should be addressed, or in your tactics that learning how to correct makes you a better player againist everyone.

In Relic_OMO's scenario both players are modifying their lists based on the predetermined matchup they are expected to find most advatageous units to compete in that mission neither player should be blindsided, and if one gains an extra advantage because they were more accurate in chosing counters thats fine but as long as both players are creatomg lists to maximize advantage.

Flavius Infernus wrote:Also I think the OP was objecting to the widespread negative view that Dakka has toward discussions/questions that involve list tailoring.

I've noticed this attitude also (all you have to do is look back on this thread). If somebody were to create a post on the Tactics forum that said "I want to talk about how to tailor lists in this particular way," I believe fifty responders would dogpile on the thread with shouts of "tailoring = bad!" and squash any possible discussion.

Regardless of what one believes about list tailoring, I don't think there's any rational basis for squelching discussions of list tailoring.

How about the one where the OP basically says, "List Tailoring is better, its smarter, people who don't think so are stupid and stuck to old and unworthy dogma, and I have a bunch of reasons why tailoring my list is more tactically challenging than not tailoring."

This thread wasn't a discussion about how to tailor your lists a certain way, it was to say, "Everyone who doesn't agree with me is stupid and here's 5 reasons why." Then the 5 reasons why are completely invalid and backwards - so of COURSE the thread gets 50 responses to point it out. You can't create a thread with trollbait and expect that it to be discussed nonchalantly. I'm surprised that this thread has been so civil. I take full credit - on the first page I completely disproved the OP in a polite manner, pointing out how inadequate his claims are, the evidence that he's wrong, the logical conclusions to be drawn from the subject - and for 4 pages, its gone unanswered. =D

Dashofpepper wrote: I take full credit - on the first page I completely disproved the OP in a polite manner, pointing out how inadequate his claims are, the evidence that he's wrong, the logical conclusions to be drawn from the subject - and for 4 pages, its gone unanswered. =D

I don't see where you've posted anything on page 1, Dash, but I'll assume you mean your page 2 post and see what I can do...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dashofpepper wrote:OP:
It takes *more* skill to make a list capable of dealing with any potential opponent than it does for an opponent to show your their models, show you their list, and for you to design a list made to capitalize on whatever is required best to beat it.

I don't see any evidence here; this is just a bald assertion. The OP claims tailoring takes more skill, you claim all-comers takes more skill, and at this point it's just a matter of opinion. Nobody is showing any evidence yet.

Dashofpepper wrote:
2. More Variety: There is no more variety of units in custom list-building than in a standardized "Take all Comers" list. Flashgits are a bad unit. If you custom-build a list to take on a particular opponent....its *still* not going to include flash gits. There's no basis in fact for your conjecture here.

Again, just your opinion without any supporting evidence. You don't like flash gits. Maybe somebody else thinks they're good or can think of a situation where they work. You can have this argument about any unit in any codex and never agree. De gustibus non est disputandum.

Dashofpepper wrote:
3. New Dimensions To the Game: You have this completely backwards. Trying to gain an advantage over an opponent by stacking your deck in your favor doesn't add a new dimension. On the flip side of the coin...trying to use the units you have AT YOUR DISPOSAL in a "take-all-comers" list *does* add a new dimension to the game - one of generalship and skill.

I think this one is actually demonstrably factually incorrect. Any game of 40K has the dimension of generalship and skill (even if only a little bit), so that's not new to an all-comers game. But list tailoring is, by definition, not a dimension of all-comers lists, so adding that would be new.

Whether or not it's worthwhile adding list tailoring is a different argument, but I don't think you can argue logically that it isn't new.

Dashofpepper wrote:
List-tailoring isn't considered cheating by anyone I've ever met. It can be considered poor sportsmanship that you're trying to gain an unfair advantage. Mostly, it is considered inept generalship.

Ad populam. It doesn't matter what people one knows consider something to be--people can be wrong.

Dashofpepper wrote:
It means that you're not good enough to figure out how to approach a challenge.

This is only true if you limit the definition of "challenge" to playing an all-comers list. Is there really no other kind of possible challenge in all of 40K?

Dashofpepper wrote:
The basis for this is in the fact that on the field of battle, you have what you have. Commanders don't get to view an enemy disposition and tailor the countering forces to precisely match what is needed to overcome the enemy in front of them - rather, they make do with what they have.

Okay, this is evidence, but it's a false analogy. 40K is not a field of battle, it's a game. 40K players are not military commanders, and 40K players do do get a god's-eye view of the enemy disposition, and a variety of other key differences. There's no rational basis for arguing that 40K should try to simulate actual battlefield conditions. The idea that the game is better or more challenging the closer it simulates actual battles is an assertion of opinion & taste, not of fact, so it doesn't support the claim that people who tailor lists aren't good players.

Dashofpepper wrote:
I encourage weaker opponents to tailor their lists to mine, so that they have a better chance of presenting a challenge. If you and I were to play, I would also encourage you to custom-tailor your list against me....since you're not skilled enough to get by without it. It isn't an insult, its just a stage along your road of learning about 40k. There comes a day in every 40k player's career where they realize that they're good enough that they don't need to try creating an advantage over their opponent by customizing their army to defeat their opponent. When I first started 40k, I custom-tailored my lists. I expect everyone in the lower echelons of 40k tactics to do so. I don't fault them for it, I just try helping them learn how to be a better general.

I'll snip there because the rest of the post continues the no true Scotsman fallacy. To say "no good player tailors lists, and anyone who tailors list is not a good player" is not a real argument. It's demonstrably false and a logical fallacy. If even one good player tailors lists, then the whole claim is empirically wrong.

So I'm not seeing any logically-supported argument here so far. But I'm willing to be persuaded that the OP is wrong and interested to hear your well-reasoned arguments, Dash.

Wow i'm a little confused now. I don't even know if I tailor any more.

I have a guard army, I take a lot of plasma and melta because there are a butt load of MEQ players at my FLGS. I've tried to build a certain level of all comers in to it (lots of Heavy flamers and ordinace blasts for hordes) but there is a strong leaning toward anti vehicle and anti MEQ. If I come up against a true horde list i'll probably be in trouble.

Does this mean that I tailor?

I don't know peoples exact lists and generally don't know who i'll be playing until I get there so didn't consider it tailoring. I certainly didn't think of my self as a bad sport, I might be a bad general though (I do lose as much as I win )

When I used to play one guy exclusively I have to admitt there was a lot of tailoring between us but no last minute stuff, I knew basically whay models he had but didn't know which one he'd use.

Flavius, I stopped at your first setence and didn't continue.

When I say, "It takes more work to make a screwdriver serve every tool need (when you need a wrench, or a hammer) than it does to have a full toolbox and pick the particular tool you need for a job" and your response is "You haven't shown me any proof!"

......Well, then I know common sense isn't going to prevail today and I'm not even going to throw down with you. You're right, I haven't PROVEN that its harder to make a multi-purpose tool than it is to make a screwdriver. I shouldn't have to.

It takes more effort to breed an apporaear than to grow an apple tree, an orange tree, and a pear tree separately.

Yep. If that one doesn't make you just nod your head and say "Obviously!" then we're not even communicating in the same language. Anytime "You haven't proven common sense to me, therefore it isn't true!" becomes a staple of an argument, its best not to get involved.

Straw man: I didn't ask for proof, Dash. Please don't attribute statements to me that I didn't make, like me asking you to prove common sense or me asking for proof of anything.

I asked for evidence. This is an inductive question, so there can be no proof. Only logically reasoned arguments that are more or less persuasive.

Since you claimed that you had "completely disproved the OP in a polite manner, pointing out how inadequate his claims are, the evidence that he's wrong, the logical conclusions to be drawn from the subject," I was pointing out that you had, in fact, not done so. Your page 2 post has no substantive evidence and no non-fallacious logical conclusions.

The tool analogy is a good start on an actual argument. Clearly designing a multi-purpose tool is different from designing a single-purpose tool--just as designing an all-comers list is different from designing a tailored list. I'll even grant that it's more challenging in certain ways.

But that's where your analogy breaks down. When you claim that list-tailoring means "you're not good enough to figure out how to approach a challenge," you're suggesting by analogy that people who prefer single-use tools are not good handymen because they don't know how to approach the challenge of using a multitool. When your post says that tailoring is, "a stage along your road of learning about 40k," that's like claiming that single-use tools are a stage in learning to use the multitool that all experienced carpenters prefer (or being able to use a screwdriver to do the job of all different tools in the other part of your analogy).

Clearly, using the wrong tool or a multi-tool is more of a challenge, but that doesn't automatically make you a better carpenter. And to claim that the use of single-use tools is the sign of a newbie carpenter is obviously false.

Also I'm disappointed that you read one line of my post and bailed out without doing me the same courtesy that I did you in answering your own request for a critical reading of your arguments. I have said a couple of times now that I'm ready to be persuaded (and I have a long and documented history on Dakka of changing my mind in the face of logical arguments).

Flavius, sticking to my guns for obvious reasons of common sense.

One note though about analogies breaking down.

I don't claim that list tailoring means that you're not good enough to figure out how to approach a challenge.

I *do* claim that the claim "List tailoring is the only way to beat certain armies" and also that the claim "List tailoring is required to survive between different opponents" *is* a sign that you're not good enough to figure out how to approach that challenge.

In terms of my analogy, that would be people saying that a toolbox full of tools is the ONLY way to approach a job, and is superior to all others because there's no such thing as a tool capable of dealing with multiple jobs, and me saying, "You haven't learned what a multi-tool is."

To be frank with you, if I thought you were ready to be persuaded, it would have been done somewhere in this thread by someone - me or others.

But like I said - if common sense isn't a currency between us, I have no need of trying to prove it to you. I say $5 is more money than $1. I also say that TWO pennies are not more money than ONE nickel. And you tell me to prove it.

Nope.

You might be ready to be convinced, but I don't feel like it needs to be done. I just read through your other points to give you the courtsey you requested. While I'm tempted to tell you to stop categorizing apples as oranges and apply them both to fruit (list tailoring to TAC lists as opposed to both to 40k).....I'm just honestly not interested. I truly *do* believe that you're just looking for an argument, and what you've posted seems to validate that.

I'm ready to be convinced otherwise though.

SpankHammer III wrote:Wow i'm a little confused now. I don't even know if I tailor any more.

I have a guard army, I take a lot of plasma and melta because there are a butt load of MEQ players at my FLGS. I've tried to build a certain level of all comers in to it (lots of Heavy flamers and ordinace blasts for hordes) but there is a strong leaning toward anti vehicle and anti MEQ. If I come up against a true horde list i'll probably be in trouble.

Does this mean that I tailor?

I don't know peoples exact lists and generally don't know who i'll be playing until I get there so didn't consider it tailoring. I certainly didn't think of my self as a bad sport, I might be a bad general though (I do lose as much as I win )

When I used to play one guy exclusively I have to admitt there was a lot of tailoring between us but no last minute stuff, I knew basically whay models he had but didn't know which one he'd use.

Nobody is going to call that tailoring. The fact that you'd play the same army whether against horde orks or space marines proves that. As you noted, you even have heavy flamers and large blasts in case you find yourself against one of these armies. Also I'm sure you've noticed that Battle Cannons are a sick all comers weapon. Large Blast s8 ap3 hits orks hard, and it devastates marines...

As another example, I play Eldar, and sometimes looking at my army list I feel like its somewhat tailored against horde. This isn't because I have it out to get dem orkses, but rather because dark reapers (and especially star cannons) are sub par, Eldar are just better at killing MEQs through volume of fire rather than low ap weapons- and that means trouble for armies like orks and blob IG. I'll still play the same list against Marines, I'll play the same list against Dark Eldar, and Tau. The fact that I have a better match up against orks, and a worse match up against FnP Blood Angels is in large part due to the nature and construction of my codex. That said, I do take units to "patch" these weaknesses, such as Banshees (when playing casually) and Fire Prisms.

Nobody is going to call that tailoring

Thanks, was getting confused about what point fielding an army to deal with your meta became tailoring, and yes battle cannons are full on awesome against everything except termies and AV13+

Maybe I'm missing some nuance, but how is it not self evident that preparing for multiple possiblities is more difficult than only preparing for one?

And if both parties are list tailoring, wouldn't the natrual strengths and weaknesses of the relevant armies rise to the top? Even among top codices, there are differences in flexilbity, natural abilites, etc.

The only real problem I'd have would be if some one saw my list and then wrote theirs right there and then. Saying that i'd probably still give it a go to see how my list did, and if I lost I could always blame the tailoring

My gaming group has 5 'core' players, plus 3 others that we battle when we have the chance. When we arrange to have a game we each tell each other what army we will be using and write up our lists correspondingly. I don't see any problem with this. Our battle doesn't take place in a vacuum; there is a story behind it.

If my guardsmen have been sent to stop dirtypete's ork waaagh! then they are coming equipped with the right tools for the job. They aren't requisitioning plasma guns and lascannons (well, maybe a few plasma guns for extra trukk poppin'). The factories are pumping out autocannon shells and flamers. If my 'nids are fighting Kane's Eldar then they are going to be spawning biovores and hive guard, not zoanthropes.

Of course we are careful to keep our exact lists a secret from each other until the game is about to begin, so we still need to make a balanced list, albeit one tailored for fighting that particular foe. I know that Jihallah is going to play wolves, but will he running lots of long fangs, or a bunch of pod dreads, or razorback spam? Better cover all bases (we have a pretty huge selection of models between us and can make all sorts of different builds). This might be list tailoring in some people's eyes but I don't think there's anything wrong with it. It helps having the huge pool of models though, so there's still a bunch of guesswork and balancing going on.

@Jimole- that raises an interesting point about list tailoring: it's effectivness varies dramatically with the opposing army.

I have enough IG to bring pretty much any army to the table: power blobs, infantry gunline, AV12 spam, heavy tanks, etc. If I tell you "I'm bringing IG," you need to prepare for three major threats.

Compare that to Nids, who pretty much need to bring both MCs and swarms.