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.

I usually have 3 or 4 lists on me. One is my "Tournament" default list. This is for most opponents. There are also a few concept or fun lists for player learning, or not as good as I am. Finally, a grudge list. The list tailored for that one special opponent, be it TFG or a friend you talk smack to all week.

Tailoring is fine under certain circumstances, but if you can't have fun playing with toy soldiers, you are doing something wrong.

Well, tailoring to his LIST is just plain nasty, but around our FLGS-when we set a game, we know what codex the other is playing (and what allies, if he plans on any)
So you can try to counter his codex, but then he KNOW you might do that, and play in a irregular lists (10th company army for example, that one seriously took me off balance, and got me convinced that's my next army while at it.)

I am planning to play Armoured Battlegroup from now on, at least until I get bored of it. I must have ordered the new IA:1 2nd ed about five minutes after I heard it existed. Now, the problem I have is that if I put that list up against most lists it may just stomp all over a "normal" amount of AT weaponry. So, would it be "good form" to let people tailor against me? I'm not bothered about winning or losing in random pick up games, I just don't want to be "TFG with the tanks".

Then again, I guess a lot of the competitive players in my store would be up for putting their tourney lists up against such armour spam. It would make good practice in case something similar ever came up at a tourney.

 TheCaptain wrote:
Just play TAC lists. You shouldn't even know what army you are playing beforehand, and if you do, you shouldn't be making adjustments to your list to better defeat them

The best way to play 40K, and the way studio staff play it, is to know what enemy you will be facing and build the best list you can to counter that. This decreases the stagnation that is encouraged by TAC lists. And anyway, what is a TAC list but a list tailored to the meta-game?

 Kaldor wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
Just play TAC lists. You shouldn't even know what army you are playing beforehand, and if you do, you shouldn't be making adjustments to your list to better defeat them

The best way to play 40K, and the way studio staff play it, is to know what enemy you will be facing and build the best list you can to counter that. This decreases the stagnation that is encouraged by TAC lists. And anyway, what is a TAC list but a list tailored to the meta-game?

"Tailoring" towards a meta is different than tailoring toward a specific list/army.

OP is talking about tailoring toward a specific list/army. Unless the tailoring is mutual, it will give him an unfair advantage.

If the tailoring is mutual, it is pointless.

 TheCaptain wrote:
If the tailoring is mutual, it is pointless.

If the tailoring is mutual, an interesting game of double-blind evolves and a much greater variation in units and wargear is seen, rather than the boring stagnation of TAC lists.

(Outside of tourneys) I have been known to ask for people to tailor their list to beat mine.

In our campaign games, tailoring is sort of the point.

Does that count?

editing to add:
It is also common for me to bring a set of lists and ask my opponent which they would prefer to play.
Generally, I hand them the lists to review prior to answering - otherwise I will give a (valid) overview.

 Kaldor wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
If the tailoring is mutual, it is pointless.

If the tailoring is mutual, an interesting game of double-blind evolves and a much greater variation in units and wargear is seen, rather than the boring stagnation of TAC lists.

Tailored lists breed easy games of tricks and hard counters.

Playing TAC lists against a variety of different armies will teach you to best use the tools at hand, and adapt to different obstacles. Hardly boring, just requires more thinking.


So really, the argument at hand is: "Would you rather win by taking the list with more hard counters than your opponent, or win by using your army more efficiently/effectively?"

And again, this all assumes that the tailoring is mutual. Which it doesn't sound to be.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
If the tailoring is mutual, it is pointless.

If the tailoring is mutual, an interesting game of double-blind evolves and a much greater variation in units and wargear is seen, rather than the boring stagnation of TAC lists.

Tailored lists breed easy games of tricks and hard counters.

No more so than sticking with a regular TAC list. Unless you think taking a Necron air force against, well, anything somehow better demonstrates a players skill.

If anything, double-blind list tailoring requires players to think more, and learn to use a wider range of tools than simply building the most abusive TAC list they can and stomping everyone's face with it. In fact, the only reason abusive lists like that even exist is because of the TAC mindset, where people refuse to change and adapt. So something like Purifier spam can dominate, because no one is going to bring the tools required to deal with it because then their list isn't TAC. Same for Necron fliers, or Flamers, or Vendetta spam, or any of the other 'power' TAC builds.

 Kaldor wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
If the tailoring is mutual, it is pointless.

If the tailoring is mutual, an interesting game of double-blind evolves and a much greater variation in units and wargear is seen, rather than the boring stagnation of TAC lists.

Tailored lists breed easy games of tricks and hard counters.

No more so than sticking with a regular TAC list. Unless you think taking a Necron air force against, well, anything somehow better demonstrates a players skill.

If anything, double-blind list tailoring requires players to think more, and learn to use a wider range of tools than simply building the most abusive TAC list they can and stomping everyone's face with it. In fact, the only reason abusive lists like that even exist is because of the TAC mindset, where people refuse to change and adapt. So something like Purifier spam can dominate, because no one is going to bring the tools required to deal with it because then their list isn't TAC. Same for Necron fliers, or Flamers, or Vendetta spam, or any of the other 'power' TAC builds.

You're using outlying extremes to represent a much broader genre of list.

That's whats called a logical fallacy.

It doesn't work like that.

That's like me arguing against list tailoring and giving the example of someone bringing nothing but flamers and flyers against green tide.

 mayfist wrote:
T'is the wrong forum for starters.
And I am a sold anti tayloring kind of person. Building just to beat a friend is wrong in my opinion.

Of course this depends on how far you go, adding a unit of two to your general play style because you know you might be facing X or Y is ok,

Building your whole list with the sole purpose being the destruction of your friends new army is just bad sport.

Thats my 2 cents.
Cheers

This

I have developed 3 list, 1 for 1500, 2k, and 3k and thats it. I have no intention of changing it depending on who I would be fighting. Its suppose to be a casual game after all.

Tournaments are totally different however. Even mini campaigns its one thing but Im still not a big fan of it.

 Galdos wrote:


This

I have developed 3 list, 1 for 1500, 2k, and 3k and thats it. I have no intention of changing it depending on who I would be fighting. Its suppose to be a casual game after all.

Tournaments are totally different however. Even mini campaigns its one thing but Im still not a big fan of it.

I'd say tournaments are much the same, actually.

You play with 1 list the entire tournament. You use the tools at hand, and are forced to use them well or lose. It becomes much more "Am I good at my army" and much less "Do I have the models to take that will make beating X easy"

 TheCaptain wrote:
You're using outlying extremes to represent a much broader genre of list.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm saying that TAC lists are stagnant, boring, and result in only a fraction of the codex ever being used because only some options are useful in a TAC environment. I'm also saying that the prevalence of certain power builds owes it's entire existence to the TAC mindset, and that a double-blind tailoring mindset is superior in every way. It encourages ingenuity, requires players to be familiar with all units in their codex, not just the TAC ones, lets players experience a wider variety of units and army types, and almost completely eliminates the domination of certain abusive power builds.

I see two problems with a double blind system in pickup games:

1. You have to carry excess models. This can be difficult, especially for some of the larger model count armies.

2. It adds time to the start of the game. Although good list writers only need seconds to write a list they like, some people take longer.

 Trickstick wrote:
I see two problems with a double blind system in pickup games:

1. You have to carry excess models. This can be difficult, especially for some of the larger model count armies.

2. It adds time to the start of the game. Although good list writers only need seconds to write a list they like, some people take longer.

Yeah, a double-blind tailoring system doesn't work with pick-up games. I can't speak for every group, but with social media I find myself playing less and less pick-up games, and more and more pre-arranged games, so I don't really see that as a problem. It's pretty easy to arrange a game a day or two ahead on your groups facebook page.

 Trickstick wrote:
I see two problems with a double blind system in pickup games:

1. You have to carry excess models. This can be difficult, especially for some of the larger model count armies.

Not to mention it automatically favors the player that owns more models.

Oh I'm playing Mech Guard? Let me just grab all these lascannons that....that I don't have...

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
I see two problems with a double blind system in pickup games:

1. You have to carry excess models. This can be difficult, especially for some of the larger model count armies.

Not to mention it automatically favors the player that owns more models.

Oh I'm playing Mech Guard? Let me just grab all these lascannons that....that I don't have...

Ultimately it strikes me this way:

Either it favors the player that owns more models
OR
It favors the player that bought the "right" models

Pick your poison

If I play a friend and it is obvious he's at a disadvantage because of his list, I want him to tailor it. I hate easy mode. It's good as long as there's no fat cheese included.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
If I play a friend and it is obvious he's at a disadvantage because of his list, I want him to tailor it. I hate easy mode. It's good as long as there's no fat cheese included.

I mean...if you're okay with a handicap, its fine.

But not recognizing that it is, in fact handicapping the non-tailoring player is the problem.

 Kaldor wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
You're using outlying extremes to represent a much broader genre of list.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm saying that TAC lists are stagnant, boring, and result in only a fraction of the codex ever being used because only some options are useful in a TAC environment. I'm also saying that the prevalence of certain power builds owes it's entire existence to the TAC mindset, and that a double-blind tailoring mindset is superior in every way. It encourages ingenuity, requires players to be familiar with all units in their codex, not just the TAC ones, lets players experience a wider variety of units and army types, and almost completely eliminates the domination of certain abusive power builds.

Agree completely. It greatly adds to the strategy. Will I see land raiders? Or a deep strike army? Well, he did deep strike last time...

I would hate it if someone were to use the exact same list every time I played them.

NamelessBard wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
You're using outlying extremes to represent a much broader genre of list.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm saying that TAC lists are stagnant, boring, and result in only a fraction of the codex ever being used because only some options are useful in a TAC environment. I'm also saying that the prevalence of certain power builds owes it's entire existence to the TAC mindset, and that a double-blind tailoring mindset is superior in every way. It encourages ingenuity, requires players to be familiar with all units in their codex, not just the TAC ones, lets players experience a wider variety of units and army types, and almost completely eliminates the domination of certain abusive power builds.

Agree completely. It greatly adds to the strategy.

Only to the strategy in list writing.

If I'm facing Land raiders with my TAC list, I need to decide when is the right time to divert my lascannons at the land raider in hopes of killing it, knowing they will be forgoing shooting at targets more assured to be damaged by them, or if driving my Demolisher at it in hopes of penning is worth it.

If I am facing land raiders with my Tailored list, then I have three Melta Stormtrooper squads and a Medusa with Bastion Breachers. No more landraiders.

Again, like I said.

TAC lists force strategic use of the tools at hand. ie: Outplay your opponent

Tailoring forces you to figure out what tools you should bring. ie: Out-list-write your opponent

 TheCaptain wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
If I play a friend and it is obvious he's at a disadvantage because of his list, I want him to tailor it. I hate easy mode. It's good as long as there's no fat cheese included.

I mean...if you're okay with a handicap, its fine.

But not recognizing that it is, in fact handicapping the non-tailoring player is the problem.

If it turns out that I'm too much handicapped after let's say 2 games, I will make changes as well. It's something like a champion - contender situation, the winner sits on his lists and the losers tries things to beat him. I'm not talking spamming counters, rather fixing errors and moderate changes.

But yes sometimes I will fight that uphill battle for long just because I like playing as the underdog, if I win I know it's thanks to my tactics not the better list etc. I always loved the part of Ender's game where he was able to come up with something no matter the odds.

Anyway I'm talking about agreement with friends, with random people it's different. Something like MtG side deck for 40k would help maybe, don't know.

 TheCaptain wrote:
If I am facing land raiders with my Tailored list, then I have three Melta Stormtrooper squads and a Medusa with Bastion Breachers. No more landraiders

List tailoring should be double-blind. Would you really want to take all that anti-tank and instead run into drop pod spam?

TheCaptain wrote:I mean...if you're okay with a handicap, its fine.

But not recognizing that it is, in fact handicapping the non-tailoring player is the problem.

And I'm actually all for handicaps. It takes roughly two seconds to show up to a game of 40k with a netlist, and all netlists are roughly equal in power. When this happens, list strength becomes a controlled variable. This means who wins is more determined by luck, given that player skill also starts to control itself as you get better.

The only real way around this is to handicap yourself.

Think about it this way, what takes more skill, to win with a netlist, or to beat a netlist with absolute garbage? You know intuitively that it's the latter. You'd give mad props to someone who could beat Shaq in a one on one, but you'd give way, way more props to a person who only had one leg who beat said Shaq.

Of course, I'd agree that people should be aware of what's going on.

I have a number of TAC lists for pick up games, as do most people in my gaming group. This allows us to jump straight into a game with minimum set up time.

That said, for a pre-arranged game, i will tailor my list to the army i'm fighting. On sunday, My imperial fists are fighting Iron Warriors. This is an epic grudge match if ever there was one, so i'm expecting lots of vindicators, and heavy assault troops in keeping with a fluffy Iron warriors Force. given that fact, its in keeping with the spirit of the match to do the same. Hammernators and vindicators with loads of melta thrown into the mix is the order of the day, and the game promises to be quite the blood bath.

Now it should be said i'm tailoring to the pre arranged scenario, rather than the player and his collection.
If i knew exactly what he was taking, or his collection was small, and I tailored to beat that exact list, then that would be bad form. but knowing i'm fighting Iron warriors, and knowing in advance what we are both expecting out of the battle (Carnage) i have no qualms whatsoever about tailoring

Also, I'd like to note that a take all comers is a take ALL comers. ALL includes everybody, including people who have brought tailored lists against you. If you're playing a foot list and can't handle an opponent who brings lots of bolt weapons and flamers, then you're not handling all comers, you're only handling those comers who can't handle a horde list.

 Ailaros wrote:
Also, I'd like to note that a take all comers is a take ALL comers. ALL includes everybody, including people who have brought tailored lists against you. If you're playing a foot list and can't handle an opponent who brings lots of bolt weapons and flamers, then you're not handling all comers, you're only handling those comers who can't handle a horde list.

It's a figure of speech.

Well rounded sounds less cool/streamlined than TAC.

Just like there are no literal angels descending in a DoA list, and Mechvet lists are (almost) never 100% Mechanized Vets.

 Kaldor wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
If the tailoring is mutual, it is pointless.

If the tailoring is mutual, an interesting game of double-blind evolves and a much greater variation in units and wargear is seen, rather than the boring stagnation of TAC lists.

no it isnt because there is a huge difference between lets say IG/SW/necron armies and something like nids . If I ,playing IG , tailor against nids then it doesnt matter what he takes . Now on the other hand if someone tailors against footguard and I bring mecha spam , then my list is just as good and his sucks hard . Same with necron , tailor against a foot army and face a stormlord+flyers and your in for a world of hurt.
there is also one more thing , now I do own more models then are needed for one build or army , but that is not always the case . Some people own one army , so I tailor and they cant , they get owned twice . First because they face a superior army , second because they cant tailor. .

Makumba wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
If the tailoring is mutual, it is pointless.

If the tailoring is mutual, an interesting game of double-blind evolves and a much greater variation in units and wargear is seen, rather than the boring stagnation of TAC lists.

no it isnt because there is a huge difference between lets say IG/SW/necron armies and something like nids . If I ,playing IG , tailor against nids then it doesnt matter what he takes . Now on the other hand if someone tailors against footguard and I bring mecha spam , then my list is just as good and his sucks hard . Same with necron , tailor against a foot army and face a stormlord+flyers and your in for a world of hurt.
there is also one more thing , now I do own more models then are needed for one build or army , but that is not always the case . Some people own one army , so I tailor and they cant , they get owned twice . First because they face a superior army , second because they cant tailor. .

First off, if you tailor against horde nids and face off against an army full of Tyrannofex's and other monstrous creatures, you're in for a bad time. And if your opponent decides to tailor specifically for footguard, he's taking a huge gamble. Sometimes that's not going to pay off. That's the point. Double-blind list tailoring encourages you to think more about what you include in your army, beyond the accepted internet wisdom of what units work, and what don't and which weargear is effective and which isn't.

And regards the model availability: the same issue comes up with TAC lists: If all you've got is Marines, you're going to spend a lot of games taking handfuls of models off the table while Flamers, Necron fliers and Vendettas kick your behind. You've picked the wrong models, and now you must pay. At least in a tailoring environment you can swap out some of your upgrades, or choose to increase your options by playing smaller games.