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.

So basically, I was out of the game for several years, and have only gotten back into it in the past few months, but I feel like I've noticed a bit of a change in player opinions on list tailoring. I admit this perceived change could regional, or due to a small sample size, or a vocal few. It could also be a change in player philosophy in the years I was out of the game, or a reaction to newer codexes and/or rules. I'm just curious to know the what the dakka community thinks.

I will try to present the sides, as I understand them, with as little bias (though some silliness) as possible. Please note these are just general arguments, not meant to convey an opinion or say they are the only reasons for supporting a given side.

The question is: When is list tailoring OK?

List tailoring is always fine! - I play competitively, and I play to win every game. You say it smells like cheese? I say it smells like VICTORY. Using counter-tactics is part of being a good general and understanding enemy strategy. I will use whatever is available to me to maximize my chances of prevailing. Whether this means looking at your list and deciding to play an entirely different army to counter them, or changing various units/transports/weapons to gain an advantage, "All's fair in love and war."

List tailoring is OK in small doses - I do play to win, but not at the expense of potentially pissing off other players by steamrolling them or being cheesy. I might occasionally switch a unit or two to increase my chances, or drop something I know will be a liability, but not a large part of my army or and I never switch my army entirely. I may bring a more tailored list to beat someone who keeps kicking my butt, or if I know they have a cheesy list full of OP spam, or if its something like a campaign and we both know what we'll be facing, but thats really more "adjusting" than "tailoring."

LIst tailoring is only acceptable in VERY specific circumstances - Winning may not be everything, but I at least want to stand a chance. Usually I'm thoroughly against list tailoring, but sometimes a minor tweak is only choice. If my opponent is bringing a couple of flyers, and my list has no real way to bring them down, I may switch it to get in a quad gun and/or a flyer of my own. If my opponent brings a ton of AV14, or FW armor, and I have no way to crack it, I may add a couple meltaguns and/or lascannons.

List tailoring is NEVER OK! - I like winning, but I care much more about fun and/or the spirit and integrity of the game. List tailoring is tantamount to cheating, it is always bad form, and it corrupts the purity of 40K. You should build a list you really love, and you should always stick by it. A list should be fluffy because the game is about fun, or at least not so gimmicky that it needs to be changed to win. If I know someone is tailoring their list to mine, I will shake their hand, say "good DAY sir," get on up on my high horse, and ride off into the sunset.

List tailoring, not ok. Meta awareness is prefectly fine.

For example its not list tailoring if in the meta around you you have a lot of flyers, to buy a quad gun. Its meta awareness. If your store is all MEQ its not list tailoring to build a list that beats MEQS.

List tailoring is changing your list once you see your enemies list. Swaping to warp quakes after seeing daemons, unacceptable. Exchanging a chimarae for a hydra vs flyers, unacceptable. When you agree to play someone you exchange lists, neither of you should no what the other has exactly, and thats the list you play with. No backsies.

But if you always play a certain friend who always uses a certain army its not list tailoring to change your list to beat him, as long as you make this list before you see his exact one, because he IS your meta. Therefore its meta awareness.

I havn't met anybody who list tailors, but there is a dam lot of meta awareness around me. Loads of people play foot MEQ, so you see plasma insted of melta. Many people have a flyer or two, so many armies got an anti flyer weapon. Not list tailoring. But meta awareness which to me at least, is perfectly fine.

As always, it depends.

Desigining a tournament army to be able to handle a specific list, while still being able to Take on all Comers, is perfectly fine. It's a big part of tournament list design.

In general though? It's like cheating on a partner. There is no one line for everybody. Some people swing, others don't like partners talking with exes.

The bigger answer, which includes all things like "is FW ok?" or "is this unit too cheesy?" is that there should be open communication. If I got to play a pick up game with my standard army, and it turns out he's got a list designed specifically to take mine down, I'll be far more upset after the fact. If, he said, "Hey, I've built this list just to take yours down, care to play it out?" I might.

The other factor is that the enjoyability of a game hinges on perceived (not actual) ability to succeed. I think more specialized lists are more susceptible to list tailoring, while a true TAAC list should be very difficulty to crack without building a new army from scratch. And outside of tournament games or league play, games are either meant for fun or to test out an army. For both, having a game be competiive is key. For the latter, testing against arcane or unlikely armies is just not very useful.

In short, I'd say it's only OK with permission. I don't think it's cheating or unethical, I think it just makes the game a lot less enjoyable.

Polonius you hit it on the head.

List tailoring to play someone after they've pulled out their army is generally frowned upon.

List tailoring at home and building a list that could take on a guard player with lots of flyers is ok.

Tournament Lists are generally built as TAC Lists that can counteract most of the meta.

I take option 5: list tailoring is perfectly fine, as long it is mutual.

In our local gaming club, we tend to decide games a day or two ahead (yay facebook), so we know who we fight, his general playstyle, and what army he brings (and game size naturally), so both players have an equal chance to tailor their list to counter what they believe the other will use.

List tailoring is cheating.

/thread

As with most things in 40k, if it is okay with your opponent, go for it. The poll is a bit lacking though.

I would say it is only okay when your opponent is doing the same to you. IMO, both opponents should be making TAC lists, and then go from there, meet up the say of, and be ready to fight without specifically building to beat whatever your opponent made up.

ragingmunkyz wrote:

The question is: When is list tailoring OK?

When it's mutual. My group plays scheduled campaign games. We know who we're going to play at least a week out. Both sides will tune their lists, knowing who their opponent is.

This is also a gamble. I've tuned my list to play against my buddy's IG heavy tank list and he surprised me with Blob squads of DOOM! Damn him!

If you only tailor your lists, you never become a better player. It also makes you "That guy" and other players will start not wanting to play you for that reason.

In the interest of keeping the hobby alive, no tailoring.

To me, list tailoring is only okay when;
a) Both you and your opponent agree to it.
Sometimes it's fun to set-up a match that's full of the filthiest cheesey hard-counters you can each think up. Since both players have agreeded to go for it, no one should really have hard feeling about the game's outcome.

b) You're trying to face-beat your local TFG/s so that they either ragequit and go hide back under their bridge, or else learn to smarten up and not be a TFG.

I've done the latter myself a couple times.
The first time was after I'd been called out by a customer on our store's Staff Challenge board. The customer then spent the next week and a half or so taunting me and his attitude got increadibly offensive to the point my manager went into 'over-protective-big-brother' mode to get this dumb to stop harrassing me.
So knowing he had 'Nids, I decided to teach him a lesson in manners and brought an anti-Tyranid marine list to publicly shame him.
Despite him trying to cheat with his infiltrating 'Stealers, I tabled him in 4 turns while losing only 3 marines the entire game. He stormed off after the game, but then apologised a few days later after realising he had been such a giant jerk to me.
So I sat down and helped him re-work his 'Nid list so that it wouldn't fold so easily to even moderate amounts of anti-infantry counters.

The other time, I asked my one buddy who plays Eldar if he'd like the honour of roflstomping the one local GK donkeycave who pulled out a tailored Warp Quake list against a 12-year-old Daemon player.
He agreed to help us out, and brought an Eldar list with Eldrad+Farseer and 2x Warlock Councils alongside max scatter laser War Walkers.
'Twas glorious to see the epic rage TFG threw after being beaten within barely 3 turns!

Experiment 626 wrote:

b) You're trying to face-beat your local TFG/s so that they either ragequit and go hide back under their bridge, or else learn to smarten up and not be a TFG.

I've done the latter myself a couple times.
The first time was after I'd been called out by a customer on our store's Staff Challenge board. The customer then spent the next week and a half or so taunting me and his attitude got increadibly offensive to the point my manager went into 'over-protective-big-brother' mode to get this dumb to stop harrassing me.
So knowing he had 'Nids, I decided to teach him a lesson in manners and brought an anti-Tyranid marine list to publicly shame him.
Despite him trying to cheat with his infiltrating 'Stealers, I tabled him in 4 turns while losing only 3 marines the entire game. He stormed off after the game, but then apologised a few days later after realising he had been such a giant jerk to me.
So I sat down and helped him re-work his 'Nid list so that it wouldn't fold so easily to even moderate amounts of anti-infantry counters.

The other time, I asked my one buddy who plays Eldar if he'd like the honour of roflstomping the one local GK donkeycave who pulled out a tailored Warp Quake list against a 12-year-old Daemon player.
He agreed to help us out, and brought an Eldar list with Eldrad+Farseer and 2x Warlock Councils alongside max scatter laser War Walkers.
'Twas glorious to see the epic rage TFG threw after being beaten within barely 3 turns!

This is literally the worst time to list tailor.

-If you lose, you just lost with a tailored list.

-If you win, you just beat your opponent's good list, with a mediocre list tooled up to specifically beat his. That proves nothing to yourself, nor to your opponent. I've been beaten by people tailoring in an attempt to beat my list. Know what I think afterward? "Hah, they had to tailor against me to have a chance."

If you beat someone fair and square, you have put them in their place. If you have to resort to essentially cheating, you have just shown them that they are the better player.

And then who is the TFG, if they are playing a powerful, albeit fair list, and you are tailoring specifically to beat them?

See what I'm saying? List tailoring to "show someone up" is rather immature, IMO.

List tailoring is okay in extremely small doses. When I say extremely small, I mean like my buddy who plays Dark Eldar and magnetizes the weapons on his raiders because they cost the same amount of points. Maybe in Eldar, switching out a power or two for ones of identical cost, but ideally, no.

Honestly though, knowing the local meta is even a little sketchy. My FLGS is pretty small, so everyone knows what everyone else has pretty much. Well, maybe except the guy with the 21000 point chaos army, but we never know what he is going to bring. If you know what people's armies are composed of, and they have a limited collection (like my mech IG that is barely 2000 points), it's just as bad to make a specific list at home to counter it imo.

Funny thing about the IG is that there are five IG players and three of us have unintentionally similar lists. When someone makes a list it usually does well against all three of us. Go figure.

I think that tailoring a list in a friendly game against an opponent who doesn't know what's coming is just reprehensible. It's a lot like cheating. (In that there's no reason to do it, and if you do you're a bad person.)

If both of you know what's about to happen, of course, then it's an entirely different ballgame. One of my frequent opponents is a Necrons player (I play Salamanders). I resign myself to the fact that I will see his C'Tan with his Lord of Fire ability every single game. But since we are both doing it, it's fine.

In a tournament, then I think you need to build your list with at least a glance in the direction of local and game-wide trends. When I got in during 5th edition, building a list with no anti-armor capacity was tantamount to suicide. I've seen a tournament list with no real anti-armor support do alright in 6th. (Not win, mind you, but not in the bottom tier either.)

And in a campaign, where you face the same opponents week after week? The gloves come right off. That's a part of campaign play that I expect, though. If I think my opponent is new or inexperienced with campaigns, I might give him a slow-pitch to make sure he gets it first.

It's always ok. I'm not gonna bring things that'll be pointless against some armies. I'm gonna bring things that'll will be effective against the army il be playing against

Jayo'r wrote:
It's always ok. I'm not gonna bring things that'll be pointless against some armies. I'm gonna bring things that'll will be effective against the army il be playing against

And if your opponent doesn't own as many models as you? You crush them into oblivion purely based on how many options you own and can use.

If you and a buddy decide hey tomorrow lets play a game I'll bring my X you bring your Y. You both have knowledge of the opponents army and build accordingly isn't that also list tailoring? Both sides are doing it though.

 Goat wrote:
If you and a buddy decide hey tomorrow lets play a game I'll bring my X you bring your Y. You both have knowledge of the opponents army and build accordingly isn't that also list tailoring? Both sides are doing it though.

That's not tailoring. There's no specifics. If I said "I'll bring my guard" what do you do? Bring a ton of transport popping guns? Make sure you can deal with AV:14? Bring some AAA and some anti-horde.

Oh hey look! It's a TAC list.

Honestly I agree with it in campaigns, or when someone is testing a tournament list. It happens a lot in our group because we have a smaller group that's not as competitive as it could be, that the couple of better players will say "I'm testing this list, here is a copy, BRING IT!" And in Campaigns you have a responsibility to your side to do well, and everyone knows what everyone is bringing, so I don't see this as so bad. Normally this is even hinted at "So you're bringing your Dark Eldar hmmmmmmm?"

In a friendly game though I think it's silly talk. Doesn't seem that friendly to me!

I really don't like list tailoring for several reasons:

1. Bringing a hard counter to an opponent's list doesn't make you better. I personally hate it when winning/losing is determined in the "list building phase." (I'm more using this as a general phrase. If you don't have things that synergize well with other elements in your list or have answers to the various "questions" asked by other lists (vehicle heavy, infantry heavy, etc... of course you're going to run into problems)

2. It takes the fun out of the game. If I show up and have a list optimized to stomp your face in, you probably won't enjoy the game, and I probably won't either. Winning because you played a better game is what makes a win rewarding, not knowing that I know hard counters to your list. I play wargames because I want to relax after studying or working, not to try and beat somebody into the ground, steal their food, and eat it while they writhe in pain

3. If you build a decent take all comers list, you shouldn't need to tailor your list.

That said, knowing your meta is perfectly OK. For example, my meta has an ork player, a guard player, a blood angels player, a GK player, and a space wolf player that regularly show up for tournaments, so I won't be as worried about being overly vulnerable to railguns, for example.

I think list tailoring is everybody's right.
If I'm arranging a game with a friend, I'll assume he's building his army specifically to counter mine, and I'll build mine likewise.

In a tournament I'll tailor my list specifically to beat SMs and I have won several as a result. I don't really think it's cheating. If I happen to play against somebody that is built to annihilate DE, I'll welcome the challenge.

I mean, you do build your army to defeat others don't you? Isn't that list tailoring? Maybe I'm foggy on the definition, but how does one NOT list tailor?

Take all comers = unfair versatility.
anti-(specific army) = unfair vs. that army.
Strong, effective army list = unfair vs. inferior tactics.

With the right imagination, everything is unfair. It's all a matter of perspective.
If I get annihilated, I can either accuse my opponent of 'list tailoring', or I can figure out what's wrong with my tactics.
Personally, the last thing I care about is if my opponent 'list-tailored'. I'd rather analyze my strategy and where I went wrong.
I never blame my opponents for my losses. My opponents did exactly what I hoped they would; provided a challenge.
If I win I'll take pride in my unit selection and my application of my army's strengths.

Am I trying to stomp my opponent? Uhh... Isn't that kinda the idea?
Have I been stomped? Of course. Was it fun? Depends on my attitude... I've lost some very enjoyable games.

 Archonate wrote:
I think list tailoring is everybody's right.
If I'm arranging a game with a friend, I'll assume he's building his army specifically to counter mine, and I'll build mine likewise.

In a tournament I'll tailor my list specifically to beat SMs and I have won several as a result. I don't really think it's cheating. If I happen to play against somebody that is built to annihilate DE, I'll welcome the challenge.

I mean, you do build your army to defeat others don't you? Isn't that list tailoring? Maybe I'm foggy on the definition, but how does one NOT list tailor?

Take all comers = unfair versatility.
anti-(specific army) = unfair vs. that army.
Strong, effective army list = unfair vs. inferior tactics.

With the right imagination, everything is unfair. It's all a matter of perspective.
If I get annihilated, I can either accuse my opponent of 'list tailoring', or I can figure out what's wrong with my tactics.
Personally, the last thing I care about is if my opponent 'list-tailored'. I'd rather analyze my strategy and where I went wrong.
I never blame my opponents for my losses. My opponents did exactly what I hoped they would; provided a challenge.
If I win I'll take pride in my unit selection and my application of my army's strengths.

Am I trying to stomp my opponent? Uhh... Isn't that kinda the idea?
Have I been stomped? Of course. Was it fun? Depends on my attitude... I've lost some very enjoyable games.

You're not understanding the fairness of TAC lists, and how the concept balances the meta rather than leading to rock-paper-scissors matchups that are always un-fun for one side.

It's always okay.

Don't be hypocrites, people.

 Ailaros wrote:
It's always okay.

Don't be hypocrites, people.

Misinterprets Meta-specific list-writing for specific-army list tailoring, the latter of which is being discussed here.

No one refers to writing a list to account for the current meta as list-tailoring.

That's just silly.

Those are some REALLY biased poll options you posted.

Correct answer: list tailoring is never ok, but not because of some bizarre argument about "fluffy" armies, it's not ok because it unbalances the game and always gives an unfair advantage to one player (usually the player with the most money to spend on extra models).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Archonate wrote:
Maybe I'm foggy on the definition, but how does one NOT list tailor?

Metagame awareness = understanding how the game works in a general sense (for example, MEQs are more popular than Eldar), knowing the potential threats, and making a single "standard" TAC list before you know who you're playing against (and the not changing it once you have an opponent). For example, making sure your standard 1500 point list has some plasma guns because foot marines are popular in 6th.

List tailoring = knowing the specific player/list you are about to play against and designing a list that is optimized to beat them (usually at the expense of being a TAC list). For example, you arrive at the store, ask an ork player for a game, and then replace all of your plasma guns with flamers.


Metagame awareness is fine because it works equally for everyone. List tailoring is not because only one player can benefit from it, either the player who tailors last (oh, I see you brought flamers to counter my orks, well, I'll just bring my deathwing army instead) or the player with the bigger (and more expensive) model collection and therefore the greatest flexibility in list tailoring.

CaptainGrey wrote:Misinterprets Meta-specific list-writing for specific-army list tailoring, the latter of which is being discussed here.

They're just two points on the same spectrum. You can only take the moral high ground if you don't fall anywhere on said spectrum. Saying that the part of the spectrum that YOU'RE on is okay, while the part that THEY'RE on is bad is arbitrary and pointless.

It's just an excuse for judgemental people to be jerks to others.

 Ailaros wrote:

CaptainGrey wrote:Misinterprets Meta-specific list-writing for specific-army list tailoring, the latter of which is being discussed here.

They're just two points on the same spectrum. You can only take the moral high ground if you don't fall anywhere on said spectrum. Saying that the part of the spectrum that YOU'RE on is okay, while the part that THEY'RE on is bad is arbitrary and pointless.

It's just an excuse for judgemental people to be jerks to others.

How aren't they different though?

Using a TAC-Meta list, my army remains the same if I play against you, your friend, or your friend's friend's Eldar.

Using List Tailoring (in the traditional sense), each game will be different, and each game I will be taking hard-counters against you, your friend, or your friend's friend's Eldar.

The latter of which will always be imbalanced based on model-ownership and capacity of the user's codex to swap options for hard-counters.

The former is two people's armys facing off on even ground regarding prior knowledge and ability to adapt (because there is zero of both).

Edit: There is no "spectrum" so to speak. There is "Did you change your army specifically to beat me?" and there is "Did you leave your army the same regardless of who you fight?"

It's rather black or white. You tailored your list against your opponent, or you didn't.

 Ailaros wrote:
They're just two points on the same spectrum. You can only take the moral high ground if you don't fall anywhere on said spectrum. Saying that the part of the spectrum that YOU'RE on is okay, while the part that THEY'RE on is bad is arbitrary and pointless.

It's not a spectrum at all. It's a very simple dividing line: did you write your list with specific knowledge about who you were about to play? If the answer is yes, you are list tailoring. If the answer is no, you are not.

My personal opinion on list tailoring is that as long as you don't change your list after you show up, its fine. To me, the line is drawn when you swap things out immediately after seeing your opponents list in order to beat theirs. Anything beyond that is merely adapting to the metagame. Note that this does include tailoring to beat specific lists, which to me is fair game. To draw an example from another game, in MtG if there is one decklist that is extremely powerful in a format, you often see players build lists that specifically counter it, which helps keep the metagame healthy. The same could be said of 40k, if there is one list that is doing extremely well, designing a list with the sole purpose of beating that list is a good thing, it helps keep the game metagame diverse and fair.

In short:
To adapt to your local environment is fine, even if it includes adapting to beat a specific list.
Adapting to every list you play in order to beat it is not ok.

Personally, I'm a fan of the system that they use in Warmahordes tournaments. Everybody may bring up to two lists of equal value, and prior to each game they look over both of their opponent's lists and choose which list they think will do best against whatever list your opponent is most likely to choose. It allows you to adapt to certain situation and also helps reduce the number of spam lists.

I play Necrons. This weekend I will play a campaign game against a Daemon army. Is it list tailoring to drop some of my anti-tank stuff from my TAC list and bring more Annihilation Barges and Tremorteks? Am I TFG for having more than 2000pts of Necrons and want to field different units when I think they would be more effective?