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.

We always "tailor" our lists. We usually come up with some general battle parameters a week in advance, trade some smack talk in character via the internet and then throw down.

What general wouldn't have any clue as to why, where and what he was facing?

Obviously this style doesn't work for pick-up games, but then I don't play pick-up games

Well, like any custom job, it's a matter of degrees.

Tinting the windows on my Sonata, and painting in hot pink with purple flames, are both "custom jobs." Yet they are clearly of different degrees.

Saying that metagame awareness, or even something like "since vehicles exist in this game, I should include anti-tank" is list tailoring is like saying that 40 degrees below zero is not really that cold, since it's closer to room temperature than absolute zero.

Interesting variety of opinions so far, and very interesting that, at the time I am writing this post, more people feel tailoring is ok to some extent.

Unsurprisingly, some of that has to do with people having different characterizations of "list tailoring." I intentionally did not provide a definition in OP, because I was hoping people would answer according to their personal definitions, and share them. So while some people draw a line in the sand at when you read an opponent's list, others consider it to be when you learn what army you're playing, and still others have said that any time you consider countering what an opponent might field, you are tailoring. For something that so many people feel so strongly about, I find find it odd that there is no consensus on what exactly it is.

My definition would be something like: Designing a list for the express purpose of beating a specific opponent, after learning of what that opponent will be playing, which includes anything from which army they intend to use in that game to having distinct knowledge of the units in said army.

For me there are just so many ways to know what an opponent is going to play before they hand you their list that limiting the definition to changing your army after that moment doesn't really cover it. Similarly, I feel designing a TAC list with an understanding of local meta essentially invalidates any need for the term "list tailoring" as that pretty much defines the process of making any good list. Of course I realize my definition in no way supersedes that of any of yours but I felt, perhaps incorrectly, that before I stopped playing some 6 years ago, the definition was generally understood to be something along the those lines. As I said in the OP, the philosophy of 40K gamers may have shifted since then.

 Peregrine wrote:
Those are some REALLY biased poll options you posted.

I'm sorry you felt that way, I'd be curious what you think I voted for given that you think my personal opinion on the matter was made clear in those opinions. I did say I intended them to be a both broad and silly, which to me meant tongue in cheek. Lines like "I say it smells like victory," or "say 'good day sir,' and get up on my high horse," were meant to take those extremist opinions OTT.

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

Several of you said something like this, and you'll note that I included "[when] we both know what we'll be facing" under the option "in small doses," which I'm now regretting not just writing as "sometimes ok." Although, as I said, the explanations of each opinion were meant to be very general and cover some of the points I had personally heard regarding the subject.

Here's a really interesting question for everyone:

How does one go about forgetting what a regular opponent has in his/her arsenal and is able to field x amount of?

Which leads to a simpler marco level question:

If both opponents know what armies they're bringing to a game, how does one go about forgetting that?

And finally, the crucial question:

What would prevent me, or, I dunno, anyone, from just saying their list is a "take all comers" list?

 Crablezworth wrote:
Here's a really interesting question for everyone:

How does one go about forgetting what a regular opponent has in his/her arsenal and is able to field x amount of?

Which leads to a simpler marco level question:

If both opponents know what armies they're bringing to a game, how does one go about forgetting that?

And finally, the crucial question:

What would prevent me, or, I dunno, anyone, from just saying their list is a "take all comers" list?

You field one list against any opponent. It's as simple as not changing your list after finding out who you are playing.

 CaptainGrey wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Here's a really interesting question for everyone:

How does one go about forgetting what a regular opponent has in his/her arsenal and is able to field x amount of?

Which leads to a simpler marco level question:

If both opponents know what armies they're bringing to a game, how does one go about forgetting that?

And finally, the crucial question:

What would prevent me, or, I dunno, anyone, from just saying their list is a "take all comers" list?

You field one list against any opponent. It's as simple as not changing your list after finding out who you are playing.

I'm sorry what? Are you suggesting people do that? Make a 1500pt list, set it in stone and never change it? Ever?

We play blind lists, blind missions, blind opponents. I'm at a loss as to why no one else does.

I'm sorry but, maybe I'm just no understanding what list tailoring is.

In the context of myself, I get maybe a game a week in if I'm lucky. It's arranged beforehand with an individual I know and played either at a GW, flgs or someone's home. It works as follows>

------------------------------------------------------------

me: Hey, do you wanna do an x point game on x day? I plan on running army x.

other individual: Sure, x day works, x points sounds good, I'll be bringing my x army.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Done

Now, are people actually suggesting it's psychologically possible for both myself and the other individual to both forget what armies will be used from prior experience along with what units they can and or do run tend to use? Maybe I'm just not understanding what "list tailoring" is.

 Crablezworth wrote:


I'm sorry what? Are you suggesting people do that? Make a 1500pt list, set it in stone and never change it? Ever?

You don't set it in stone and never change it.

You just don't change it to counter your opponent.

Any changes you make to your list should be to make your list better, likely done post-game to fix mistakes you made, or replace units you felt could be replaced with better options.

I regularly tool up, tweak, and fix my list. But when someone says "Hey, want to play a game?" I have my list already set. Whether they tell me they're Eldar, Deathwing, or Cron Airforce, I'll be bringing my most recent iteration of MY list to the table. Not my list specially written to beat theirs.

me: Hey, do you wanna do an x point game on x day?

other individual: Sure, x day works, x points sounds good.

That's how. And then just play your standard x-point list (whatever it happens to be at the time), not a list specifically designed to counter whatever you think your opponent is bringing.

List tailoring is ok when you're doing it to purposely make your list far less efficient than your opponents for the sake of throwing the game.

For example, my friend just has a battalion of lizardmen and a box of saurus warriors. With my vampire counts force I could throw just about any unit and mean combination against him, but I won't because that's a bit douchebaggery. I tailor my list to be particularly weak against his units.

It's hard mode for me, which I like, and it's a good learning environment for him, which I like.

In a competitive environment, you should tailor your list to the percieved meta. You don't enter a tourny to lose. However, in casual play against people who don't know, list tailoring only makes you a weaker player, as well as probably a TFG.

 CaptainGrey wrote:
I regularly tool up, tweak, and fix my list. But when someone says "Hey, want to play a game?" I have my list already set. Whether they tell me they're Eldar, Deathwing, or Cron Airforce, I'll be bringing my most recent iteration of MY list to the table. Not my list specially written to beat theirs.

This. I have a collection of lists on my computer for various point levels, and occasionally I'll revise them to reflect my new models/recent success or failure/etc. When I want to play a game I just grab a list for the appropriate point total and start the game.

Define list tailoring. Is it:

Building a list after I see what my opponent is fielding? -No

building a list after I know what army I'm facing (but not exact list)? -No

Choosing from one of several canned armies once I see what my opponent is fielding? -No

Choosing from one of several canned lists after I know what faction I'm facing? -Maybe

Building a list which considers what kind of armies are popular locally? -Yes

Building a list to face whatever I expect a specific opponent to field after planning a game well in advance so that we have the opportunity to choose from a wide range of models? -Yes

It really depends on how you define list tailoring.

My definition of list tailoring: when a person has more information about what his opponent is going to play than his his opponent does, and uses that information to craft a list with the intent of defeating that specific opponent.

I think that it requires two distinct factors: asymmetric information, where one side knows more than the other about what the armies are, and an intent to use that information in a way that will disproportionately help defeat a specific opponent.

Intent is hard to read, but the litmus test for that is also simple: is the army brought overly weighted in it's ability to respond to armies, so that while it can deal with the rock it knows it will see, it would be crippled against scissors?

It depends what you class as "tailoring" tbh. For example would you class my Black Legion list which is led by Abbadon to be list tailoring when I know im playing against a space marine player? I think its down to what each person classes as list tailoring

I have a tendency to tailor list, but usually I do it to the other players a chance. In my local Meta I own the only Land Raiders and Flyers. With the other players there is a total of Two Devastator Squad [One 4x Multi-Meltas and the other with 4 Las-Cannons] that can hurt me and don’t even ask about AAA there is none. I could win every game with Land Raider/Vendetta SPAM. So I tend to not bring them out much until the others can get some A-A and AAA.

To me this is how you should “Tailor” a list, so everyone has fun. If two players want tailor their list for one another that’s great. Someone who finds out that his opponent has troubles with Flyers and brings out a double FOC with 18 Vendettas is actually a guy I will never want to play.

Tailoring to an individual opponent is not ok, knowing what your local meta is like and tailoring for that on the other hand is fine. So if your local meta spams av 14(for some weird reason), then adding some more AV 14 kill is completely appropriate.

Situational. Here's an example: Recently, a FLGS ran Crusade of Fire straight out of the book. There were 20 players (for a campaign designed for no more than 12), and all the power-gamers and cheese players were on the opposing team. I had no qualms at all about tailoring my lists and steamrolling them.