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.

 Rismonite wrote:
List tailoring is wrong
Optimizing units is wrong
Trying to win is wrong
Playing to objectives is wrong
Having a strategy is wrong
Using a strong model is wrong
Rolling a Six is wrong
Playing a good army is wrong

How would you like your self-served guilt today?

Just forfeit right after you've both looked have admired your army and your paint job on your models, don't even wait until after deployment your opponent might think you are being a troll. Your opponent will be much happier knowing that you are both succeeding at the hobby and that he had an easy win tonight.

As hyperbolic as this sounds, this is sometimes the feel I get from dakka dakka


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I arrange games weeks in advance knowing who we will be playing and PROBABLY what army they will be bringing. I bring an army suited to face what I expect. The only kind of tailoring I disagree with is once you've seen your oppoents army - you change out units to counter it. Like If you bring a flyer they ad an AA unit - or if you are a parking lot they throw in 15 melta guns...I mean people like that are just scum.

I've a question then about how you feel when it comes to skyfire/interceptor and tau? Ususally I'll run my broadsides and riptides with either depending on the list I'm playing. I personally hate flyers on principle so idk, and if I'm not taking skyfire I default to giving my tides and suits interceptor.

That's context that list tailoring usually seems to pop up is someone running into TFG donkey cave, who says 'sure! Just let me make a list!' and waddles off to put together a list specifically tailored to take down whatever TAC list the person brought.

Of course that's wrong, and a total dick move. That's why it always pops up in TFG threads. It doesn't need to be asked.

But like a lot of things, something that's a total dick move when just one person pulls it is perfectly fine when both are in agreement. If I know my opponent is fielding Tau when I build my list, and he knows I have nids when building his, tailoring it is expected. That's why we didn't jealously guard our carrying cases like Gollum with a ring when we walked into the room.

It's only when it's done unfairly that it's wrong.

Circumstances matter and fluff matters too.

Forces generally know what they're up against - IG knows it's defending against or attacking Orks etc. In that case, you can tailor generally to the Species. (My IG are facing Orks, I will take general Ork countering units). What you can't do is know his list and then counter everything on a unit by unit basis.

I would even go so far to say that in 'surprise' or 'ambush' scenarios, the defender should only bring a TAC list where the attacker can bring general countering units.

I'm a very fluffy player and it shows in how I play

It isnt wrong at all. It is not showing up with a list that give you and the other player a fun game that is wrong.
List tailoring can do this but it could also result in fun games.Most of my armies lack ranged anti tank fire power. Adding a few of those to my list if I know my opponent will show up with multiple Knights makes the game more fun instead of less fun.
Switching all your weapons to Splinter cannons if you know you are going to face an ork list with no vehicles, a tyranid monster list or a CSM nurgle bike list is just awfull.
Same goes for anti air. Sure its ok to bring some if you are facing Flyers but going overboard is just a guarantee for a dull game.

List tailoring is wrong because it gives a huge advantage to players with more money to spend. If I have a single 1500 point TAC list and can only make minimal changes (swapping melta for flamers on some infantry, for example) while you have 5000 points of stuff to pick your 1500 points from then you have a much greater ability to tailor your list than I do. I am unlikely to have the ideal list for your army (and if I have those particular models available then you can just bring something else), while you can probably pick the perfect counter to mine. Unless there's a significant difference in skill, whether in list building or on the table, I'm going to lose that game and it probably won't even be close. So why should I play at all?

I’m going to ruffle a lot of feathers when I say this I think! While I don’t necessarily believe in ‘list tailoring’ as its broadly understood here, I do believe in and promote ‘game-tailoring’, and from that point, tailoring both lists involved in a game towards a common understanding, narrative and function. Personally, whilst I play, like and enjoy pick-up-games (especially for Warmachine/Hordes), for what it’s worth they have their limitations and I don’t necessarily view the idea of ‘facing a random stranger with a random army, where I shouldn’t even know who or what I’ll be playing’ as any kind of goal to aim for in gaming nor do I see it as any kind of design ‘pinnacle’ or holy grail in gaming. For me at least, I find it far more fun to have a game grounded by a specific ‘narrative’, ’theme’ or ‘hook’, and to me at least, this approach allows for a lot more creativity, genuine variety and interesting games with interesting premises, but it’s an approach that does require more ‘work’, as well as a bit of good judgement and emotional maturity.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
You shouldn't even know you are playing Tau.

This.

Not this. Why should your games be ‘blind’ match ups where you don’t know who/what you are playing? This is simply the lowest common denominator when it comes to gaming. It’s just basic functionality with no extra ‘flair’or ‘colour’. This also presupposes that ‘blind’ PUGs are the order of the day, and whilst they have legitimate value for ease of play, and can be fun (when they are built right), they should be acknowledged for what they are (along with their limitations), and not held up as some kind of a gold standard that stands above every other ‘type’ or ‘style’ of wargames. ‘Blind’ PUGs often skew ‘how’ the game is played, often stifle creativity and require a very ‘specific’ thinking and mode of play and often, especially when 40k is concerned, they often skew the game in very negative ways in how they skew towards the tiny, tiny percentage of ‘power builds’ at the expense of everything else. Over insistence on a PUG based gaming culture (especially at the expense of other ways of playing wargames) is extremely unhealthy for the long term health of any game, gamer or community. I’ve always found 40k to be more fun with a more ‘narrative’ approach involving ‘themed’ scenarios with matched armies rather than a ‘blind’ one, because frankly, too many things can go wrong far too easily with too much fallout with the latter approach.

 Azreal13 wrote:

When I was playing regularly, I took my list to the club and then found an opponent. This was sometimes problematic because I'd have to try and account for the range of abilities as well as factions I'd face, but I'd rather do that than be the guy who selected from a range of pre prepared lists once he knew who he'd be fighting, or the guy who just relentlessly played WS spam and WK despite many requests to tone it down.

True. It can be problematic. But there are other ways of playing other than ‘blind’ match ups with, or without a variety of ‘set lists’ and trying to figure things out when you get to the club (ie almost after the fact). This supposes a very ‘set’ and ‘rigid’ way of thinking and constructing your lists and that in itself can be limiting. Its an approach that just doesn’t give much room to manoeuvre. You can be more organic in how you organise your games and build your armies. Here, a lot of folks simply communicate ahead of time on facebook or whatever and let people know what kind of game they’re looking to play, and what they’re thinking of playing, and then co-operating from that point in building a fair and interesting match up, rather than risk a hard counter from a blind match up. I personally prefer to take it a step further and rather than just play 40k PUGs (whether blind or not), we’ll communicate ahead of time, and craft the scenario itself first and foremost, and build a narrative around it, and from that point decide on what would be an interesting ‘cast’ for the script in terms of the armies/forces facing off against each other.

 Azreal13 wrote:

If you want to characterise 40K as any sort of game of skill, then surely a goodly part of that skill lies in designing a list that has elements to counter as many things as possible and then employing them efficiently in game? Not just spamming whatever is optimal to give your opponent a hard time?

Is it? Is it really? Constructing two lists towards a common narrative with a general ‘understanding’ of each other’s power levels offers just as much opportunity to demonstrate ‘skill’ as a blind match up.

And What if you sidestep the issue and don’t want to characterise 40k as any sort of game of skill? It’s not a tactically or strategically demanding game after all. ‘Skill’ often comes a distant second to spamming whatever is optimal and what counters as many things as possible. This is the biggest problem with PUGs in 40k. And why I believe ‘blind’ match ups are so hazardous, and why organising and communicating ahead of time are of such value, and almost necessity. Personally, I just step around the whole mess and simply do not view 40k as being anything related either to ‘skill’ or as some kind of a ‘duel’. As far as I am concerned, this misses the forest for the trees. To me, as a game, it’s just a vehicle for constructing interesting stories and playing them out rather than some kind of ‘duel’- when it comes to wargames I simply have nothing that I need to prove any more, either to myself or my opponents and especially not in a game of toy soldiers. I’ve often found the themed/narrative game building approach to be far more enjoyable and rewarding in the long term, and often find taking the alternative approach of a director building a scene from a movie and then watching it unfold organically is very enjoyable, and often underappreciated by a lot of people in the community.

 Azreal13 wrote:

This has long been my issue with IK, the decent thing is to let your opponent know if you're fielding an IK list, it is, after all, a unique faction which differs from pretty much any other list any other army can deploy, but how can one reasonably expect someone to spend any points on anti infantry if they know it'll be useless? But how can you get a fair game if your opponent brings nothing but stuff to kill AV? At least with the stronger factions - I'm not sure Orks could handle IK all that well right now even with advance notice.

This goes for anything in the game, as far as I am concerned, on all sides of the spectrum, whether they are your Knights or my all-metal kasrkin Stormtrooper company. As I see it, both opponents should communicate ahead of time and let folks know (a) what scenarios they’d like to play, (b) what kind of game they are interested in playing and (c) what they’re thinking of bringing. ‘Play with like minded folks’ should be rule number 1. From that point, a bit of negotiation, co-operation, collaboration and general ‘game-building’ goes a long way towards smoothing out the hard edges and making a long lasting community, makes for more interesting games, cultivates creativity rather than being just a bunch of individuals/opponents sharing space in a room, and nothing else. We live in the age of facebook, forums, text messaging etc. there is no reason that people can’t organise ahead of time to make their hobby a better experience and lots of reasons why they should.

 Jaxler wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:
List tailoring is wrong
Optimizing units is wrong
Trying to win is wrong
Playing to objectives is wrong
Having a strategy is wrong
Using a strong model is wrong
Rolling a Six is wrong
Playing a good army is wrong

How would you like your self-served guilt today?

Just forfeit right after you've both looked have admired your army and your paint job on your models, don't even wait until after deployment your opponent might think you are being a troll. Your opponent will be much happier knowing that you are both succeeding at the hobby and that he had an easy win tonight.

As hyperbolic as this sounds, this is sometimes the feel I get from dakka dakka


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I arrange games weeks in advance knowing who we will be playing and PROBABLY what army they will be bringing. I bring an army suited to face what I expect. The only kind of tailoring I disagree with is once you've seen your oppoents army - you change out units to counter it. Like If you bring a flyer they ad an AA unit - or if you are a parking lot they throw in 15 melta guns...I mean people like that are just scum.

I've a question then about how you feel when it comes to skyfire/interceptor and tau? Ususally I'll run my broadsides and riptides with either depending on the list I'm playing. I personally hate flyers on principle so idk, and if I'm not taking skyfire I default to giving my tides and suits interceptor.

Interceptor is standard build. I don't expect to face tau without at least 2 units having interceptor - skyfire is different though - it's not something a tau would typically put on a riptide or a broadside because they have limited slots plus it's kinda expensive and unnecessary anyways. So If I had 3 flyers and the tau I was facing added skyfire to a bunch of units I would be a little skeptical the first time but if I saw him use the same list with different systems vs a whole ground army I would probably not play against him anymore.

Deadnight wrote:
stuff

Thanks for posting that was a good read.

That said I disagree with pretty much the entire thing. I always bring TAC lists, in that I make a list, whether it's themed or more competitive and play with it regardless of who I end up facing. It's a list that I would be comfortable walking into any game store in the world and playing with, and I think that's the "right" way to go about it. List tailoring is unfair and to me makes the game unfun.

I voted No, not against competitive friends.
First, I play Orks more or less exclusively, I've used my Wolves maybe 6 times in the last 3 years.
My most competitive friend plays Tau again. I beat him once last year and once they year before that. I know how he is we've known each other for...yikes..15 years now. something like that.

My point is that for me I have to feel like I stand a chance and I work very hard to have a good showing and give him a good game. I don't cry about his army list I just suck it up. Sadly the two times I was going to table him..he surrendered.
Playing him helps me stay up on the game rules as well as the rules for my own army.

When I show up to my flgs generally I know for the most part everyone there is a pretty competitive player so I know to build pretty competitive lists. However even then just in case we have some new people show up I still bring enough models to run a more casual friendly list and just ask him what he is running. Depending on what he answers I will take out my competitive or fun list to try and have the most entertaining game possible.

2 times I think it is fine.

1. Tailoring for the mission, mainly for tournaments. You know the mission ahead of time and you are in it to win it.

2. Both players agree on tailoring. That is how I got into the game, we always knew what the other player was bringing. It ended up with some crazy meta tailoring where we would both try to cancel out each others tailor. He had orks, so I would bring heavy bolter spam, but he would surprise me with meganobz in the big super trukk or something. Eventually it stopped mattering. This was back before formations, superheavies and all sorts of crazy gak though.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
You shouldn't even know you are playing Tau.

This.

Of course when playing a friends army its harder to keep a impartial view since after a few losses you start going "well lets try this instead of that"

I remember one time i was playing my friends nid army and someone walked up and asked for a game at 1750 after we were done and i said sure. After i unpacked my tau he raged for a good 15 mins before he left because i wouldn't let him alter his list.


But yeah list tailoring = bad.
What i find odd is that it seems ( ATM of course ) that list tailoring is accepted ( according to the poll) , and tau being VERY good at list tailoring, I'm starting to see where a lot of the tau hate is coming from.

kambien wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
You shouldn't even know you are playing Tau.

This.

Of course when playing a friends army its harder to keep a impartial view since after a few losses you start going "well lets try this instead of that"

I remember one time i was playing my friends nid army and someone walked up and asked for a game at 1750 after we were done and i said sure. After i unpacked my tau he raged for a good 15 mins before he left because i wouldn't let him alter his list.


But yeah list tailoring = bad.
What i find odd is that it seems ( ATM of course ) that list tailoring is accepted ( according to the poll) , and tau being VERY good at list tailoring, I'm starting to see where a lot of the tau hate is coming from.

My hate for Tau isn't even their list tailoring, it's the "Oh, I shoot you off the board before you can go, JSJ everywhere, and have my nigh unkillable Riptide". But that's another story.

List tailoring is when your opponent tailors their list to defeat your list with you having the same opportunity. It is a way of being That Guy, causing feel bads and hurting the hobby. As such, I voted list tailoring is always bad.

If you have the same opportunity to tailor as your opponent, that's just a good game.

SJ

In a casual setting yes, always. Unless otherwise agreed to ahead of time.

If you CAN list tailor in a competitive setting, that's completely reasonable.

Everyone should use an all comers list.

 Ignatius wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
stuff

Thanks for posting that was a good read.

That said I disagree with pretty much the entire thing. I always bring TAC lists, in that I make a list, whether it's themed or more competitive and play with it regardless of who I end up facing. It's a list that I would be comfortable walking into any game store in the world and playing with, and I think that's the "right" way to go about it. List tailoring is unfair and to me makes the game unfun.

Your first two sentences forced a chuckle out of me.

I agree somewhat with you. I have a TAC list for pick up games. Against my mates, I use it as a base but still tailor it somewhat for my opponents, partly because they are fielding cheese armies (and I play Orks/Blood Angels).

Generally my group will tell each other what army they are using in advance for casual games so you can both tailor slightly. I mean if it were real your army would know who they were going to be fighting in advance, even if they don't know the exact composition of the force and would allocate the troops best suited to that situation to that battle. We don't take it to extremes though, we won't spam a unit just because it will absolutely destroy the enemy.

 Ignatius wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
stuff

Thanks for posting that was a good read.

That said I disagree with pretty much the entire thing. I always bring TAC lists, in that I make a list, whether it's themed or more competitive and play with it regardless of who I end up facing. It's a list that I would be comfortable walking into any game store in the world and playing with, and I think that's the "right" way to go about it. List tailoring is unfair and to me makes the game unfun.

By all means disagree! I have to say, I chuckled a bit as well at your first two sentences.but what you are doing is essentially writing a list and just playing it, come what may. You are comfortable doing this, and playing this anywhere and claim it's the 'right' way to go about things. You're not wrong. At all. The only thing I disagree with is the idea that it's 'the' right way. It's 'a' right way. There are plenty 'right' ways of playing wargames, along with plenty wrong ones, if you ask me. If your way works for you, then all power to you and long may it continue. I don't disagree with it at all (after all, it's basically a variation on how I play warmachine) but with my historicals and 40k, I just want a bit more of a 'hook' and a 'narrative' in a lot of my games than settle for a blind free-for-all.

I am not agreeing with 'list tailoring' as it's generally understood - to me, that implies building a list as a precise hard counter to whatever the other guy is bringing. It's not fun. I've had it done to me (there is a WMH player in my local city who list tailors, terrain tailors, rules lawyers, banana-charges and noobstalks.) and it's not fun.
Bear in mind, as far as I am concerned, there is nothing wrong with pugs. I play pugs. I enjoy pugs. they have a very viable niche. They're functional and pragmatic, and there is great value in just being able to get on with a game with a bare minimum of fuss. They also have limitations, which is why I refer to them as the lowest common denominator. They're 'gaming 101'. They can stifle creativity and they often skew the gsme in a particular direction, and skew players towards a particular mindset. Too much of this becomes unhealthy for the game-state and the players. The most striking limitation of pugs however is their need for a balanced game framework. Pugs work in warmachine/hordes for the reason thst it is a very balanced game, and steamroller does a lot to smooth out the edges (can't wait for mk3!). If you ask me, pugs don't work in 40k for that same reason - the sheer scale of imbalance in thst game is staggering, which is why I feel it is always better to cobble on a 'discussion' aspect to any game of 40k that gets played (even if it's just - I'm thinking of taking x, y, z. How do you feel about that?). I just take it a step further, I suppose because of some of the people I've been gsming with for the last few years - they're big into historical gsmes, and for them, the idea of themed/narrative scenarios rather than pugs and tournaments is just how it's done and a lot of it has rubbed off on me. It's great fun and it has opened my eyes to a whole new landscape of wargames and how to play wargames. But can be a lot more work. And it requires like minded players. So yes, this approach has its own set of limitations, before you start thinking I view it as some kind of holy grail!

If I play a long time regular opponent, how do I force myself to forget what units they own and field? No matter what if you play and learn with the same people you'll remember what they have, there is no way to force one's self to forget.

I prefer to only know what faction my opponent is going to bring. I feel it's fluffy for my units to gear up before the battle knowing what they are going to face. The only time they wouldn't know what they are facing is when responding to a distress signal or something.

Generally, I view tailoring as wrong unless both players agree to it. I have watched way too many veteran players look over an opponents army that uses every model the have to make 1850 points. And then pick 1850 points of ideal units from the best suited 3k army they have sitting on the shelf. (Until recently my local club had a great deal of shelving set aside for regular attendees armies at the club)

I am a fan of TAC myself, and don't have a problem with building to take on the more competitive builds you can expect at your local tourney. But tailoring to stomp someone who brought a bare bones TAC list or is a rookie is just sad. I've been playing in my neck of the woods since the eighties, have a lot of armies, and don't really care if I win. Though I usually do very well.

There is some enjoyment in playing up a specific army you own before a tournament just to grab a different random army before you actually go to the event. Showing up with a screamerstar and a horde of khorne puppies is fun when the entire tourney is expecting you to be playing the drop pod raven guard you have been playing at the club for a month.

Absolutely, no question. There are only minor exceptions such as "I am bringing flyers/superheavys", but other than that list tailoring is 100% TFG move.

I like full disclosure ahead of time and always expect my opponent to tailor somewhat towards me.

On the other hand, I always play very similar armies owing to the nature of my collections. I struggle to tailor because my options are so restricted - my TAC list is pretty well tailored itself simply because there is only one dross option for any given unit or slot in my codices.

As regards the wider world, I found this quite informative and interesting on the subject (though I don't strictly agree with much of it).

List tailoring as in "I know what units the other guy is bringing so I only take units that directly counter his units" is wrong to me, be it due to having acces to your opponents army list or knowing he has a very limited collection of models.

List tailoring as in "I am going to play CSM. I know the other guy is going to play Tau. In my experience, I have difficulties dealing with Broadsides and Riptides. I don't know whether he is going to bring any of those, but I am going to include this Cabal in my army because it worked well last time" is totally acceptable (as long as he knows I'm playing CSM).

It's all about a fair playing field. Now obviously this is still hardly fair if guy A has 10K points of CSM and player B has 2K points of Tau to make a 1.5K point list. However, that problem is mostly inherent to the game itself. I know very little people that buy 5K models for the sole purpose of not giving away what units they're going to bring next time.

DaPino wrote:
List tailoring as in "I know what units the other guy is bringing so I only take units that directly counter his units" is wrong to me, be it due to having acces to your opponents army list or knowing he has a very limited collection of models.

List tailoring as in "I am going to play CSM. I know the other guy is going to play Tau. In my experience, I have difficulties dealing with Broadsides and Riptides. I don't know whether he is going to bring any of those, but I am going to include this Cabal in my army because it worked well last time" is totally acceptable (as long as he knows I'm playing CSM).

It's all about a fair playing field. Now obviously this is still hardly fair if guy A has 10K points of CSM and player B has 2K points of Tau to make a 1.5K point list. However, that problem is mostly inherent to the game itself. I know very little people that buy 5K models for the sole purpose of not giving away what units they're going to bring next time.

You shouldn't know each other's army factions.

Why "shouldn't"? Because you say so? It's how I've done things for twenty years with no issues; "Fancy a game next week? I'll be using my Guard." "OK, I'll bring my Necrons", or whatever. Job done.

Apart from anything else, it just makes more narrative sense, most of the time.

Is it just 40k that you play in this state of blessed ignorance, or wargames in general? Malifaux and Infinity specifically tell you to do it otherwise - to the extent of determining the opposing factions, scenario and secret objectives before choosing your army.No reason why you can't play 40k like that if it takes your fancy.

As others have said, it's only a problem if only one player gets to make that decision.

Maybe I'm just too accustomed to not knowing. But it really helps hordes and the like. I can tell you that i don't want my opponent knowing they're playing ba because they can easily tailor it so i can never win.

List tailoring makes you a .... Not fun person to play with.

How to mak a army list.
1: can i counter hordes
2mass shooting
3 assault
4 magic
5 air

No pne ever asked me what I am bringing and I would never tell. I spend more time thinking about me and how to postion my units and get better in general then how to abuse my friends and abuse them for what they bought.

I once tried to explain list-tailoring to some PvPers on the WoW forums.

I described it as getting to choose your spec, glyphs, talents, and gear after seeing what your opponents are bringing, without giving them the chance to modify theirs.

The way WoW PvP and tournaments are set up specifically make doing that kind of thing impossible.