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 guess you can try to play those kinds of mind games. No, it's not naive, it's a matter of taste.

 IllumiNini wrote:
But if I were gaming somebody from my community, I do not think it's unreasonable for me to have these expectations and make these assumptions since that's how my community operates.

Apparently it isn't how your community operates, because the IG player didn't operate that way. I suspect what you actually have is various unwritten rules and habits, and instead of writing explicit rules for the group you just get annoyed when people don't play "the right way".

How is it unreasonable?

Because there is absolutely no legitimate reason to have that information in advance. The only thing it offers you is the ability to list tailor, and list tailoring is TFG behavior. And if you aren't list tailoring then why is it so important to know in advance what army your opponent is taking?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IllumiNini wrote:
I'm more likely to take Flamer Weapons and Blast Weapons against Orks than I am against Marines

And now we see the problem. You tailor your list to beat your opponent's choices, and you don't like the possibility that, after you tailor with all those flamers and blast weapons, the ork player says "surprise, I bought a knight army last week" and makes your list tailoring ineffective.

 Peregrine wrote:
There is no obligation to inform your opponents in advance. If you bring a legal army (which, presumably, the IG player did) that's all that matters. Perhaps instead of expecting to know in advance what you'll be facing you should build TAC lists that don't care.

Unfortunately, not all armies can bring TAC lists, or they are severely limited in what can be reasonably classified as TAC (Sisters for example are often considered to have exactly one list that can be reasonably called TAC).

I mean I don't disagree with the main thrust of your point. Just that it's still not a perfect situation and I think if you know someone doesn't usually bring hyper-competitive lists, letting them know what you're bringing is pretty polite.

 Peregrine wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
But if I were gaming somebody from my community, I do not think it's unreasonable for me to have these expectations and make these assumptions since that's how my community operates.

Apparently it isn't how your community operates, because the IG player didn't operate that way.

That's like saying a population of 10,000 people don't operate by the Law because one guy decided to be a murderer. That's not how it works.

My community as a whole operates as I have described. There will always be a relative few that act against the grain of the community.

 Peregrine wrote:
I suspect what you actually have is various unwritten rules and habits, and instead of writing explicit rules for the group you just get annoyed when people don't play "the right way".

You're right - I do get annoyed because in the context of my community and the unwritten rules that most of us abide by, not abiding by said unwritten rules get's on my nerve. Yet you say it as if I'm the bad guy, here. Why is that?

 Peregrine wrote:

How is it unreasonable?

Because there is absolutely no legitimate reason to have that information in advance. The only thing it offers you is the ability to list tailor, and list tailoring is TFG behavior. And if you aren't list tailoring then why is it so important to know in advance what army your opponent is taking?

First of all, you assume that I am List Tailoring, which is a falsehood. And I agree - List Tailoring is TFG behavior, but there's a difference between List Tailoring and my opponent bringing a SHV that I may not even be able to deal with at all (thus making the game a waste of my time if you ask me). I'm not saying that my opponent shouldn't bring a list that will really challenge my list and my abilities, but where do you draw the line with things like SHV's and relatively powerful units and formations?

And if it is commonly accepted and practiced within my community to tell your opposition which army or armies you will be using, why is it unreasonable to expect that when I am playing someone from my community?

 Peregrine wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
I'm more likely to take Flamer Weapons and Blast Weapons against Orks than I am against Marines

And now we see the problem. You tailor your list to beat your opponent's choices, and you don't like the possibility that, after you tailor with all those flamers and blast weapons, the ork player says "surprise, I bought a knight army last week" and makes your list tailoring ineffective.

Do you classify this as List Tailoring? Ok - Fair Call. I can see how you arrive at that and if you don't want to tell me your army because of this point, then I will respect it. But myself, my friends and my community don't consider this under the umbrella of List Tailoring since it is common practice to tell each other which army/armies we'll use.

 Melissia wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
There is no obligation to inform your opponents in advance. If you bring a legal army (which, presumably, the IG player did) that's all that matters. Perhaps instead of expecting to know in advance what you'll be facing you should build TAC lists that don't care.

Unfortunately, not all armies can bring TAC lists, or they are severely limited in what can be reasonably classified as TAC (Sisters for example are often considered to have exactly one list that can be reasonably called TAC).

I mean I don't disagree with the main thrust of your point. Just that it's still not a perfect situation and I think if you know someone doesn't usually bring hyper-competitive lists, letting them know what you're bringing is pretty polite.

I can get behind what you've said here

"but where do you draw the line with things like SHV's and relatively powerful units and formations? "

Most SHVs die just like regular units, they just take more shots.
Why is everyone so obsessed with SHV? They don't make games a waste of time except in very rare circumstances.

Yeah, GMCs give poison the middle finger, which is a big reason I've largely quit using sternguard. Why would I put in sternguard knowing that GMC can show up?

Martel732 wrote:
"but where do you draw the line with things like SHV's and relatively powerful units and formations? "

Most SHVs die just like regular units, they just take more shots.
Why is everyone so obsessed with SHV? They don't make games a waste of time except in very rare circumstances.

Yeah, GMCs give poison the middle finger, which is a big reason I've largely quit using sternguard. Why would I put in sternguard knowing that GMC can show up?

I use the SHV example because it's the easiest and most simple. I am very happy to admit that I am at least possibly wrong when it comes to my view on SHV's, but I do believe my underlying point remains valid.

I just don't quite get it. I think it's more important to be aware of the possible formations out there and prepare the best you can without knowing precisely what's coming.

 IllumiNini wrote:
Yet you say it as if I'm the bad guy, here. Why is that?

Because, instead of getting everyone to agree on explicit rules and making them official, you expect everyone to follow your unwritten rules for how you're supposed to play the game and get resentful if they don't. And this is especially bad when one of the things you're resentful about is that you don't get enough opportunity to list tailor.

First of all, you assume that I am List Tailoring, which is a falsehood.

First of all, you admitted to list tailoring: bringing more flamers and blast weapons against orks.

where do you draw the line with things like SHV's and relatively powerful units and formations?

Superheavies are not an issue. They're part of the game, many of them are mediocre at best, and if you can't deal with them it's your fault for making a bad list.

Overpowered units/formations are a balance issue, not a notification issue. Agreeing on a rough power level for the game is an entirely separate issue from having to know in advance which codex I'm using.

Martel732 wrote:
I think it's more important to be aware of the possible formations out there and prepare the best you can without knowing precisely what's coming.

And though my views encompass specific unit types (e.g. SHV), I do agree with you on this since Formations have the potential to bring a lot more power point-for-point than many (sets of) units of equivalent cost.

There's a handful of trouble formations out there. If you stick to your codex's best overall units, that should good enough assuming the codex gap isn't too big.

 Peregrine wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
Yet you say it as if I'm the bad guy, here. Why is that?

Because, instead of getting everyone to agree on explicit rules and making them official, you expect everyone to follow your unwritten rules for how you're supposed to play the game and get resentful if they don't. And this is especially bad when one of the things you're resentful about is that you don't get enough opportunity to list tailor.

You make the mistake of thinking that they are my rules as opposed to rules that the community agrees to. I'm not going up to my community and saying "You should follow these rules that I've laid out." We all agree on and follow a set of unwritten rules and as such are the community's rules, not my rules.

 Peregrine wrote:

First of all, you assume that I am List Tailoring, which is a falsehood.

First of all, you admitted to list tailoring: bringing more flamers and blast weapons against orks.

And as I said - Myself and my community does not consider this to be List Tailoring. If you do, I understand and respect that.

 Peregrine wrote:

where do you draw the line with things like SHV's and relatively powerful units and formations?

Superheavies are not an issue. They're part of the game, many of them are mediocre at best, and if you can't deal with them it's your fault for making a bad list.

Overpowered units/formations are a balance issue, not a notification issue. Agreeing on a rough power level for the game is an entirely separate issue from having to know in advance which codex I'm using.

I can get behind this assessment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
There's a handful of trouble formations out there. If you stick to your codex's best overall units, that should good enough assuming the codex gap isn't too big.

Sounds about right

 IllumiNini wrote:
We all agree on and to follow a set of unwritten rules.

Apparently you haven't, because the IG player didn't follow them. And anyway, why are you so reluctant to write out the rules explicitly instead of having unwritten rules that you get upset about? If these rules are so important then they should be official and explicit.

And as I said - Myself and my community does not consider this to be List Tailoring.

If "changing my upgrades to be more effective against the army I think you're playing" isn't list tailoring then what is?

"Myself and my community does not consider this to be List Tailoring"

I don't want you switching out flamers for plasma against my BA. Not cool.

Also, knowing that I'm BA means you don't have to prepare for a marine battle company for example. I want my opponents guessing just like I am. Maybe I'll bring an IK. Maybe I won't. But what list can't stop AV 13/12? So I don't see any reason to tell you.

 Peregrine wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
We all agree on and to follow a set of unwritten rules.

Apparently you haven't, because the IG player didn't follow them.

As with my murderer example earlier, one person not following the rules does not invalidate the rules nor does it invalidate the fact that most people follow them.

 Peregrine wrote:
And anyway, why are you so reluctant to write out the rules explicitly instead of having unwritten rules that you get upset about? If these rules are so important then they should be official and explicit.

I've been tempted to write them out in the past, but the occasions where I've needed them to be written out have been relatively so few and far between that it's easier not to, especially since most people I play with in my community know and follow them anyway.

 Peregrine wrote:

And as I said - Myself and my community does not consider this to be List Tailoring.

If "changing my upgrades to be more effective against the army I think you're playing" isn't list tailoring then what is?

I see what you're trying to say and I understand that more pople than not would consider it List Tailoring. The simple fact of the matter is that within my community, it is not considered List Tailoring because telling each other our army/armies is common practice.

Now, if I were to play you, for example, then I would be happy not to exchange which army/armies we're using given your view on this particular point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
"Myself and my community does not consider this to be List Tailoring"

I don't want you switching out flamers for plasma against my BA. Not cool.

Also, knowing that I'm BA means you don't have to prepare for a marine battle company for example. I want my opponents guessing just like I am. Maybe I'll bring an IK. Maybe I won't. But what list can't stop AV 13/12? So I don't see any reason to tell you.

I see what you mean, and if that's how you and your community play, that's fair. All I'm trying to say is that my gaming community doesn't operate the same way.

I don't think you're as representative of your community as you think you are. I mean nothing personal, but we have a disagreement about two people and your assertion of community values. Well, do they care about it? Or do they only care about it with you?

Tell people your rules. You are always in the wrong if you don't. This guy doesn't even know you hae a problem with it. Maybe try paring down the unwritten rules before you start putting newbies on doubke secret probation. Dont scare away too many newcomers.

To extend the murder analogy, you at least tell people murder is wrong first. Not that this is murder by any stretch. This is more like loitering, or jaywalking.

You still haven't answered Peregrine's legitimate question on what you actually think List Tailoring is.

How do YOU define List Tailoring? How does it differ, in nature or quantity, from what you admit you do (exchanging weapon choices you would otherwise take in a TAC list for weapons that particularly effective against particular types of enemies)?

Edit: Seriously, List Tailoring (within your community, if your unwritten rules were actually universal instead of being merely the majority due to the IG player clearly not subscribing to them) is not a dirty word if the norm is knowing the enemy's lists beforehand. Frankly, its expected and practically inevitable, barring particular circumstances like Tournament Preparation where you're testing a pre-designed TAC list against expected opponents to test out its actual TAC quality. But you can't have your cake (knowing the enemy army beforehand and using that knowledge to design lists specifically to deal with THAT enemy army) and eat it too (not perform the act of List Tailoring).

It seems they find tailoring vs a codex acceptable. Presumably, presumably tailor vs a list is still verboten.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
How do YOU define List Tailoring? How does it differ, in nature or quantity, from what you admit you do (exchanging weapon choices you would otherwise take in a TAC list for weapons that particularly effective against particular types of enemies)?

Well List Tailoring to me is knowing exactly what my opponent's list contains (or any part of their list) and tailoring my list to specifically counter that. Take the ever-present example in this thread of the SHV's. If I don't know for sure that my opponent is taking a SHV, then preparing for the possibility is not something I consider List Tailoring. But if I know for sure that they are bringing a SHV, or a Flyer, or something else specific and specifically build my list based around being able to counter my opponent's list choice (e.g. Lots of MM Devastators for the SHV or lots of AA for the Flyrers), then that to me is List Tailoring.

As it seems Martel has caught on to, myself and my community don't see 'Tailoring to a Codex' as List Tailoring or TFG Behavior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 slip wrote:
I don't think you're as representative of your community as you think you are.

I am very well aware. I'm just trying to talk from my perspective of my community.

I own many, many BA models. I can show up with a Dante descent of angels list or 14 tanks in a LATF. This would affect me a lot less than other lists. And soon I'll have the 15 assault terminators assaulting turn one list as well.

In what universe is tailoring your list based on the army you're facing an okay thing?

 kingbobbito wrote:
In what universe is tailoring your list based on the army you're facing an okay thing?

Well I can't say I agree with your assessment, but I'd be happy to at least hear why you think this is the case.

 kingbobbito wrote:
In what universe is tailoring your list based on the army you're facing an okay thing?

This universe, when playing with a tight-knit community. Way back in late 4th/early 5th edition, I played with a group that would plan our battles in advance much like the OP here - it wasn't written down, but it was certainly explicit. We almost always did 2 players a side, and so tailoring against one army might lead to inefficiency against the other. We did call what we did List Tailoring, though. To suggest otherwise would have seemed self-delusional to us.

I can't say I agree with the OP's definition of List Tailoring (or more specifically, his definition's exclusion of tailoring a list to fight particular codexes), as it seems like OP just doesn't want to be associated with a "dirty word" description. That said, OP is free to define List Tailoring however he likes, so long as he understands how deceptive and weasel-y that sort of definition seems for those of us outside his community of players.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
I can't say I agree with the OP's definition of List Tailoring (or more specifically, his definition's exclusion of tailoring a list to fight particular codexes), as it seems like OP just doesn't want to be associated with a "dirty word" description. That said, OP is free to define List Tailoring however he likes, so long as he understands how deceptive and weasel-y that sort of definition seems for those of us outside his community of players.

I'm not scared of the label. I just have a different definition of List Tailoring to many people here. If you want to label me a List Tailor-er, that's fine by me as long as you don't mean it maliciously.

It seems like you might be. TFG in the group.

In my 12 years of playing I faced a lot of types, the ones who always copy paste internet lists cause the super op and have no idea how to run them.
The guy who brings random crap for fun
The guy who plays his favorite stuff
The guy who thinks if he was out played it was because he was cheated ( I think your here)
The guys who are close nit group and always try to out due each other.

Here is the thing if you start demanding people tell you what they will bring and what they are allowed to use it will bring hate and kill a group.


If they lose, they will know you tailored a list which is what your trying to do because you want to make sure you have the best chance to win with the least ammount of work.

Also they spent a small fortune on a model they love and some guy decided they don't like it so tough.

If it is legal deal with it if you lose learn what they do and be ready. Don't expect hand holding.

Also I believe you are being marked as a list tailor and self banner of things that he loses to. So I am pretty sure you are being labeled as a cheat. Call it mean if you like but it is cheating.


Two for,s of list tailoring

1: you play a guy a lot and know he loves say dreadnoughts so you counter it laugh it off al good friends who play each other a lot and enter a arms race trying to out think each other. He knows that I bring dreads so don't bring any muahaha
2: demanding to know what they bring so you can set up a list ( bad blood all around)

 IllumiNini wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
I can't say I agree with the OP's definition of List Tailoring (or more specifically, his definition's exclusion of tailoring a list to fight particular codexes), as it seems like OP just doesn't want to be associated with a "dirty word" description. That said, OP is free to define List Tailoring however he likes, so long as he understands how deceptive and weasel-y that sort of definition seems for those of us outside his community of players.

I'm not scared of the label. I just have a different definition of List Tailoring to many people here. If you want to label me a List Tailor-er, that's fine by me as long as you don't mean it maliciously.

And I don't! I used to be a List Tailor-er myself, as I posted. I don't necessarily think you're TFG for approaching the game as you choose, nor for having a definition different from my own.

This whole thread reminds me of the inevitable backlash when someone uses a more limited/specific definition for racism when addressing a crowd that understands the term in a much more broad/colloquial way - the issue is less that a different definition is used per se, but rather that using a more limited definition without providing the context of its use results in the appearance of hypocritical behavior.

OgreChubbs wrote:
It seems like you might be. TFG in the group.

...

The guy who thinks if he was out played it was because he was cheated ( I think your here)

Where have I ever said that? What has given you this impression?

Here's what I'm trying to get at with this thread:

When I play games, it is a universal practice with all of my friends who I play with as well as many of the acquaintances I've made at my FLGS's that we always tell each other - in a broad sense - what to expect. So as per my original post, I would always make sure that my opponent knows what documents that I may be drawing from and in turn they always extend me the same courtesy. And as per my original post, I want to know what everyone else's stance on this is. You don't agree with how me and my friends generally do things? That's fine. That doesn't make me a TFG.

OgreChubbs wrote:
Here is the thing if you start demanding people tell you what they will bring and what they are allowed to use it will bring hate and kill a group.

Again, I'm not demanding. I'm simply stating that this is what me and my friends do. If someone came up to me, ask for a game, and wanted to only share the points limit with me, I would discuss it with them and come to an agreement (I'd almost certainly play them).

OgreChubbs wrote:
If they lose, they will know you tailored a list which is what your trying to do because you want to make sure you have the best chance to win with the least ammount of work.

Again: The distinction between Codex Tailoring and List Tailoring is very clear when it comes to the people I play with, not to mention the fact that Codex Tailoring doesn't have a profound effect on the amount of work I have to put in to create a good list.

OgreChubbs wrote:
If it is legal deal with it if you lose learn what they do and be ready. Don't expect hand holding.

I'm not expecting hand holding. I'm simply asking how far do you think the concept of information sharing should go?

OgreChubbs wrote:
Also I believe you are being marked as a list tailor and self banner of things that he loses to. So I am pretty sure you are being labeled as a cheat. Call it mean if you like but it is cheating.

It's not cheating, though. Whenever I play with this understanding with regards to documents, all players agree on it and all players have the same "Advantage" since they can all Codex Tailor against their opponents. It is also not against the rules of the game to share said information. You don't want to share this, that's fine and that's your choice and if your opponent shares this view, all good for you. This is just the way the my friends and I do it. We're not cheating.

OgreChubbs wrote:
2: demanding to know what they bring so you can set up a list ( bad blood all around)

I'm not demanding anything let alone what their list is. That's not what's going on at all.

 IllumiNini wrote:

 kingbobbito wrote:
In what universe is tailoring your list based on the army you're facing an okay thing?

Well I can't say I agree with your assessment, but I'd be happy to at least hear why you think this is the case.

40k is a game of toy soldiers. You shouldn't be trying to get cheap advantages over an opponent by changing your lists every time you face someone different. It discourages intelligent list building, as well as intelligent play. You should be trying to come up with lists that can handle any other list, and even if you are at a list disadvantage you should try to overcome it, not cry about it and pick a different list. Some people only have enough stuff for an army to run a certain type of list, and as such can't tailor against you. Some armies simply can't tailor, because there aren't options in their codex that are specifically better against your list. In general, tailoring, even if it is just against a codex and not a specific list, is just an unfair advantage most of the time and is always used by people that will do anything to win. It takes zero skill, essentially a free advantage against the person you're fighting.

Think of it this way: you have a baseball team, and you're playing the team down the street in a friendly game of baseball that is in no way a competition. You can go into the game blind, or you can open up you "team down the street codex" and read that the weakness of the team is that for some reason they all have trouble hitting curveballs. Do you play a normal game, mixing up your pitches, or do you tell your pitcher that you want them to use nothing but curveballs? Sure, you're more likely to win, but in a friendly game where people are just looking to have fun is it honestly okay to exploit it?

When I have a game, I give my opponent points, if we're using superheavies, and how competitive. Say, for example, 1850, no superheavies, fairly casual. If you know exactly those things, you now have enough information to build a list. If they specifically request "hey, can I play your guard, I love playing against them" I'll oblige, but I do make sure they're not spamming flamers and melta before the game starts. Alternately if we're doing something narrative we'll tell each other the army, but we'll then work together to build our lists and okay it as we go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IllumiNini wrote:
Again: The distinction between Codex Tailoring and List Tailoring is very clear when it comes to the people I play with, not to mention the fact that Codex Tailoring doesn't have a profound effect on the amount of work I have to put in to create a good list.

I do have to disagree with this little bit. Just thinking of my choices, which russ I use would defnitely change if I wanted to tailor. If I'm trying to build a balanced list I need to plan around everything else in my list, but if I'm against nids I'll double punisher, if I'm against eldar I'd bring an eradicator, against marines a battle tank, etc. because they're just the outright better choice against those armies.

I'm just going to chime in with the whole SHV thing - I kind of agree with the OP.

If it was just a friendly game of 2v2, then not telling them he would be taking a SHV is a bit naughty, but not the end of it. If he can take it, then he can, but I personally would say I'm taking one, out of politeness. I'm more concerned that he was doing summoning, even when you and the other two weren't, due to a group rule. That seems a bit "iffy" to me, and could lead to more.

Also, people need to really get off their high horse. Him admiring he would take more blast/flamer weapons if he was against Orks is what ANY SENSIBLE PLAYER WOULD DO. If all the info he has was SM Vs Orks, then he runs the gamble if taking too many of weapon x when the Orks take units that make weapon x not as effective. As long as he doesn't know what his opponent is taking, and literally countering everything, I can't see nothing wrong with this.

@kingobbito: Fair enough. I guess that me and my group are so used to doing it the way that we do it that we've got used to operating that way, not to mention that because we know each other's armies, we can both Codex Tailor. I have a scenario for you, though. Consider this:

The IG player I've been talking about also has Genestealer Cult, Tyranids, Imperial Agents, Deathwatch, a small Vanilla Space Marine force, and Chaos Daemons (yes, he has a lot of armies and yes, he buys it all for cheap on the internet haha). Now let's go with the system that most of the comment-ers here seem to use which is that this particular player doesn't have to tell their opposition which of these army/armies he will be using in a particular game. Now consider he was playing one of my other friends who only collects and has access to Dark Angels, so immediately my Dark Angel friend is at a disadvantage because his opponent knows which army he is taking but he doesn't know what he's up against.

In this situation, what would you do?

 Freddy Kruger wrote:
I'm just going to chime in with the whole SHV thing - I kind of agree with the OP.

If it was just a friendly game of 2v2, then not telling them he would be taking a SHV is a bit naughty, but not the end of it. If he can take it, then he can, but I personally would say I'm taking one, out of politeness. I'm more concerned that he was doing summoning, even when you and the other two weren't, due to a group rule. That seems a bit "iffy" to me, and could lead to more.

Also, people need to really get off their high horse. Him admiring he would take more blast/flamer weapons if he was against Orks is what ANY SENSIBLE PLAYER WOULD DO. If all the info he has was SM Vs Orks, then he runs the gamble if taking too many of weapon x when the Orks take units that make weapon x not as effective. As long as he doesn't know what his opponent is taking, and literally countering everything, I can't see nothing wrong with this.

Thankyou!

In friendly games ill let the other guy know what im bringing only if its something big like a knight or magnus. it would be horrible for him to play with a green tide or just bolter marines for example against stuff like that.