Why Is List-Tailoring A Bad Thing?

[ElectricPaladin]

I'm putting this in the 40k general forum, but only because this forum gets the most attention. Really, this could go anywhere.

So, it seems to me that list tailoring is widely considered to be one of the worst things you can do, basically a kind of cheating. You should bring the list you bring - tailored to the local meta, but that's apparently ok - and take your wins and losses.

What galls me is that this is actually pretty unrealistic. No real-life military is made of "take-all-comers" lists. Militaries have specialists that are sent into various circumstances with the best equipment, the best intelligence, and the best troops for the job. I understand that the 41st Millenia is supposed to be such a hopelessly huge place that "take-all-comers" warbands do wander around, looking for trouble, but if you look at the 40k fiction there's still a fair amount of "list tailoring" going on. When Dante of the Blood Angels sends a Librarian and his entourage to attempt to blunt a tendril of the Hive Fleet, they bring along the best Marines for the job.

Are there any games out there that make gathering intelligence and building the best list you can "on the fly" part of play? Or are there any variants of 40k that allow for some degree of list tailoring to reflect this reality?

[wittdooley]

Are there any games out there that make gathering intelligence and building the best list you can "on the fly" part of play? Or are there any variants of 40k that allow for some degree of list tailoring to reflect this reality?

You sorta do this with Warmahordes Steamroller events. You bring two lists because, quite frankly, you could play a list that you simply can't beat with yours. I don't play enough to know how they determine how to set the lists so that the two players don't continually waffle back and forth.

I think the problem with doing something similiar in 40k would simply be the amount of models. It really isn't as condusive as a smaller skirmish game is.

With that being said, what if there were tournaments where you bring your normal army list and then are allowed a 200-300 point "specialist" slot, outside of the normal FOC, that allowed you to add that additional unit to cater to whatever you're playing against? It adds enough of a wrinkle that I think it could be sorta fun, but would seemingly eliminate the "waffle" effect in that your specialist unit wouldn't be there to counteract their specialist unit, but more their entire army.

Say I play a Parking Lot Guard opponent and I'm playing DoA Blood Angels with not a ton of melta. Well shoot, my specialists are a super melta squad to deal with the armour.

I dunno, just a thought.

[SotonShades]

It depends on what you define as list tailoring. At my gaming club, many of the guys use the same list week in, week out. others will bring agree which armies they are going to use the week before, and write their army list based on what they think the other guy might bring from the army they agreed on. Both approaches are fine, especially if both players have agreed to it before hand, and I think it's the kind of tailoring you are getting at in your post, ElectricPaladin.

There's the other kind though. Say you turn up to a GW store (or any FLGS for that matter) with your list because they are all the models you own (because you collected to a 1500 point list to not waste any money). You agree to a game with an opponant, start getting your models out and then he dissappears with a codex and paper in hand and brings back an army specifically designed to destroy the army you put out, nothing else. Hell, against most other lists it would crumble, but for some reason it is your force's achilles heal.

Personnally I'd feel I got a bum deal there.

A good example at my FLGS recently was this little obnoxious kid. Competant player, but a bit of a... well I fear to use the word in polite conversation so I shall say brat. He asked if he could come along to Vets Night, despite being only 14, and because he was quite compatent he was allowed. He got his *** handed to him a couple of times against guys with various flavours of SM, so tailored his list as anti-MEQ force and had been braggin about it as such for the week leading up to the next Vets night. Needless to say, no one turned up with a MEQ force and he lost. Ironically, if he'd kept his normal list, he would have probably done reasonably well against the ork horde he ended up facing.

[Ork E Nuff]

Yes, list tailoring is a bad thing. I spent years in the military, and although you've got military intelligence working for you, you are never quite sure of what your force is going to meet until you meet it. All training center OpFor units are developed to defeat you, period. Your job is to take the resources you have and use them to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

The same is true of 40k, or should be. You may have an idea of what you are up against, but it's impossible to plan for every scenario and come out on top. You can develop your lists to a generalized threat, i.e. dark eldar raiders, or necrons; but having said that, it's impossible to meet all the varieties of OpFor your opponent may have without tailoring your lists right before turn 1.

If you're not comfortable with your list's abilities to survive the initial contact with your opponent, then re-tool it and play something else. If you insist on list-tailoring, don't be surprised if your opponent decides to do the same and don't be shocked if you're beaten.

I'm not going to go as far to say that list-tailoring is cheating or beardy or chessy, I'll just say that in my opinion, it reflects poorly on the individual playing. The uber character/unit/force concept often found in my experiences with "list-tailoring" has really fallen to the wayside in favor of a more balanced approach to gaming. If you're playing to a mission specific objective, great; tailor away. But if you're just play a pick up game at the local shops, leave it at home.

[DarkLink]

Military comparisons are misleading here. This is a game, in which two players on roughly equal footing try and face each other. In war, the exact opposite is true. You have two foes doing everything in their power to undermine each other and squeeze out every unfair advantage and turn it into a victory.


Some armies can creates lists that are extremely difficult match-ups for other armies. If I got a glance at any DE list beforehand and got to tweak my list (I play Grey Knights), I would bet money on my victory. Even just taking balanced lists I already slaughter DE, if I were to tweak my list to, say, include more Psyrifle Dreads then it would be essentially an auto-win for me.

On the other hand, if I have little knowledge of my opponent beforehand I'm forced to take a more balanced list, which prevents some of those bad matchups.

[ElectricPaladin]

Ok, I'm increasingly convinced that any kind of list-tailoring in 40k as it exists is, in fact, bad and unfair. The three main points - that it would unfairly favor certain armies over other, that it would favor players with larger collections, and that it wouldn't make sense for you to be able to alter your list after seeing everything your opponent is bringing to the table - all make sense to me.

However, do you think there would be a way to write a scenario or a game-changing-supplement-thing (think Spearhead or Cities of Death) that would allow dynamic list-building? Maybe something where there's some kind of roll for "intelligence gathering" before the game starts? Or something like the "bidding for first turn" system we saw in the 6th Ed "leak" (:confused:) that lets you give up certain advantages in return for information about your opponent's list and the privilege to alter your list in response.

Things like:
* For every unit I swap, you get to redeploy one unit before Turn 1.
* For every unit I swap, you get to move one piece of terrain before deployment, but after we have switched sides.
* For every unit I swap, you get to apply one new USR to one of your units.
* For every unit I swap, you get to use one Planestrike or Cities of Death strategem worth X points.

Or something.

[Thornblood]

This is one reason why, for competitive but friendly play amongst friends I flip between my marine and ork armies- so they have to prepare for both eventualities.

However, I tend to win with my marines and loose with my orks, so maybe that strategy dosn't work so well in practice.

[Harmonious Borealis]

Well, I think something like wittdooley said could be plausible in a game like 40k with such a huge model-load. Specialist slot, where it could either be filled in with one of a couple of options you bring just before the game starts, or perhaps a system similar to how the sideboard works in Magic: the Gathering. A certain amount of points extra is brought, part or all of which can be subbed in by taking something of roughly equal value out.

Might be worth playtesting a system, for those with the spare time. If something unofficial were to become popular enough, maybe it could eventually become officially supported.

[Sure]

Depends on the situation:
Like someone already stated, if you are going into a "casual" (non-competitive) game and you tailor your list to demolish someone else then you you better have a good reason (he's a jerk, he did just that to you the week before, he asked for it b/c he wants to see what he should do in the worst-case scenario, etc.). Without a good reason, you're a repository for used feminine hygiene product.

Do it for a tournament: Good Luck! Sure, if you come to beat lots of grey knight strike squads in razorbacks supported by Psyflemen Dreads (it really isn't a great list, but idiots can still do well with it because it's so simple and big-red button) you may have a good day. But what if you get an odd draw and never see that list on the other side of the table despite the fact that half the participating players are using that mold? You came to destroy 3 Psyfleman and a bunch of razorbacks each with 5 dudes in them but you wind up facing against an Orc Horde, Tyrannids and then the Tau Player (where you win, but he gets a new set of dice...a common prize for he who finishes last at the local FLGS).

List taioring in a friendly game usually isn't friendly, and in competitive situations it usually isn't very effective. Hence the general aversion to the practice.

as for the war analogy - this is a dice game, not an actual conflict. Grow up and be content to play with your toys without the machismo (I think that the earnestness of this last statement makes it humorous).

[ElectricPaladin]

as for the war analogy - this is a dice game, not an actual conflict. Grow up and be content to play with your toys without the machismo (I think that the earnestness of this last statement makes it humorous).

I'll take your word for it :rolleyes:.

Anyways, I'm kind of interested in the idea of designing a system that would allow for some dynamism in list building. Has anyone else got any ideas about how to go about doing it? I definitely think that Keeping It Simple (Stupid) would be important. So, no swapping out wargear willy nilly. Something more compact, like a system where for a 1.5k game, you come to the table with a 1k base list and 1k in "specialist units" that cost between 100 and 500 points. Now, we need a system for deciding how and in what order you get to read the other guy's list and slot in those specialists...

[GrogDaTyrant]

When it comes to 40k, it's because 40k is very unintuitive system, and many armies cannot list-tailor to the same degree as others. Specialist armies (like Eldar), or armies full of weapon options and counters (like IG or Marines), can list-tailor to a far greater degree than other armies who are more limited in their selection process. The end result is even if you put it out on the table that this is a 'list-tailoring' game where you bring the armies designed to mercilessly crush each other, certain armies still come out ahead... There's also the fact that list tailoring ability of some armies have no bearing whatsoever on the opponent, but rather relies entirely on hoping the opponent didn't plan on their specific build-type (i.e. Orks).

In other game systems, list-tailoring isn't as much of an issue because the different factions are on a much more equal standing with one another. Or the game itself is built more heavily around combined-arms and overall strategy. But in 40k, neither of those are the case. The fact of the matter is if you list-tailor in 40k, then the game is bound to be completely unenjoyable for someone.

[Grenadier]

I have little choice but to tailor my lists. My only battles are always against Dark Dummy marines or Chaos. Consequently my Templars or Guard have been optimized to fight them. This means if I ever got to face off against the other armies I may find my armies are not up to snuff. Each army has an unique way to beat it in my opinion. There is no one size fits all army that is capable of consistently beating every other army. To a a degree you should list tailor though.

Even though I fight the same two armies over and over and over they're not always the same composition. And so it is necessary to adjust my list accordingly.

[LordGrise]

I play Tau. I come to the table with a set of army options - I think of them as modules - that I put together to get a list to a specified point cost. For example, my default Devilfish is two hundred points, and has two seekers and six Fire Warriors. Fire Warriors are ten points apiece, so increments from there are easy. I can drop in a throwaway set of gundrones that are deepstrike-able for ninety six points - call it a hundred. My standard HQ is three-twenty six, IIRC. I have Crisis teams pre-made. You get the idea. I don't consider this to be list-tailoring, because this is shooting for a point cost, not your army.

Now, if I see Orks, those drones are likely to be called on, whereas if I'm playing SMs, it's more likely to be plasma rifles and fusion blasters. Blood Angels get special whompem: three full units of Broadsides, because the only way I've found to grind down that never-to-be-sufficiently-accursed supercompany they can field is to doublestuff them with railguns; anything else is a waste of time. Exact opposite for Necrons with scarab swarms: I need big blast templates, and lots of them, right now, which means three Hammerheads and me wishing every time that I could field a command Hammerhead as my HQ. Maybe in the new codex...

If that is list-tailoring, then I'm guilty. But one does get tired of having one's ENTIRE force tabled by basically one unit.

Now. There is a guy I know, who has the entire game memorized. Literally. He owns every codex, and knows them all. When he comes to play he literally brings a pair of footlockers. He is perfectly capable of glancing at what you've got on the table, and putting a list together, in his head, on the fly, and it will be right on the money every time. He is utterly, utterly scrupulous about the rules, and has been known to cite rules to players in games he is watching if he sees something he considers cheating. But when he plays, he is absolutely merciless, knows every trick, and - because he loads up specifically for you every time - he is no fun to play at all. And truthfully, I don't think he enjoys 40K a lot any more. That's the logical end point for list-tailoring. It's a place reserved for the WAAC (win at all costs) guys who have no lives. It kills the fun.

[kingsfan2099]

I remember the first time someone tailored their list against me. I put my models on the table along with my list. He looks at my list and then grabs his codex and his buddy then proceed to make his list not just on his own but asking his friends advice while thinking he's being all quiet and slick about it while I know exactly whats going on. This was when I had just started playing and this guy was a veteran and in no way needed the advantage of tailoring to beat me. I started out fine but his tailoring took hold and he tabled me on turn 5. Hope he enjoyed dominating a noob and if you feel the need to win that badly by all mean tailor away.

[Denzark]

In a scenario based game, a focussed list would be appropriate. Siege troops need to be able to get in etc.

But otherwise, I find I like the unfocussed approach. GW ToS tournament lets you take 1 list. You have to be ready for anything. You never know what you are going to face out there. A bit like real life for those trying to bring in military analogies - sure you take what you need, soemtimes the enemy has tanks you didn't know about.

Where is the joy and the thrill of advancing to contact, especially from the 'sideboard' approach?

Just seems like a crutch for weaker players.

List building is part of the competition, and there is enough cookie cutters on the internet that noobs don't have to be disadvantaged taking on a list designed by a 20 years player.

[Wolfshade]

When you choose your list to suit your opponents known army is one thing (one bad, possibly cheaty thing) the other is known that your opponent usually fields X and tailoring your list to combat that kinda makes sense and I don't have a problem with. Sometimes it works, other times it doesn't since your opponent does the same thing. With my gaming group we usually tell each other which army we will be playing generically, the one chap though plays 'nids and he plays three distinct lists (with numerious variations on the theme) so you can't go ah well he will field this list with this army so you have to be prepared to taken on anything within that list.
A lot depends on the game situation, a friend of mine has recently got started in 40k again and I know that he only has 1 tank so instead of taking my usual list at the time which was mech heavy, I replaced it with infantry heavy to make a more balanced match. That kind of list tweaking for a more even match up in that situation I think is a good thing.

[Denzark]

When you choose your list to suit your opponents known army is one thing (one bad, possibly cheaty thing) the other is known that your opponent usually fields X and tailoring your list to combat that kinda makes sense and I don't have a problem with. Sometimes it works, other times it doesn't since your opponent does the same thing. With my gaming group we usually tell each other which army we will be playing generically, the one chap though plays 'nids and he plays three distinct lists (with numerious variations on the theme) so you can't go ah well he will field this list with this army so you have to be prepared to taken on anything within that list.
A lot depends on the game situation, a friend of mine has recently got started in 40k again and I know that he only has 1 tank so instead of taking my usual list at the time which was mech heavy, I replaced it with infantry heavy to make a more balanced match. That kind of list tweaking for a more even match up in that situation I think is a good thing.

That is a sporting thing to do sir.

Also there is the flipside - where my usual opponent's Grey Knights have spanked my Chaos all over the table for the previous 6 games and the 7th I bring an all armour Guard list and grind his 100% infantry beneath my tracks. That is very fair...

[=Angel=]

That is a sporting thing to do sir.

Also there is the flipside - where my usual opponent's Grey Knights have spanked my Chaos all over the table for the previous 6 games and the 7th I bring an all armour Guard list and grind his 100% infantry beneath my tracks. That is very fair...

And do you need to tell your regular opponents that you'll be bringing a different army?
With my buddies it was always a case of "what army are you bringing" style list tailoring.
We both knew what we were up against roughly, so we'd dish out the flamers for guard and the plasmaguns for marines etc.

I used to have this mental image while writing my list of the Captain walking into the hall of weapons and choosing his X points of wargear from relic swords and guns on display.
Likewise the squads on the strike cruiser were being shown images of the foe, running through previous engagements, likely tactics and then the quartermasters would issue the sergeants with the required tactical weaponry.
Finally the master of the forge would release requested vehicles from the motor pool with the omnissiahs blessing.

Something similar for guard but with more inspirational speeches and sweating profusely/ gritting of teeth.

[pathwinder14]

...You may have an idea of what you are up against, but it's impossible to plan for every scenario and come out on top...
You nailed it in this one sentence. :)

List tailoring = bad because of uncertainty of actual opponent list. Create a balanced list that equally deals with shooting and assault, horde and elite.

[Kawauso]

I see no problem with list tailoring to the extent of:
"Want to play a game?"
"Sure, what army will you be using?"
"My Space Marines. You?"
"Cool, I'll be using my Tyranids."
And then both players plan accordingly.

I mean, we're talking friendly games here; I don't give a crap about competitive play.

List tailoring like that makes sense and allows you to build in some strengths for your army that play to potential weaknesses of your opponent - flamers to deal with hordes, for example - without knowing exactly what you're up against and building a list to steamroll someone.

I think tailoring to that extent is fine and honestly it's what I'd prefer. Sometimes there are unit choices that would otherwise never see the light of day in a codex if you're always building balanced lists (i.e. I really love Lander Speeder Storms delivering scout 'assault' squads, but they're pretty ineffective/terrible against MEQ armies), so knowing what codex your opponent will be using and building a list that you think will handle that match-up well can enable some more interesting (and fun!) builds.

Watching your opponent put models out on the table and then writing a list up to counter their list -specifically- before the game smacks of a crappy WAAC attitude, and that's the sort of behaviour I think anyone would find problematic.

[Kveldulf]

Personally I build an all comers list and use that, and tend toward an all comers list even when I know what army I am going to be facing. In a tourney you basically have to use an all comers, as you can never be truely sure what armies and makeups you are going to be seeing, and if you do't try familiarize yourself with playing a balanced force you won't be ready to put it into action on the day, or at least not as efficintly as you could with some practice.
I've seen, and played against, many 'tailored' lists. Honestly as a rare occurance it can be fun, but if it is something that you face every time you put your models on the table then it might well be time for a break.

[the jeske]

List tailoring like that makes sense and allows you to build in some strengths for your army that play to potential weaknesses of your opponent - flamers to deal with hordes, for example - without knowing exactly what you're up against and building a list to steamroll someone
and suddenly the sm list is 4 hvy bolter razorbacks 3x3 hvy bolter attack bikes[or if more points are playe hvy bolter flamer land speeders] and 3 whirlwinds . he has 2 iron fathers with guns each. nid players goes 0_0.

tailoring sucks , because A it buffs the armies which are already good , because those armies will probably have more then one build and more then a single option per each slot . And before you say "hey but this gives a surpirse edge to those weaker armies because no one expects the nid player to be using 3 pyrovores" , remember that most people do not buy each model possible for every army timesx3-9 , they buy what works and what is good. while the meq player maybe sitting on hvy bolter attack bikes[takes only 9 sec to switch the magnetized weapons] , the nid player is not going to have 9 carnifex [because they suck].

tailoring also sucks for all those people with fluff armies . So your playing sob ? t3 .. ok let me stack up those+2 wounding hvy bolter I would have never used in normal games . Or so you happen to play chaos WE army . only zerkers . so after killing your rhinos your unable to get in to hth with me if I can move 12" or more per turn .


tailoring also takes some of the internal balance of dex . IG armies are not dominating every points range just because they no longer have the old mystics , but because while shoty and spamy they dont kill both horde and meq and deathstarts just as good . When they can tailor [auto cannons against orcs, las against deathstars , footslogger against razor builds etc] for each game it becomes something totaly different .
If one removes too many ifs from army building , the win is tied to only 2 things . Who has the bigger army collection[secondery] and whose codex designer was more crazy[primary] , tactics or list building are unimportant .

But then again its is not like I have seen with my own eyes how a dude my age at nothingam HQ chases off an 15y old orc army by taking a siege company list with nothing but hellfire mortars and hellfire shells[pre errata].

[Ravenger]

Yeah even knowing before hand what army im facing i dont set myself up to beat them in a casual game. (all i play) I generally run with most of the same units each time, but i have been running different units lately to try them out. recently i lost due to my inability to take out a Ctan shard my friend was using, I wiffed left and right and it tore me up.

I find that if you set yourself up to win, whats the point. how is it fun to use a exact counter to someones army. You may enjoy gloating but you will also not have many people to play with down the road.

[Houghten]

I rarely take exactly the same list twice. It all depends on what's not broken that morning, what I've got room for after I've packed some of the other stuff and whether Morrslieb is ascendant over Mannslieb. And yes, I tailor it just before the games too. There's no "standard" points value in my UFLGS so games are generally played at the lowest round points value that both players can muster. This means that I frequently have to decide, having packed roughly 2000 or 1500 points, which 500 or 1000 to drop, or watch my opponent do the same, or have six of us all pare down to 1000 so's we can all take part in an Apocalypse splat-fest.

What I don't do is tailor using counts-as. There's no "these flamers are meltas today" or vice versa. That's just extremely confusing and therefore annoying.

And then there are the doubles tournaments, but those can be discussed another post...

[Kawauso]

and suddenly the sm list is 4 hvy bolter razorbacks 3x3 hvy bolter attack bikes[or if more points are playe hvy bolter flamer land speeders] and 3 whirlwinds . he has 2 iron fathers with guns each. nid players goes 0_0.



Yeah, because friendly games like the one in the example provided are totally played by people who have 3 whirlwinds and play min/maxed MSU armies.

If someone does have 3 Whirlwinds there's probably a good chance they just play a list that includes them all from time to time, anyway. And even if they do, so what? Outflank some genestealers or throw something like a Trygon at them. They have a cover-ignoring template attack, sure, but that's on a really weak artillery chassis.

Regardless, I think you were completely missing the point I was making about tailoring in a friendly environment.

[Ch_DokWreckshop]

I am the kind of player who can field the same army for a year becaus I'm lazy and I prefer painting than adding points. So yes peope end up tailoring their lists. But I 'va got two advantages : I know perfectly well my army and I can change it to surprise my opponent. Once a partner complain because I didn't bring the army I was used to play with (he was expecting to face my speed freak, not IG lasguns). The same guy was used to make his army on the spot, son once I tricked him by putting minis on the table, letting him tailor his army, and when he was ready to play I put away this fake army and got the real one out. It was a great fn seeing his face and listening to his complaints.:D

[Kawauso]

That's exactly the sort of example that I (and I think anyone else) would be against. All it leads to is an arms race of on-the-spot list building.

Like I said before though, agreeing upon armies beforehand and building a list with your opponent's force in mind is something I'm fine with, and I think it's a preferable way to do things. This doesn't work in a competitive environment, and I'm not suggesting it might. This is for a friendly, casual beer-and-pretzels sort of game. You're bringing Marines? Cool, I guess I'll have to try and find some room for AP2-3 weapons in my army, if I can.

Doesn't mean that I'm going to spam plasmavets in Chimeras or something stupid like that.

[Fstiger]

Like I said before though, agreeing upon armies beforehand and building a list with your opponent's force in mind is something I'm fine with, and I think it's a preferable way to do things. This doesn't work in a competitive environment, and I'm not suggesting it might. This is for a friendly, casual beer-and-pretzels sort of game.




My old 40k group often played 2vs2 and list tailoring became soon a huge problem. Just imagine a shooty imperial guard backed by assault hungry chaos facing tyranids and orks. We just blasted away and successfully contained most breaches while the green horde and the bugs had less synergy since they work in similar fashion. They were hard pressed to soften the weak edges of their respective armies but had little to boost since closing in to kick some butt is the order of the day for both of them. Objective hunting helped but things were not really balanced.

We found a cure however.

Since we all had 2 armies we just stopped telling each other which one we chose for next gaming night AND randomly determined teams on the spot. Now overspecialisation hurts a lot if your bug exterminators face necrons and marines.

Works fine in a" casual beer-and-pretzels sort of game".

[s00nertp]

Yeah even knowing before hand what army im facing i dont set myself up to beat them in a casual game. (all i play) I generally run with most of the same units each time, but i have been running different units lately to try them out. recently i lost due to my inability to take out a Ctan shard my friend was using, I wiffed left and right and it tore me up.

I find that if you set yourself up to win, whats the point. how is it fun to use a exact counter to someones army. You may enjoy gloating but you will also not have many people to play with down the road.

Well said.

People who tailor need to think it through.. only then will they realize the only logical conclusion is that it is disrespectful to tailor. No tournament allows list tailoring, so it isnt more competitive.

The only exception is when both players agreed to tailoring specifically beforehand.

[Mr.Pickelz]

I would vote that list building is bad, because it's an unfair advantage for you over some random pick-up game opponent, and showcases bad sportsmanship, imo.

Although, few things are funnier than watching your opponent misread what you're taking, and plan his army to fight a different set up.

[AnEnemy]

It's generally bad. It harms players that want a friendly, but competitive game who don't mind disclosing their armies to their opponents while turning good generals into lazy generals who don't have to manage thinking on the fly.

I play with my father every now and then and he loves to ask me a week ahead of time what army I'm using or, if we're playing BattleTech, which 'Mechs I'll be bringing over. I don't mind telling him because...well...he's my dad. Besides, I'll usually give away this info to others that I play.

What ends up happening is he tailors his 40k or BattleTech force to oppose my army and stops there. I usually end up winning because I haven't spent a week convincing myself that my army will do the job for me.

[Chuck777]

List tailoring is a crime punishable by me never playing the List Tailor eery again.

This is a game about fun for both sides. Fun does not mean lop sided victories because one sided honed his list to counter everything your army brought to the table.

[The AKH]

Although, few things are funnier than watching your opponent misread what you're taking, and plan his army to fight a different set up.

"Oh, did I neglect to mention that my Imperial Guard army has no tanks and 200 Guardsmen? I suppose your meltaguns will kill a few of them..."

[Demonus]

My two cents.

If I go to a store, Ill bring an all comers list to play people.
If I play in a Tourney, Ill bring an all comers list.
If I am playing my friends, and have no idea what they are playing, Ill bring an all comers list.

However if I want to test my army, or a friends, and we agree before hand as to whom is playing what, I will tailor the snot out of my list to put a beat down on him.

My reasoning is fluff related and simple. Take a Space Marine Force that is invading an ork/tyranid planet. Will they load up on Melta Guns or Flamers for these fights? Would I send 600pts worth of Thunder Wolves or WraithLords after Dark Eldar who ignore my high toughness with their basic weapons? Would I load up on gloom prisms vs an Army with 0 Psykers?

I have fun playing both ways.

[Chuck777]

My reasoning is fluff related and simple. Take a Space Marine Force that is invading an ork/tyranid planet. Will they load up on Melta Guns or Flamers for these fights? Would I send 600pts worth of Thunder Wolves or WraithLords after Dark Eldar who ignore my high toughness with their basic weapons? Would I load up on gloom prisms vs an Army with 0 Psykers?


That's perfectly acceptable if both players know this is what is happening aa head of time.

If you show up with a tailored list and your opponent shows up with a take-all-comers list, then that's not fair.

Discussion avoids unfun moments and arguments.

[Demonus]

Exactly :)

LOL the only loss Ive had with my Necrons was the time I showed up and my friend "accidentally forgot" to finish his list. Strange how it ended up being all close combat Dark Eldar....

[the jeske]

Although, few things are funnier than watching your opponent misread what you're taking, and plan his army to fight a different set up.
what would be nice and true , If A all armies could tailor B tailoring didnt mean armies with better dex[aka more options to build armies] just got much better and those that dont got worse C if an army is actualy well tailored then why move units post deployment at all , you just check if you get two turns of avarge shoting/melee/reservs[what ever the list is build around] and you win , because good tailoring is better then hard meta .
D there is nothing to learn from tailored matches other then better armies win because they can overcome the rules of and edition and the random rolls [the same can be done after reading 2 different codexes , so more or less waste of time for you and someone else]. E there are all comers lists which you cant tailor against with half the dex [proper build 1850 or over cortez builds for example] . if everyone plays tailored one dude plays the good all comers list then everyone else [those with old dex, those who cant meta , does who dont have the cash to by 9 double flamer landspeeders and 3 whirlwinds just to play agains their ork "friend" , those whos armies cant meta like chaos , tau or nids or sob ] is ****ed.


ah and then it makes themm quit the game , which ends with smaller community people playing the same people over and over again , more people leaving and then dead group.