list tayloring vs balanced lists for friendly games

[SON OF ROMULOUS]

this is a long standing debate we have been having for years in our gaming group. So to lay down the foundations i would say its semi split perhaps. we have a one guy in particular who writes a single list up and plays that list for a year or more. Then we have some who tend to tailor a list to a particular opponent. then there are those amongst who try to make a list that more balanced. ( i will let it be said that i tend to take a list that aim's for balance and run it several times before i make any small tweaks. i tend o always run a solid core and then work on changing a unit or 2 at a time for better balance.)

I know from my own perspective that i have more fun trying to come up with a balanced well rounded army. i find that they tend to be a lot of fun and have a variety of units. my approach to list building has always been to maintain a strong core of troops and Hq(s) who support those troop choices. After i have my core i focus on my remaining slots which tend to be heavies fast attack and elites. That usually leaves me half of my points total to work with. most lists included roughly 50-60% troops and hq's.

I was just wondering on what the community consensus was? Do you guys tend to go more towards tailoring to a particular opponent? or do you come up with a more well rounded list and then change it when you think it needs changed or after its proven that it's weaknesses need to be changed.


i will say we may or may not have told the list tailoring player who he was playing or what he was playing only to change it up at the last minute for shenanigans. It is quite entertaining to watch some one who thinks they know their opponent and then watch as they get annoyed when their playing against another army all together.

a firm example of this is the ultra marines player who thought he would be playing against a horde ork army so he had as many template and heavy bolter's as he could get his hands on. only to look across the table and see an army army of mega nobs... it was priceless to say the least. (this goes to you list tailorer's when you have a list to beat a specific opponent that list suddenly does crap when faced with something unexpected.

[AdamHarry]

I think you've answered your own question. But to be a bit more vague -- It really depends on your local area, size of player pool, and what you consider "friendly" games.

those things really vary based on location and group. Here in Austin, we have a pretty good size player base and on game nights when the BoLS crew shows up at the FLGS to play some games you never know what you could end with. People may be trying new stuff out, tweaking familiar list for an up coming tourney, or just looking for a PUG. You never know what you are going to play against. On the flip side, we also will play at home with a smaller group some times to specifically put lists through it's paces vs a bad match-up (a tailored list basically). Those games are bit more relaxed and friendly than say a tourney game, but there is still an air of competition as one player is trying to push themselves. It really depends on what you are going for.

I don't think there is a way to really settle your debate unfortunately. I would assume with the larger gaming groups that they would be in a similar position I am. If you only have 4 people in your group and if you are playing them every weekend, I would assume the lists would tend to move toward the "tailored" style as you can tweak more for the "meta" in your group.... Unless everyone in your group has a dozen armies and you never know what they are bringing.

[Wolfshade]

This was kinda discussed here: http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?20945-Why-Is-List-Tailoring-A-Bad-Thing

Within my gaming group we know which armies we play and we have a fair idea of what sort of army our opponent will bring. So there is some tweaking, but then sometimes the list is completely different.

[Thaldin]

I've always thought this was kind of an interesting topic. On one hand, I can understand the benefit of having a single all-comer's list, but on the flip side... I have always thought it was silly not to take an army that works for the mission (general term, not the randomly generated one).

I've always considered it silly that if you have the "Intel", wouldn't any commander worth their salt make sure they had the proper tools they needed?

So for me it's a mixed feeling... Love having a ready, balanced list for spur of the moment or just general type games at a store... But if I were to be in some sort of campaign or battle where I had the "intel" to make better troop choices, I feel that it's perfectly acceptable (and by having the intel, I mean pre-designed type stuff, not knowing, "Hey Carl always runs a biker army", that's what the balanced list is for).

-Thal

[SotonShades]

For me, it depends a lot on the group. If one player literally only has one 2k list and can't make any changes, it's a bit unfair for everyone to tailor their lists so he is unlikely to ever win.

At one of my gaming groups, we arrange who is playing who over the course of the week between sessions. Almost everyone has 2 or 3 armies, and a lot of folk do pick their codex and pick their lists depending on what they think their opponent might bring (very funny when they get it wrong, like preparing for an elite mech list and end up against a horde), but because so many could bring such varying lists, something reasonably balanced is generally the best way to go.

At my other gaming group, we turn up, see who is there and what size force they have and work out who to play on the fly. There is no point trying to work out what you will be playing beforehand, because there is literally no way of knowing, so again, reasonable balance is the way to go, though a lot of players tend to go towards more themed lists or styles of play.

What I really don't like is when you turn up to a game, agree with your opponent and he asks what you are playing with, then writes a list specifically to beat it. Fair enough if you are ramping up for a tournament and have asked for a real challenge, but in a friendly game, it's hardly fair on the other player. At the FLGS I used to play at, there was a guy like that, so when I played him I'd say I was using my normal Space Marine list, which might then turn out to be almost entirely made of terminators, or possibly an ork horde. Everyone else thought it was hilarious, he decided I wasn't worth playing against (even though he probably still won half our games or more) and ended up getting fewer and fewer games because he was no fun to play against.

[Dave Mcturk]

ban the really obnoxious choices that dont fit your group... by consensus... everything else goes !

[knas ser]

To me, choosing your army is an intrinsic part of the game itself. The moment of the reveal when you both share army lists is one of the mist fun moments when you see if your opponent has outsmarted you, or you they, or if there's just some hilarious mismatch going on. To remove that entire strategic element from the game by just fielding generic lists against each other - where is the fun in that?

A common misconception is that list tailoring is about gaining some unfair advantage. It is not. It is a poker game where you and your opponent are evolving and trying out different strategies. I would be pretty bored facing opponents who fielded that same list against me time after time, the occasional minor variant. I want to have to adapt to surprises and try new things.

And when people have to field all-comers lists, variety goes down the toilet.

Like I say, there are misconceptions, usually because people don't see the difference between list tailoring being part of the game and trying to gain an unfair advantage. For example, I love list tailoring and knowing the opponent's list in advance would be cheating to me. And they me, of course. And naturally there are cases where it can become unfair. For example this is an expensive hobby and if someone was very constrained in what models they could use and another spent their way to success by buying things tailored which their opponent could not adapt to, that would be dishonourable.

But in the general case, it has always been part if the game to me. I am an old first edition player now returned and it was a great surprise to me to find some people now regard this as tantamount to cheating. Might as well play chess and always use the same dozen opening moves. There is no difference to me. Choosing a good army and second-guessing your opponent is a part of the game and lots of fun.


thought he would be playing against a horde ork army so he had as many template and heavy bolter's as he could get his hands on. only to look across the table and see an army army of mega nobs... it was priceless to say the least. (this goes to you list tailorer's when you have a list to beat a specific opponent that list suddenly does crap when faced with something unexpected.

I find that funny when it happens to me. You have to be pretty self-important not to be able to see the humour when you miscalculate a gamble like that. It's happened to me and I've done it to others. It's fun.

[SON OF ROMULOUS]

It is certainly a lot of fun when you see some one with a tailored list who comes up against an opponent they were not expecting. like me i have a boat load of armies so what i try to do is play a different one each month. my game last weekend was up against my buddy who tailors his lists. He thought he was going to be playing my buddies bad moons. well when said buddy didn't feel like playing he ended up facing off against my mech world eaters. needless to say he did not end up having an enjoyable game. i believe the highlight was a turn 2 assault by kharn and friends that whipped out a unit of assault marines. things got worse from there. his list was built to gun down a horde or orks and lacked a lot of punch against power armour and had very few anti tank options. so my Armour was able to take to the field with very little fear of reprisal.

Yet it was funny to watch his tau loose to another friends vostroyan force as well. the vostroyan player is the guy i mentioned earlier who builds a list and will run that same list until he paints up something new or the points level changes. this is pretty much his same vostroyan list he has run for a year plus now.

[knas ser]

Just to add, I do consider it normal to know what faction you'll be playing against - e.g. orks, eldar, whatever. Otherwise the entire strategic guessing game has no basis and you're back to boring generic hedging of bets.

[Thaldin]

Completely agreed, Knas...

When my friends and I play.. it's generally along the lines of this.. "Ok... 1500 pts? Good.. You're playing Chaos Marines and I will have my Eldar? Good...See you on the battlefield..." then we put together lists and play =)

I like mixing it up, throwing different units out there, and trying different combinations that sometimes just don't make sense =)

[AdamHarry]

To me, choosing your army is an intrinsic part of the game itself. The moment of the reveal when you both share army lists is one of the mist fun moments when you see if your opponent has outsmarted you, or you they, or if there's just some hilarious mismatch going on. To remove that entire strategic element from the game by just fielding generic lists against each other - where is the fun in that?


I think the fun (for me anyways as fun is subjective) is the lists aren't generic. But that's because of the deep player pool that I'm lucky to be a part of. I build my list based on what I have available and what I want to play around with (for friendly games). This lets me experiment and try new units and tactics. When I build for a tourney, I'm building vs the metagame and also based on my experience with those same units I've been playing with. I think this is where you start to see more "generic" or "net-deck" armies (at the competitive level).

Picking an Army and building a list are two different things in my opinion. I believe you are referring to the list building aspect of the game and that has more to do with the "metagame" of your area. The "outsmarting your opponent" before the game begins - that's exactly what metagaming is.

Also, I'd like to point out there are two other types of match-making mechanisms going on.
1) the PUG - or pick-up game
2) pre-determined game

In the first scenario, how can you tailor your list vs your opponent? You can't unless you build the list on the spot.

In the second scenario, you both agree to play X number of points. You might even go into which army you are bringing. I would think it would be a bit unsportsmanly to swap your Army (ie, Nids to Eldar) before the game as you've both agreed to a set number of points and your armies. But assuming you're bothing bringing what you've agreed to bring, then ya - I could see some metagaming going on.

As always - I think for a friendly game - it's important to ask your opponent what type of game they are wanting to play. I've even play some games where people didn't openly share lists - which was interesting as things need to be WYSIWYG at that point...but that's another topic :)

[AdamHarry]

It is certainly a lot of fun when you see some one with a tailored list who comes up against an opponent they were not expecting. like me i have a boat load of armies so what i try to do is play a different one each month. my game last weekend was up against my buddy who tailors his lists. He thought he was going to be playing my buddies bad moons. well when said buddy didn't feel like playing he ended up facing off against my mech world eaters. needless to say he did not end up having an enjoyable game. i believe the highlight was a turn 2 assault by kharn and friends that whipped out a unit of assault marines. things got worse from there. his list was built to gun down a horde or orks and lacked a lot of punch against power armour and had very few anti tank options. so my Armour was able to take to the field with very little fear of reprisal.

Yet it was funny to watch his tau loose to another friends vostroyan force as well. the vostroyan player is the guy i mentioned earlier who builds a list and will run that same list until he paints up something new or the points level changes. this is pretty much his same vostroyan list he has run for a year plus now.


It really sounds like you don't like the guy who tailors his list very much hah. In fact, it reads like you actually like to see him lose and have a "not enjoyable game" - which is what it is.

[SON OF ROMULOUS]

So apparently your under the impression that (a guy who i consider my brother,) i enjoy when he has a bad game? try to read that again. i find it amusing when he builds a tailored list to beat a specific opponent and his opponent gets swapped. that's amusing as many other players in here have stated. It's funny when you get some one with a tailored list who ends up playing against a completely different opponent.

There is nothing wrong with finding amusement when some one builds a list to gain advantage over a specific player (one who he has a general sense of what units he has) and ends up playing some one else or a completely different army.

[AdamHarry]

So apparently your under the impression that (a guy who i consider my brother,) i enjoy when he has a bad game? try to read that again. i find it amusing when he builds a tailored list to beat a specific opponent and his opponent gets swapped. that's amusing as many other players in here have stated. It's funny when you get some one with a tailored list who ends up playing against a completely different opponent.

There is nothing wrong with finding amusement when some one builds a list to gain advantage over a specific player (one who he has a general sense of what units he has) and ends up playing some one else or a completely different army.


whoa, relax hah. We're definitely losing something in the text translation. It's just the way you are describing the interactions it's not coming across the way you may think you are. I also maybe reading into your word choice a bit more than I need to - didn't mean to accuse you of anything.

[SON OF ROMULOUS]

No worries we are all a good friendly group. We're just more then willing to find humor where ever and when ever we can. so when we have a buddy who attempts to power game or to build a list tailored to take on someone who doesn't have as big of a collection or who doesn't bring a tournament centric list its highly entertaining when you watch it all come crumbling down. i should tell you this is the same guy who believe dark eldar mandrakes are a powerful unit after he lost to them in fluke round of combat lol.

[Cadian122]

I tend to play at my local GW, so I go down there with my army, and about 3-4 lists at each point value (1,000, 1,750, 2,000, 1,500, 2,500) are kept in my iPad, and, depending on the army, they can vary from small changes (swap unit x for unit y, for example) to a complete overhaul (change the whole list), and I'll pull out the list most suited to my opponent. Sometimes I'll be wanting to use a specific list, so I'll use that whatever the situation, and I get pleasantly surprised from time-to-time. If I'm playing with my friends, I get a vague idea what they're playing, and I'll do as above.
Essentially I have 3-4 different lists (per points level), all reasonably balanced, but they do one thing better than the others, and depending on what I'm playing against will go to what list I use. So, I'm not tailoring it for my opponent, but I might take army a) against his army, not army b)

[Nabterayl]

Just to add, I do consider it normal to know what faction you'll be playing against - e.g. orks, eldar, whatever. Otherwise the entire strategic guessing game has no basis and you're back to boring generic hedging of bets.
This is the normal behavior for my group as well. Part of the fun for us is to consult with each other - "Hey, I'm playing Bob next week, and he'll be playing Tau. What do you think he's going to bring?" It certainly leaves you open to guessing completely wrong, which is part of the fun, and also (at least for us) encourages people to try things they probably wouldn't do if they didn't know their opponent was trying to guess what sort of force they'd be facing. I had a wonderful game once where I built my army around flash gitz, because I figured my opponent would never expect me to do that, and I got to have the fun of trying to figure out how to make one of the most benighted units in the ork codex work. My flash gitz-centric army was quite successful, and to this day, that particular opponent disagrees with people who say flash gitz are rubbish.

[Popsical]

I much prefer games in which neither player has an earthly clue as to the oppositions army.
Yes generals would always try to have the best units for the job available.
In history tho this has seldom happened, and it has been the general who can utilise his units and improvise them to situations (Rommels use of flak 88's to tank bust when his flanks were exposed and over extended in france), who is victorious and gains justified accolades.
I prefer going to a tournie and facing lists i have no clue of before hand than facing a friend who can pretty much second guess my army list due to knowledge of my collection.
Its challenge of the surprise that makes me play better, win or lose. I love it.

[Katharon]

My local group just have a rule of not telling each other our lists. We find out what the other is bringing when we set our armies on the board for deployment. Of course some players have a very predictable pattern to making lists, but most of my local players have at least two armies of 1,500-2K points, so they can change it up at will. Keeps everyone honest and happily (or mortifyingly) honest.

[Wolfshade]

There are some positives of list tailoring.

If I am playing a friendly game with a mate who I know has no anti-air then I have to options I can either go full air mode, which is beardy, run one of my normal lists (which may or may not contain air support), or disclude the option from myself for balance. I chose to leave the air at home.

[knas ser]

It really sounds like you don't like the guy who tailors his list very much hah. In fact, it reads like you actually like to see him lose and have a "not enjoyable game" - which is what it is.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who read that and got a feeling of 'Ha ha! Got what you deserved' from it. I thought about posting something and then decided to hold back.

Also, being led to think you're facing orks and then suddenly having your opponent surprise you with a completely different army type, I'd take that as quite impolite for my opponent not to have mentioned what army type I would be facing.


Picking an Army and building a list are two different things in my opinion. I believe you are referring to the list building aspect of the game and that has more to do with the "metagame" of your area. The "outsmarting your opponent" before the game begins - that's exactly what metagaming is.

With respect, I already set out my terms as I see them and I wrote that I consider choosing of lists to be part if the game. Not meta-game or any other subtle way of conceptually separating it, but part of the game in all senses. Obviously you disagree, but you are incorrect to tell me what I am actually referring to as if I had misspoke. I'll repeat, that when I started playing back in 1st edition, it was an expected part of the game - it has strategy, trying to outwit your opponent and is fun. Returning to the game after a ling absence it is weird to see a faction has arisen that want to divide it off from 'The Game' as this separate thing that can be likened to cheating. I feel a little like I've been in a Stasis field and I've come back and said something about a legion and everyone is going : "no no. You mean a Chapter". No, I meant Legion.



Also, I'd like to point out there are two other types of match-making mechanisms going on.
1) the PUG - or pick-up game
2) pre-determined game

In the first scenario, how can you tailor your list vs your opponent? You can't unless you build the list on the spot.

Very easily. I enjoy making lists based around different play styles. I have my fast attack list, my footdar list all depending on how I want to play and what I want to try out. I have that anyway even if I play the same enemy time and again they wont know what they're facing as I choose my lists on a whim. It takes me five minutes to throw together an army if I'm in the mood to so sometimes I'll do it there and then. If someone says 'want to fight my orks' I'm unlikely to pull out my heavily anti-vehicle list..

[knas ser]

win or lose. I love it.

Well put and exactly where I'm coming from. I remember many years ago one of my friends had secretly bought two boxes of plastic orks (back when plastic was still relatively new) and the look on my face when he started putting squad after squad of Boyz on the table and just carried on doing so, must have been priceless. I had to adapt my poor Eldar forces' tactics as fast as I could. Needless to say I list but it was an amazing battle and heroic last stand. I tried out various different list approaches against his green tide over the next few games culminating in my Dark Reaper army (you had more freedom back then - it was even pre-percentages). They advanced up the table under the most withering hail of anti-personnel missiles anyone had ever seen toward the thin line of Dire Avengers I still had the points left to purchase.

Why do people want to take my fun away! :_(

[Dave Mcturk]

competition armies need to be practiced with ... but for friendly games we have only banned two things out of all the codex... orc lootaz and 'the axe of blind fury'... no one i know has demons [ or at least not a whole army ] !

[Kaptain Badrukk]

I have fixed armies, because I collect as projects.
So I tend to have a list of "take all comers {whatever}" at x points.
This means I know my armies and their capabilities down to the wire BUT it still can horribly misfire.
Had the unfortunate experience of playing a mate's eldar a while back with my salamanders.
He had an Avatar, the avatar got the re-roll Armor saves of a 1 trait, all of my heavy and special weapons were meltas and flamers. That ended VERY badly for everyone concerned :)

[knas ser]

Hmmmm. I have an Avatar... Must find someone with a Salamaders army. :D

[Lost Vyper]

Completely agreed, Knas...

When my friends and I play.. it's generally along the lines of this.. "Ok... 1500 pts? Good.. You're playing Chaos Marines and I will have my Eldar? Good...See you on the battlefield..." then we put together lists and play =)

I like mixing it up, throwing different units out there, and trying different combinations that sometimes just don't make sense =)

This. Exactly. One of our FLGC guys used to do so, that he didn´t tell you, which army he´s bringing (CSM,Daemon,Necrons,Nids,or Orks), which was annoying. Now we just choose the armies (or the main FOC, you can still surprise with allies :) ), points and let it rip!

[Katharon]

Hmmmm. I have an Avatar... Must find someone with a Salamaders army. :D

One of my first returning games of 40K was against my friend who is an Eldar player. He had Eldar and I had Dark Angels. His Avatar was wrecking havoc among my tactical squads and the turn after he slaughtered them I got some sternguard into range for some combi-meltas. I declared my intent to fire the meltas, they were the only strong weapon I had in the area, and my friend nodded sagely and said "Ok, if you must." I rolled, hit three times, and wounded three times. I grinned victoriously and shouted "Ha! Got you!" to which my friend just giggled and said, "sorry, but the Avatar is immune to melta attacks". Not only had I failed to wound and kill the Avatar, but I'd wasted my combi-shot...I was devastated beyond measure.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Hmmmm. I have an Avatar... Must find someone with a Salamaders army. :D
End of the game all that was left was his avatar and my sniper scouts, they were hiding at the top of the tallest building I could find.
the thing killed Vulcan He'Stan, a sterguard squad, a tactical squad and a venerable dreadnought over 7 turns. It was horrific, but hilarious.

[Wolfshade]

I have fixed armies, because I collect as projects.
So I tend to have a list of "take all comers {whatever}" at x points.
This means I know my armies and their capabilities down to the wire BUT it still can horribly misfire.
Had the unfortunate experience of playing a mate's eldar a while back with my salamanders.
He had an Avatar, the avatar got the re-roll Armor saves of a 1 trait, all of my heavy and special weapons were meltas and flamers. That ended VERY badly for everyone concerned :)

I collect armies, one chapter at a time....

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Exactly :)
My Manders are a company strong now. Project complete.
Next project....... probable counts-as mechanicus.

[Wolfshade]

No, not company strength, chapter strength....

[knas ser]

End of the game all that was left was his avatar and my sniper scouts, they were hiding at the top of the tallest building I could find.
the thing killed Vulcan He'Stan, a sterguard squad, a tactical squad and a venerable dreadnought over 7 turns. It was horrific, but hilarious.

:D :D

If it's any consolation, it's a horrible points-sink.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Not compared to He'Stan + 10 sternguard with combis / 2 heavy flamers.

[Demonus]

I actually like the new avatar with fast shot and the disarming exarch power.

On topic, we play mostly a group of friends (8-10) team games 2v2 but also play 1v1 games or 1v2 games. A couple guys only have 1 army, so at any given time I can tell you what they are playing. Even though they have a good mix of stuff, the Tau player will ALWAYS play 2+ Riptides and Broadside guys. The Sisters Player will ALWAYS have executioner tanks and a few rhinos full of chicks. The Blood Angels guy used to ALWAYS field Dante + Sang Guard. He mixes it up a bit now. And the SW player ALWAYS has at least 12 Longfangs in a fortress/ADL.

I own several armies and love mixing things up. Sometimes I ask my opponent "what do you want to play?" and Ill make a list. I dont care if they tailor, it makes it that much sweeter when I win. Sometimes we agree "Ill play This, and you play that".

Of course on occasion we had someone that would wait to see what you were playing THEN make his list. This led to me switching out armies last second to mess with him.

[SON OF ROMULOUS]

i know i have several companies of space marines then it spills over into guard chaos grey knights so what i've always done has been to select an army and to play that army for a month. this seems to allow me enough time and motivation to work on new projects and to continually expand the forces that i have. it also means that i hopefully don't go a year with out playing with an army. this translates to having access to alot of crazy combinations as well as allied lists. but as others have said if you play some one enough times you can start to get an idea of what they will and what they wont bring.

[Joe Mix]

I get together and ola

[AdamHarry]

With respect, I already set out my terms as I see them and I wrote that I consider choosing of lists to be part if the game. Not meta-game or any other subtle way of conceptually separating it, but part of the game in all senses. Obviously you disagree, but you are incorrect to tell me what I am actually referring to as if I had misspoke. I'll repeat, that when I started playing back in 1st edition, it was an expected part of the game - it has strategy, trying to outwit your opponent and is fun. Returning to the game after a ling absence it is weird to see a faction has arisen that want to divide it off from 'The Game' as this separate thing that can be likened to cheating. I feel a little like I've been in a Stasis field and I've come back and said something about a legion and everyone is going : "no no. You mean a Chapter". No, I meant Legion.

I see what you are saying. But I would counter by saying there are several different ways to play a specific Army. Marines for example - you could run a wide variety of lists with different specializations or make a very generic list and still be a marine Army. I would not consider "Army" and "List" to be interchangeable. That is all I meant by it.

And I do consider metagaming is part of the game. What you are describing has a name now. That part of the game is referred to the people I play with and most of the players I've encountered at tourneys as "Metagaming"



Very easily. I enjoy making lists based around different play styles. I have my fast attack list, my footdar list all depending on how I want to play and what I want to try out. I have that anyway even if I play the same enemy time and again they wont know what they're facing as I choose my lists on a whim. It takes me five minutes to throw together an army if I'm in the mood to so sometimes I'll do it there and then. If someone says 'want to fight my orks' I'm unlikely to pull out my heavily anti-vehicle list..

That what I was referring to when I wrote "... how can you tailor your list vs your opponent? You can't unless you build the list on the spot." You can have "pre-set" lists with you and make some changes in 5 minutes and play. I would consider that building a list on the spot. You may view it differently if considering the minor tweaks in 5 minutes before the match as just that - minor tweaks.

Please don't take my tone as aggressive or in an "I know the best way" - I'm enjoying learning about what you think and how other play. It's all very interesting and I'm enjoying this discussion.

[knas ser]

I see what you are saying. But I would counter by saying there are several different ways to play a specific Army. Marines for example - you could run a wide variety of lists with different specializations or make a very generic list and still be a marine Army. I would not consider "Army" and "List" to be interchangeable. That is all I meant by it.

And I do consider metagaming is part of the game. What you are describing has a name now. That part of the game is referred to the people I play with and most of the players I've encountered at tourneys as "Metagaming"



That what I was referring to when I wrote "... how can you tailor your list vs your opponent? You can't unless you build the list on the spot." You can have "pre-set" lists with you and make some changes in 5 minutes and play. I would consider that building a list on the spot. You may view it differently if considering the minor tweaks in 5 minutes before the match as just that - minor tweaks.

Please don't take my tone as aggressive or in an "I know the best way" - I'm enjoying learning about what you think and how other play. It's all very interesting and I'm enjoying this discussion.

Okay, but for the third time, I consider list building part of the game and reject that it is "metagaming". Metagaming is something outside of the game itself that influences the game. I reject a distinction between the parts of the game that involve choosing lists and the parts of the game where you move miniatures around the table. Metagaming has negative connotations - like when you use knowledge your character wouldn't have in an RPG - and even if you don't think it has negative connotations, it inherently separates it out as not part of the normal game, brings in suggestions of influencing the game itself by outside metagaming. I wont accept your terminology for these reasons. Your distinction of separating it out from other parts of the game is arbitrary.

As regards a specific army can be played in different ways - yes, I am aware of that. I didn't use Army and List as interchangeable at all. If you think that, then you must have misread me. I don't take your tone as aggressive, but I do find it as a little patronizing, in that you state the obvious in such a way as to suggest people aren't aware of it or lay down your own definitions as if authoritative and again told me to use your terms. I disagree. And the definition matters - the moment you say something is "metagaming", you've separated something out from what is considered normal. To me, it's perfectly normal and routine and there is no distinction.

[Stone Edwards]

One of my first returning games of 40K was against my friend who is an Eldar player. He had Eldar and I had Dark Angels. His Avatar was wrecking havoc among my tactical squads and the turn after he slaughtered them I got some sternguard into range for some combi-meltas. I declared my intent to fire the meltas, they were the only strong weapon I had in the area, and my friend nodded sagely and said "Ok, if you must." I rolled, hit three times, and wounded three times. I grinned victoriously and shouted "Ha! Got you!" to which my friend just giggled and said, "sorry, but the Avatar is immune to melta attacks". Not only had I failed to wound and kill the Avatar, but I'd wasted my combi-shot...I was devastated beyond measure.

That sounds like a really jerk move on his part. Expecting your opponent to know every special rule for your army is a bit unreasonable.

On topic personally if you are playing a set-up game I think it's ok to tailor to the army you're going to be playing against to an extent but not to their list. There's enough variety in each army that I think that is fair.

[SON OF ROMULOUS]

I dunno for me when i work on a list i tend to as i have said previously work around a general strong core and then go from there. i look at each battle and see what work and what didn't work for that given list. was it the list? was it a particular unit? was it luck? was it tactics? there is a lot to be considered. for me i simply choose not to tailor a list to a particular opponent. some times i like the challenge i get from not necessarily having all the correct tools to handle the situation.

It could be that I'm just a little twisted in that aspect. I like to wrap my head around my army as well as its design. Looking for both strengths and weaknesses. So for me it makes it so that list tailoring isn't really interesting to me. I'd much rather work on what some would consider to be going towards a tournament/ take all comer's style of list.

Currently i have been Working on a World Eater's list all summer and to be honest with you all its been painful and to my own dismay more frustrating then challenging. I'v had games where I've won and Games where i have gotten annihilated. I both blame it on my gaming group and appreciate them for being who they are. Each has their own army selection to choose from and decent size collections. it makes list building a very unique challenge. One week player A can choose to bring orks or imperials or his beloved Dark eldar. This give you alot to think about when making a list in and of itself. the same list you bring has to be able to fight 3 very different races. Dark eldar will kill you with speed as well as a withering hail of lance and poisioned rounds. Imperials can pound you with lasgun's to battle tank to sternguard crimson fists.. To facing the green tide or a harrowing assault by ork truck boyz backed up by lootas and foot slogging mobs of boys.

While player B can bring imperials necrons tau eldar orks. just looking at his lists bring in another 3 factions alone and when you calculate the different army types with in the imperial category you have everything from ultra marines to ravenwing bikers. It opens up a whole new can of worms.

Thus For Some one like me my lists always need to follow a take on all comers approach. This for me is often one of the most trying part of the hobby. the list building area has you considering what to take what to cut and from there those decision impact how your army functions and performs at the tasks it's then given.

[knas ser]

I think it's ok to tailor to the army you're going to be playing against to an extent but not to their list.

That's how I see it. The former is normal to me - nothing to be remarked upon at all. The latter is tantamount to cheating to me. I mean if it's a regular opponent always using the same things and they obviously don't care, then whatever. But advance knowledge of someone's actual list by one party over the other, is clearly unfair and thus wrong in a game.

[Col Penny]

There is nothing wrong with list tailoring as this is exactly how a real general would fight a battle, he would choose specific units to combat whatever threat his intel told him about his foe, as long as there is no sneaky peek to see what your opponent has specifically then I don't see the problem

[SON OF ROMULOUS]

I think that some confusion has come up a bit in this discussion. It's concensus that if you tailor to a specific list then there is a problem. everyone seems to be okay with tailoring a specific opponent if you have knowledge of his play style or what he is likely to bring. What most have stated is that they are not okay if some one builds a list on the spot after looking at what you have written up in your list.

I know i saw this happen at a tournament before hand it was dirty and underhanded. A tyranid player before they even exchanged lists which he did last minute and after deployment had started. The guy pulled up what looked like an 1850 list waited for my buddy to deploy his dark eldar and then started to pack away all of his big bugs... so no mawlocks no fex's ended up being a drastially different army then when your suddenly facing tervigons the swarm lord and a flyrant and an endelss sea of little gribbles.... needeless to say i am glad it was not my game as i for one have mentioned multiple times i am a very nice fellow until you are a dick... then mr hyde comes up to play, and he doesn't mess around.

[YourSwordisMine]

List tailoring is the biggest blight on the modern minis wargaming hobby... And this comes from 23 years of experience.

I have never, and will never do so...

Nor will I play with anyone who does it...

People who think its ok need to be taken out back of the game shop and beaten with a sock filled with dice...

[biffster666]

1) the PUG - or pick-up game
2) pre-determined game

For the Pug it's an all comers army, in the pre-determined game I'll 'list build' more based on the army I'm going up against. I have been known to open up battlescribe and build a few lists ...for three to four hours :D It's just so easy!

[Crewgar]

For me, like a bunch of people here, it depends on the type of game that I'm looking for and what I've agreed with my opponent. I generally play at local stores, and have a few generic lists that I rotate between on a nightly basis, something that I pick out ahead of time based on what I feel like playing. That being said against some of my most regular opponents I will sometimes pick a list or even ask them which of my lists they'd prefer facing based on what I think will be more fun. If my regular dwarf list has lost it's last three games against the same opponent, I'll take a 'harder' list that might not be as fun, if we've played the last few weeks in a row, I'll ask the opponent what they want to face, as then they might get a different game or a more fun one. Now this is also before I know what they'll be fielding, just a general guess based upon what they usually play.

As well I've also had a lot of fun with some larger games were we do build the lists in front of each other.. This has led to wacky things such as a huge Honor Guard unit, Marneus Calgar and a Landraider vs a Huge (12+ model) Thunderwolf Unit with characters face off, because we thought it'd be cool and fun.

All three ways were a lot of fun because they were agreed upon by both sides though. I've also seen the other side of the coin, what I think a lot of the anti-tailoring players fear, where we had one player, who played Dwarfs (which can be brutal if allowed to customize war machines and runes to exactly what they are facing) swapping out units based on what his opponent put on the table... This wasn't something that was agreed upon, and where he had just asked for a pick up game. The third time he did this, he had players asking him to put out his army first and leave it out, or in one case a player with multiple armies kept switching between them in front of him every time he modified his army, with two very different races. The player never seemed to get the point and started doing the same thing to new players, and then eventually left. While that's a shame, it is also not cool to be trying to tailor your army to your opponent's exact army when you're just playing a random game, especially if you get annoyed when your opponent does it to you.

So what I think on the issue, and what seems to be the general consensus, is that what is really important is talking to your opponent! List building is definitely part of the game and an important part, but while building a tailor built list to fight an army, an opponent or even a specific list is fun and challenging, so too is trying to build an army well rounded enough to take on almost anyone, and it also really prepares your for tournaments, where (at least in my experience) you have to have a single list for the day and stick with it no matter who you face. Both are challenging and fun aspects of the game, but as it is a game the important thing is that both sides have a good time, and both players have an idea of what they;re getting into!

Or at least that's my three cents (I'm Canadian, so two cents would round down to nothing now, while three rounds up :) )

[Kaptain Badrukk]

I think if two players have agreed to tailor, OR if you've made some kind of arrangement beforehand then fine.
For PUGs it's just not cool.

[Wolfshade]

List tailoring is the biggest blight on the modern minis wargaming hobby... And this comes from 23 years of experience.

I have never, and will never do so...

Nor will I play with anyone who does it...

People who think its ok need to be taken out back of the game shop and beaten with a sock filled with dice...

No!

You are only seeing the negatives. A friend of mine just got back into the hobby and had a pure infantry army about 1000pts, but no way to deal with armor or flyers, so do I take my normal pick up and play list that has both or do I tailor my list to remove those elements to make it more balanced?

I tailor my list knowing the limitations of his collection to try and restore some balance. I could run my "normal" list but he would have no chance and that wouldn't be fun. As his collection grows so I open up options I have restricted myself from taking.

More generally in this thread I have a slight issue with the presumption that people play with a list. I have a collection and every game I play I pick a new army, yes quite often there are items I normally will include but each army is tailored, based on how well things worked in the previous game and assumptions about what my enemy is bringing. There is little point in having magna-grapples and other specific anti-armour weapons when playing bugs.

If you never tailor your list then you never apply the knowledge and experiance that you have gained in previous games. For instance if I had a lone captain who never killed anything and was always being killed in the first turn and I kept taking him why would I keep using that item like that continually. Instead, I would consider maybe putting him in a retinue, or changing his equipment, or consider if a chaplain or librarian would be better?

[Xenith]

*tailoring

[knas ser]

It is clear to me that we need two terms here, not just one. There are two things being described which are separate.


Adjusting your list from game to game, possibly based on what you expect to face in general terms, e.g. army type.
Adjusting your list from game to game based on foreknowledge of the specific list you are to face that game, e.g. which units, which weapons a specific opponent will be fielding this battle.


I would call the former Forecasting and the latter Foreknowledge.

It seems that most of us are okay to good with Forecasting, and we're pretty much all against Foreknowledge.

It's pretty clear that as long as we keep talking about "list tailoring" when there's this clear division of context, we'll have a lot of needless repetition and confusion.

[SON OF ROMULOUS]

@knas

Agreed i believe that is a concensus. now if you know an opponent very well and have a general idea of what he will bring and build a list to fight against that no one seems to mind. Now if some one were to take a look at my list and then suddenly build his own list i would have some serious problems with that. me personally i don't like to tell some one what i am playing i will generally keep one army in what my buddies refer to as the battle barge because there is always a 40k army in my trunk. So i will have an army and a predetermined list(s) usually i will have list that range from 1500-2k ready to go. it might be my ocd but i tend to try to build in 250 point chunks. this allows me to have decent lists ready to go rather quickly.

[YourSwordisMine]

No!

You are only seeing the negatives. A friend of mine just got back into the hobby and had a pure infantry army about 1000pts, but no way to deal with armor or flyers, so do I take my normal pick up and play list that has both or do I tailor my list to remove those elements to make it more balanced?

I tailor my list knowing the limitations of his collection to try and restore some balance. I could run my "normal" list but he would have no chance and that wouldn't be fun. As his collection grows so I open up options I have restricted myself from taking.

More generally in this thread I have a slight issue with the presumption that people play with a list. I have a collection and every game I play I pick a new army, yes quite often there are items I normally will include but each army is tailored, based on how well things worked in the previous game and assumptions about what my enemy is bringing. There is little point in having magna-grapples and other specific anti-armour weapons when playing bugs.

If you never tailor your list then you never apply the knowledge and experiance that you have gained in previous games. For instance if I had a lone captain who never killed anything and was always being killed in the first turn and I kept taking him why would I keep using that item like that continually. Instead, I would consider maybe putting him in a retinue, or changing his equipment, or consider if a chaplain or librarian would be better?

That's not list tailoring... That's playing a friendly game with a relatively new player. There is a big difference there and list tailoring...

[Wolfshade]

Well it really is if you consider that any tailoring is adjustment of your list, but this comes down to terminonlgy, while strictly speaking it is a tailoring, it isn't what is meant in this context, which I will conceed


It is clear to me that we need two terms here, not just one. There are two things being described which are separate.


Adjusting your list from game to game, possibly based on what you expect to face in general terms, e.g. army type.
Adjusting your list from game to game based on foreknowledge of the specific list you are to face that game, e.g. which units, which weapons a specific opponent will be fielding this battle.


I think if I were to play a pick up game and upon seeing my opponents list, if they had absolutley nothing that could take out my flyers or armour then I would talk to them about changing my list and explaining why. But then it is their choice and I would abide by it.

[Popsical]

List tailoring is the biggest blight on the modern minis wargaming hobby... And this comes from 23 years of experience.

I have never, and will never do so...

Nor will I play with anyone who does it...

People who think its ok need to be taken out back of the game shop and beaten with a sock filled with dice...

Brilliant! That made me chuckle plenty.
I agree whole heartedly.
Wolfshade's point has merit, but as he say's the context is very different.