Why Is List-Tailoring A Bad Thing?

[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.