Is list tailoring really a bad thing?

[Ulrik_Ironfist]

So, since I got back into the hobby, I've been told not to list tailor. While I agree that changing things around based on your opponents list is kind of dickish, but so is swapping armies on someone after an agreement.

 

In my local meta, we don't like tailoring, but on the other hand, if you don't know what faction you're facing, how do you build a list? Before I got there we had a powergaming dickweasel that would change things after finding out what his opponents list was in order to beat it. Now, that's beyond dickish, it's left folks with a reluctance to agree upon armies, and you face what your opponent brings.

 

With one player in particular as an example, I know he has 3 armies.

Tau- it's a broadside heavy gunline with fire warriors on back up with cadre fireblades, Riptides as mobile fire support, with stealthsuits in advance and pathfinders running as forward observers. Occasionally he dumbs it down so that it's not so hard to beat, by taking lots of heavy weapons in the pathfinders instead of a few broadsides and the lower the points the less riptides. It's a hard nut to crack, and it's positioned to take full advantage of supporting fire. 

 

Black Templars- They're a heavy mech list with LR crusaders full of crusader squads, backed up by vindicators, and podded sternguard suicide squads, backed up by terminator squads in LR crusaders. It is a fast, hard hitting army, that aims to have you tabled by turn 2. It hinges on risky tactics, and eliminating threats turn 1.

 

Eldar- His newest army, and one he's not quite figured out, but he's aiming for a fast, hard hitting list, with lots of wave serpent spam, and more elite troops. This is the only army he has that uses psykers, and he uses them to devastating effect. Honestly, since I've only seen the army in action once, and he has yet to figure them out, I don't really see the strategy behind it yet.

 

Now, He'll arrange a game with you, agree on points limit, day and time. But, I then have to try and build an all comers list, to fight any of his three very different armies. I think you can see the problem here, he has one army that can shoot me off the board before I'm in range, one army that will shoot me off the board by getting in my face, and one that will get in my face, shoot me up, and run away.

 

How do I build a list that counters all three of those strategies? How do I command an army and choose my tactics if I don't know my enemy? It boils down to guessing, and anticipating what army he brings. And he'll change up at the last minute. So, I want a friendly game, that ends up a massacre, because I guessed wrong, or built a list that had identity issues. Or I bring a list that I like and I get tabled turn 1. 

 

Quite frankly it pisses me off. I'm sick of losing because I'm getting dicked with. I want to play, I want to have fun, and I want a shot at winning. I try to be a forgiving opponent, but when I can't figure out what works for me because I keep getting dicked with, it reminds me all over again why I got out of the hobby to begin with.

 

Am I the only one with such a screwed up meta? Can you help me?

[skeletoro]

My rule of thumb: if you are able to tailor then your opponent should be free to tailor a similar amount. How much info do you have? You know the specific army your opponent is playing? Then they should be allowed to tailor their list to your faction too.

[Rune_Priest_Rhapsody]

I always write lists with a all comers design to them. And more than that, I make the thematic first and everything else comes secondary. This is how I do it. I agree that it is a dickish thing to do (list tailoring), UNLESS you are allowing your opponent to do the same. If you're arriving at a tournament with a set list that you then change once seeing what the rest of the players are running, that is cheating. You don't take your turn and then half way through your opponents turn exclaim that you meant to do something different. That's the way I see it. But going to a tourney and knowing your facing Eldar, Necrons and Sisters then by all means make a list suited to face all of them. They are doing the same about your army.

It's a simple concept. Right verses wrong. If you have to cheat in a game just to win, what does that say about you in your real life??

 

End of Line

[FenrisWolf]

Imho, he is list tailoring by switching armies. He should allow you the courtesy of picking from a set of lists too.

[BrotherLibrarianGiles]

I strongly dislike tailoring. When people with larger collections tailor against newbies who really field all they've got it's just dickish. As skeletoro said, the terms should be equal. Also, by skewing the power levels between armies people are forced to take "less fun lists" just to keep competitive - even in a more relaxed environment.

In my gaming group there's a guy who always does this, and I am not even sure he realizes it. The guns on his Fish'Eads change a bit too much between games for my taste. Now when starting up my Dark Angels (read: Ravenwing), and wanting to do it slowly, I will counter by remaining vague if I'll take them or my Orks if I play this guy. Dick versus Dick? Still not liking the whole concept, but it feels more even.

[Frater Cornelius]

Depends. If I dislike the opponent for being rude or unfair, or it is a competitive game, then I tailor the living hell out of it (unless there are more opponents, in which case I bring cheese).

 

In friendly games or against weaker opponents I never tailor. I sometimes ask them to tailor though.

[Amarog]

Its not so bad at my club because each person has one specific army they tend to use all the time.

Obviously changing things out once you see what a person has is wrong but we always tend to know what type of foe we are going to face so you can factor that in to a degree. But tailoring down to unit specifics compared to units your enemy is taking .... Nah, can't be doing with it.

[KhorneFlakes]

My advice and something that works in our club; gentleman's agreement. If it is obvious that the lists are grossly unmatched then a slight change improves the game. completely annihilating someone is not much fun, and neither is getting completely buggered.

[Yoyo ninja]

There is a simple way to deal with dickish players, stop playing against them. My gaming group is fairly small and most of us are new to it after a long time away from the game. There was a nids player who would constantly change his list to suit who he was playing to the point where he was impossible to beat. It was to the point where you could take double the points he did and he would still win. Now he was a skilled player but it was power play at it's worst and it got boring, so he got less and less games till eventually he left.

 

I usually write lists that are fairly fluffy and fun to play but I don't see a problem of tailoring a list against a player of equal skill as long as they get the chance to do the same. But the guy written about in the OP sounds a bit dickish and I would just stop playing him.

[CatSmasher]

List tailoring is the entire point of the Warhammer table top game. Its the single reason they invented all of these force organizations, and unit construction restrictions. Each player should be allowed to know what army they are going to play, and I think its nice to extend certain courtesies like a heads up for a super heavy/LoWar or some unique or uncommon units.

 

Personally, I take the time to explain unique rules and synergies because I don't like to catch someone out with a rule bending technique, and this is usually reciprocated. I am also totally okay with walking back mistakes and completing certain missed action because I'd like the same courtesy.

 

I like to win, and i like to bring the best suited lists for any army, but I'm also interested in an open and forgiving game regardless of the opponent. 

[NightHowler]

When I think of the phrase "list tailoring" I think of designing one list specifically to counter another list. But keeping multiple lists on hand and then choosing the one that best counters your opponent is practically the same thing. The only suggestion I an think of is to have him write his list down and you write yours down, then trade lists only as the game is about to begin - this way he can't pick the one he wants to counter what you've brought. You will still need a strong list as it sounds like all three of his favorites are pretty tough, but it would eliminate the advantage he gains by picking the one he wants after he sees what you have. If he refuses to cooperate, refuse to play him. This is the only way I can think of that truly prevents "list tailoring".

[Donkalleone]

I think tailoring towards a Race is ok. So you Build a List against Necrons and a different List against Tau.

If he has multiple Races with him and decides to change upon what he sees is dickery and you shouldnt play. Either decide before you deplay what he plays (before both see what the other take) or simple refuse him or have multiple list with you and counter tailor.

Some kind of Tailoring is always there but it has to be on an acceptable degree.

[gwarsh41]

I will always prefer an all comers list to list tailoring. When  first got into the hobby it was really hard to avoid tailoring, I felt that if I didn't tailor, I wouldn't be able to win. Now I play at my LGS often and never know what I will face, so I build all comers lists. 

 

Last time I played against a tailored list, it was terrible, and the dude who did it came off as a huge :cuss. It was GK against daemons, and he made the list specifically to beat what I was currently playing. 

[BigC76900]

my problem with facing people who list tailor is it really makes it hard to test tournament list against em. we have a guy in our shop and all he does is list tailors, then when we run a tournament he does incredibly poorly and as much as we've tried to help him he cant comprehend not list tailoring. 

[Spazmonkey]

I think if you only have one army and you opponent has several if is fair that he tell you what he is bringing army wise.

Otherwise he has massive advantage.

It levels the playing field.

You don't have to say exactly what your list is, but tell them the Army.

 

But with that said from a specific list point of view.

If I bring the same list regularly to a group, and people are struggling to beat me.

Then I would expect people to start tailoring their list to beat me. 

 

when you go to battle and know how your enemy will deploy and what forces he will bring, why would you not take advantage.

If your enemy is so transparent and does not update his list then why would you not take advantage.

 

If I bring the same thing every time I guess it is my fault if some one tailors a list to destroy me.

[Ulrik_Ironfist]

I'm seeing a lot of people here on the same line of reasoning that I am on. I'm not talking about seeing his list in it's entirety and building a list to counter it. I'm talking about knowing what faction I'm up against, and then extrapolating the threat based on my observations of my opponent's metagame. I just want some consistency, because I know there are a few set ways my opponents are going to play their armies. I just need to have some kind of continuity. I can't test a counter for a fast hard hitting black templar assault army, if I'm up against a tyranid horde, that's not going to work, he's going to eat me, and I'm not going to have any fun. 

 

In war, even pretend war, you know who your enemy is. In airsoft, I have to recognize that, maybe I shouldn't employ my typical tactics, like kicking in the door, and double tapping anything that levels a gun if I'm against a bunch of 10 yr olds. I'm going to make them wet themselves and cry. Same in W40K. If I'm playing a new kid, I'm not going to bring a fully cheesed out list, and table them in turn 1. I'm going to build a list that I think will provide them with a challenge, but also not be easy, I don't care if I win, if my opponent has to at least work for the victory.

 

My guiding light is, is it a list I'd want to play against, most of the time, the answer is yes. I have a few lists that are as cheesy and dickish as I can get them, simply because I hate my opponent (we have one kid, that cannot play a single army without going for the most overpowered things he can find, he's run out of armies to play, simply because no one will play against those armies. This is the kid that threw Abbadon, Kharne, Ahriman and a Flying Nurgle Daemon Prince at me and lost). 

 

Spazmonkey, I agree, If you know what the list is because he brings it all the time, then yes, by all means try to beat it if it hasn't been beaten.

My problem is, I have no such continuity. He never brings the same army, or same list twice. I have no constant to test against, so I have no clue what is working and what isn't, Meaning I have built a thousand lists, and I start from square one each time I play this one person. There's consistency to be found, so I have no continuity to build upon.

[Spazmonkey]

I think it would be perfectly reasonable to say that to him.

 

"Hey mate. As I only have one army, to level the playing field could you tell me which army would will field against me.

It makes it hard to compete and not very fun When you know what I am bringing and can adjust you list based on my codex. I just want to be able to do the same so it is a fair match up."

 

If anyone is not cool with that, more so when you play them on a regular occurrence I would just not play them.

[Sturm Moonwolf]

I don't really come across list tailoring all that much, guys I play against know I have only 1 army (albeit 16kish of it :p) and 1 ally (knights!). And if someone wants to tailor towards me I say go ahead and try, haha. Group of regulars I play against every week as of late(4 of us) have a system we use that makes the day of gaming fun. Generally we all use a 2500- 3k army list and play 1 or 2 1 on 1 games as warm up, randomly selected who will play who, them we do a 2 on 2 game with the same armies for the finale of the day, random teams, and we don't generally use the generic missions all that much but instead do a lot of the forgeworld and other obscure ones just for the mayhem. Our city-wide gaming group also has a facebook page for the local community to arrange games, and generally everyone knows who uses which faction.

[ElectricPaladin]

If you violate the mores of your gaming group, you will always be the dick who did the thing that everyone says "don't do." That dick will be you. Your friends will be mad at you and people won't want to play with you anymore. Don't be that dick.

 

You could propose games in an unusual but balanced and sanctioned format (Cities of Death, Spearhead, Maelstrom of War) and try to mix things up a bit.

 

You could also talk to him, say that obviously he beats you a lot, get him to acknowledge that it might be because he has so many more armies than you and always knows what to expect when the two of you face off... and then ask him if he'd mind if you tailored your list a little, just to see how it works.

 

Alternately, if push comes to shove... don't play this guy for a while. He doesn't sound like a terrible sport. Play with someone else until you're less frustrated, then take him on again.

[viddar]

I can see why its a touchy subject cause his lists sound like all-comers lists so he may be unaware of the advantages that challenging people like that afford him. Otherwise he is being a jerk and I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

 

I'd try running a list that you'd run at a tourney against him and see how that does. Another option is posting what you have in the army list section and seeing how others would approach the situation.

[Lucien Eilam]

In my group, writing a list for each game is the norm. We grew up reading White Dwarf, where that always seemed to be the expectation - they'd talk about taking a unit of heavy bolter Devastators because they knew they'd be good against the Ork army they were facing or whatever. There are loads of units that would never be worth considering if you had to use them against every opponent.

 

Before the internet, I don't think it ever occurred to me that anyone would have a problem with it. It was how GW presented literally every battle report. Does it come from the CCG world?

 

I suppose one difference is that I rarely if ever play pick-up games. Normally we talk about the scenario we're going to play and share our army lists well in advance of the game, and adjust if it looks like it's going to be too one-sided.

 

It might also help that we're spiralling into middle-age and couldn't give a toss about winning.

[ElectricPaladin]

In my group, writing a list for each game is the norm. We grew up reading White Dwarf, where that always seemed to be the expectation - they'd talk about taking a unit of heavy bolter Devastators because they knew they'd be good against the Ork army they were facing or whatever. There are loads of units that would never be worth considering if you had to use them against every opponent.

 

Before the internet, I don't think it ever occurred to me that anyone would have a problem with it. It was how GW presented literally every battle report. Does it come from the CCG world?

 

I suppose one difference is that I rarely if ever play pick-up games. Normally we talk about the scenario we're going to play and share our army lists well in advance of the game, and adjust if it looks like it's going to be too one-sided.

 

It might also help that we're spiralling into middle-age and couldn't give a toss about winning.

 

The problem started, I think, because some armies benefit more from list-tailoring than others. In some games (Firestorm Armada, for example) the idea that you write your list after you learn your opponent's faction and the mission, is actually enshrined in the rules. So it's not a universal ill. It does seem to be largely looked down in the world of 40k, though.

[Chaplain Otho]

I think there are 3 different issues here

1. list tailoring

2. your opponent

3. developing your own list and game.

 

1. I don't like list tailoring unless both players are expecting it and able to do it. I.e. have enough models to change up against certain opponents. Otherwise (to me) it is sneaky and underhand and rewards those players with more models and bigger wallets over newer players. When it has happened against me it leaves a bad taste in the mouth and I don't want to play that guy again. . Doing it with a consenting opponent for a more challenging match up is fine.

2. If your opponent is willing to arrange games in advance get him to commit to an army. Me and most of my gaming group have two armies and a thread on our forum will go something like this. "hi guys looking for a 2k game with my nids this week" "Yep, I'll play you with my necrons" That way you know the opponent and the point size and the army you are facing. not so you can tailor the list but so you can think about tactics. What your opponent is doing is list tailoring already so explain how you feel to him and say that if he won't commit to an army up front don't play him. If other players in the group take the same approach he will either change his behaviour or pack up and leave. you win either way.

3. List tailoring your own army won't help you develop either your list or as a player. Pick a list and try it out for a few games against different armies and players. Then change a few units and play more games. That way you get to know how each unit works and what works well in certain situations and against certain armies.  Then you start to realise what units and tactics are good all round and which are more specialised.

 

If all else fails be a proper wolf and drink more ale.

[Yoyo ninja]

Is there an acceptable amount of list tailoring? Personally if I know I'm up against IG or other marines I'll take more multi-meltas and lascannons where as they would be overkill against say Dark Eldar who have low AV vehicles. I see that as just being sensible, what's the point in taking heavy bolters against a tank heavy list or loads of high strength, low ap weapons against hoards?

 

One thing we have done in my usual circle of players is play 4player games all vs all on an 8'x8' board. It makes it impossible to tailor a list as you will be fighting 3 different races, so if you go too anti armour to deal with IG tanks you get swamped by nids. It really makes you think about your list. Also it's loads of fun and utter carnage, it's not rare to end the game with one unit left making a heroic last stand!haha.

[tylerw]

The only time list tailoring becomes "bad" is when it's oppressive.  If your opponent just had X figures, and he's playing 90% of them, then yea, it's hard to tailor and still have a fair game (unless he has a very competitive pool of figures I guess).  In that scenario though, I'd encourage the opponent to proxy as needed to avoid being hemmed in by their available figures.