View Full Version : How do you feel about list-tooling?

29-11-2007, 22:47
I'm curious how people here (which I assume is as good a census method as I can easily find) feel about tooling lists: specifically, changing the contents of your army list based on the opponent you'll be facing. Up to now, I have avoided it as entirely as I can, even to the point of markedly not taking some entries in the name of fair play. Lately, however, I've begun to wonder at this pattern, largely because I find myself not using many cool magic items: they're far too situational for general use.

The question I pose, then, is how the people of Warseer feel about changing the contents of your list based on your opponent's army choice (in friendly games).


29-11-2007, 23:52
The only thing to remember about a friendly game is that it should stay friendly. That is not the same as soft, or non-cheesy or not tooled. Just try to anticipate what your opponent expects as fair - for instance I don't see anything wrong with having the helm that causes fear in skaven armies, when facing skaven. Likewise, it's rather pointless to use a scroll caddy when you know you are facing dwarves. But if an army is made out in a way that leaves a certain opposing army without a chance at beating it, perhaps the definition of friendly is being stretched.

Generally, I try to avoid making lists that in themselves are boring to meet. I don't mind making hard lists, I know from personal experience that getting massacred can be rather entertaining, but I try to do it with some focus on making the game challenging and fun to play.

29-11-2007, 23:56
I usually take all comers lists, though with my Empire Lists I will switch out the Wizards Lores based on what armies I am facing (since the wizard box comes with parts to make 2 anyways) but thats as far as I go. Minor things are ok, completely tailoring a list to fight your opponents list is a bit much

30-11-2007, 00:04
Tooling your list isnt very sporting really.
Especially if your opponent doesnt tool his list.

Things that arent really dependant on the list like choosing spells to suit a particular enemy is perfectly fine though, just like you deploy a set way vs a set foe and what tactics you use against them.

Crazy Harborc
30-11-2007, 00:16
My regular opponents and I all tool up our lists. We have been known to pick an army based on what army an opponent is going to use. None of us only push one army. We've all collected a fair amount of minies.....we use them.

When playing in a campaign, we "develope" our list(s) as the campaign results dictate.

Nephilim of Sin
30-11-2007, 01:02
I would have no problem with the "sideboard" approach... i.e., make your primary list, then have the "stand ins" that can be adjusted. (exchange Black Orcs for Trolls, and so forth, or change this magic sword). So long as the whole list is not revamped, but a few minor changes, I do not see anything wrong with it It can still be "competitive", yet fun, and not at all beardy.

30-11-2007, 01:13
Part of the fun is fiddling around with the list. I always tailor my army to face a certain foe. And everyone in my gaming group does the same thing. We are always out to 1 up the other. All comer lists are boring and show very little imagination. They are fine at tournaments and the like, but not for everyday gaming. Part of being a good general is anticipating what your opponent is going to do and counter it. If we are both playing the same list all the time, hoo humm. It's safe. I know what he has, he knows what I have.
Ogres and Dwarfs are totally different. Why would I bring the same army to face them??

30-11-2007, 01:38
Changing your list to face a single opponent is in my opinion is like side decks in most cards games.

It's viagra for poor armies/decks.

Fiddling around with particular units and putting them in/out to see how you like the feel of the unit in general is simply exploration, trying completely different lists is fun,but completely changing up your list to face a particular opponent shows, in my opinion, a lack of imagination as you simply say "oh look opponent x means unit y."

Friends in my gaming group make it a point to hide what lists we're using and what armies we will be playing. It forces us to be creative and use tactics to an even greater degree.

Just my opinion mind you and if my opponent insists on knowing my army beforehand, I can typically alter my tactics accordingly because it makes them readable and predictable.

30-11-2007, 01:40
Ogres and Dwarfs are totally different. Why would I bring the same army to face them??

because you like the challenge of trying to beat them with all and any list?

Personally minor tweaking, i.e. swapping dispel scrolls for power stones against dwarfs or other less magicy armies is fine, otherwise you'll end up with loads of points wasted where he wont.

Tailoring the whole army is completely different (though mildly acceptable if both sides inform each other), personally I like to take most armies on with whichever army I take, obviously with certain armies there are others I fear a little bit more than some. But hey, that's where the challenge lies, if you only ever field units that easily beat other armies you'll never learn to use the more difficult units best.

hope that made sense, it's late and im about to hit the sack, might be all gibberish.

30-11-2007, 01:42
Me and my friends dislike list tooling and only tweak our lists if we find certain configurations need to be switched, otherwise we keep the same list. We like sticking with configurations that win, like a 25 skeleton w/ a tomb prince block supported by 3 ushabti and a liche priest in 1000pts.

30-11-2007, 01:53
I rarely ever play with the exact same list, but I do not like the idea of list tooling. I use different lists and balance them for all comers. If I win because I have a particular item that is particularly tough against a particular army, I feel it cheapens it.

Just Tony
30-11-2007, 02:03
I look at it this way:

In the US Army, if we get intel about the foe in advance, we'll tailor the response force to deal with that foe.

If it's in a tourney you have NO IDEA what you're up against. In an everyday battle, knowing your oponent, you'd be foolish not to cater to that foe. It's like getting a leg sawed off before a marathon. Why cripple your chances?

Fun is fun, but the middle of the battlefield isn't a "be nice to me" zone, it's a KILL zone

30-11-2007, 02:10
Interesting points tony,

What about during long term campaigns and crusades into "unknown territory" or what about bad intelligence alltogether. I enjoy the idea of an allcomers list because it encourages getting to know your army and it's personalities (for instance my dire avengers seem to love leaving their exarch alone to do all the work) and altering your tactics accordingly.

Etienne de Beaugard
30-11-2007, 02:35
I have no problem with list-tooling, so long as both sides have equal opportunity to participate in the practice. If one person is playing their 'take all comers' list, while the other person tools their list against the first, the chance for an unenjoyable game increases significantly.

Crazy Harborc
30-11-2007, 03:30
Some interesting points about why not to make major changes in a unit or army list. It appears that a majority of posters on this thread don't like to do it.

Still what works for some doesn't always work for others. Here's hoping we all can have enough regular opponents to keep games interesting.

30-11-2007, 04:23
For a fun game to see what armies can do against each other, I have no problem with two consenting players making lists tailored to beat each other.

However, in the general run of things I don't find games enjoyable (to watch or play) when people tailor their lists to beat another's army. Any fool can bring a gun to a knife fight. In my opinion, tailoring your list to gain an advantage over another doesn't show that you're a better player, it just shows you're either adept at Math-hammer, own more models/armies than your opponent does or both.

Defender of Ulthuan
30-11-2007, 04:46
I have no problem with it. In fact, I encourage it. I mean, it's not like everyone is always at war with everyone. When two factions fight, it is assumed that they are at war, and at least knew they were fighting that particular race/nation. It's not, "Oh, I think we'll attack those Lustrians today, they're really pissing me off standing 300ft away with an army I never saw coming." Any general with prudence, let alone the ability to breathe, should mould his force to counter and defeat his enemy.

30-11-2007, 05:03
If both players agree to it before hand then I don't see an issue.

In any other case, I would never change any aspect of my list to suit an opponent. There's no honour in it and ultimately it would be your list that wins, not you.

It's like taking a gun to a knife fight. Sure, you'll probably emerge victorious, but it says nothing about your own abilities when the odds were allready stacked in your favour.

30-11-2007, 11:08
at my club, there is pretty much a player from each army, so i tool up my list accordingly, usually. if im using my lizards, and i play undead, i make sure i leave out my chameleon skinks in favour of my cavalry, but if im playing chaos, i put in extra saurus instead of skinks. however, in under 2k, my general doesnt change, and at 2k, the only change i make to my general is whether i put him on a carnosaur or not, depending on whether i am playing a hoards army, or an army that needs to be hit hard. with my HEs though, i use what i have got, although im sure i can remedy that when i get a dragon or two

30-11-2007, 11:14
I usually don't change much since I tend to like the same things anyway, but I see no problem changing up a list for a specific opponent as long as they have the same chance. After all, all the options in the book are there to be used IMO. If you have the models and feel like trying out new options, why not? Also, from a purely practical standpoint, no general in hostory would ever go to battle not knowing at least *something* about his enemy and trying to find a means of exploiting it. The idea that everyone should play an all-comers list is a bit mystifying and artificial IYAM. In a tournament setting, sure, it's the only way to ensure fair play. But in friendlies or campaigns? I say have at it.

Cheers, Gary

Gorbad Ironclaw
30-11-2007, 11:24
*shrug* If you feel the need to change your army based on what I'm using, feel free. I'm not going to change my list tho, it's usually the same over long periods of time. I might eventually put in a new unit or something, but it usually doesn't take much to 'guess' what the list is, as it will be the same as last time.

30-11-2007, 16:25
I've seen other tactical/strategy game campaigns played where a person is given X amount of points to develop their list of forces. They get chances to scout the enemy and then can bring Y amount of points to a given battle. Most people try to tailor what they bring based on what they believe they will be facing.

This worked remarkably well for a Mageknight(Yes I know, sacrilege) faction campain. It was funny watching a Blackpowder player bring a bunch of magic resistant dwarves against what he thought would be a magic heavy army, only to find out it was made up of hard hitting golems.

That sort of tweaking I think is fun and enjoyable. Building an OK list to destroy my friend's Skaven army, with the Brahmir Statue on a Butcher (Psy test -3 for Skaven and Chaos) and then casting spells that force panic tests would be "cheesy".

Now I could see me knowing that a given venue is Chaos and Skaven heavy and choosing that list to bring before I find out which armies I will face, and then not changing it out if my foes are Brets or WE.

Grand Warlord
30-11-2007, 16:32
Well I don't really mind it but I can't afford to stock more than my list as it is, so I can't really do it myself.

Etienne de Beaugard
30-11-2007, 19:39
IIRC, some armies have magic items that are designed to target specific races. Without tailored lists, would these ever see play?

30-11-2007, 19:59
That sort of tweaking I think is fun and enjoyable. Building an OK list to destroy my friend's Skaven army, with the Brahmir Statue on a Butcher (Psy test -3 for Skaven and Chaos) and then casting spells that force panic tests would be "cheesy".

All other things aside, I really can't find any wrong with bringing an option that works against one or two races, when facing those books.

Am I to take dagger of sotek, kb against skaven, vs any other race than skaven? That would just be silly.

30-11-2007, 20:17
The only thing I'd think its "OK' to change is Magic Items.

The reason being of course that some magic items ONLY have an affect against a specific army - so you'd never see them in an All Comers list unless someone was willing to spend points on nothing but fluff. (And surely, there are some, but few) Things like the Cloak of Beards for example.

Beyond that though, I don't like it. You end up with a situation I used to get back when I was little and we played "Toy Soldiers" - that is, every time I choose a unit, the other player switches something of theirs to counter it, so you end up with total listhammer.

Either that, or you change your list, they don't, and you hammer them. Which just isn't sporting imho.

Just Tony
30-11-2007, 21:18
Every army in the Warhammer world has some form of scouting force, fluffwise, who's whole purpose is to spy on the potential enemy and bring the intelligence on them back to the general. The general then selects what of his army he needs to bring to make the biggest mess out of that said enemy. For instance, if the scouts came back and said that it was a small infantry army, the general would make sure he could outmaneuver them.

That's the way warfare works. No general shows up to ANY protracted campaign with a handful of guys and thinks "Welp, that should be able to handle just about anyone." That's just asinine. They bring reserves, whole batallions of troops, and each troops best function dictates when and where the general will send them. If you REALLY wanted to be realistic, then there'd be more uneven matches. 1,000 pts vs 3,500 and the like. But since we're aiming for both sides being equally matched, it's more of a case of selecting the right tools for the job. Anything less would be like a mechanic only owning one hammer and a phillips screwdriver.

30-11-2007, 21:29
Every army in the Warhammer world has some form of scouting force, fluffwise, who's whole purpose is to spy on the potential enemy and bring the intelligence on them back to the general. The general then selects what of his army he needs to bring to make the biggest mess out of that said enemy. For instance, if the scouts came back and said that it was a small infantry army, the general would make sure he could outmaneuver them.

That's the way warfare works. No general shows up to ANY protracted campaign with a handful of guys and thinks "Welp, that should be able to handle just about anyone." That's just asinine. They bring reserves, whole batallions of troops, and each troops best function dictates when and where the general will send them. If you REALLY wanted to be realistic, then there'd be more uneven matches. 1,000 pts vs 3,500 and the like. But since we're aiming for both sides being equally matched, it's more of a case of selecting the right tools for the job. Anything less would be like a mechanic only owning one hammer and a phillips screwdriver.

While this is certainly true, I think I can come up with a few times where either the scouts were completely misled (fed false information, turncoat, got killed, failed to scout their target at all). I personally imagine most of the battles in WHFB to be small skirmishes as opposed to full scale engagements where the particular generals/leaders of the armies simply don't have the resources to pull from to tailor their forces to the type of enemy they are facing. Thus, when making the initial selection of forces it would be sound to choose a well rounded force that can handle any situation they might encounter.

Just a thought.

30-11-2007, 22:33
magic items + characters only.

thats it.

the minor the better, i dont tailor my list at all except to change my 1 dispel scroll for a powerstone against dwarves. (when playing my Tzeentch)

30-11-2007, 23:28
Tooling your list isnt very sporting really.
Especially if your opponent doesnt tool his list.

Things that arent really dependant on the list like choosing spells to suit a particular enemy is perfectly fine though, just like you deploy a set way vs a set foe and what tactics you use against them.

I pretty much agree with this. I don't think tooling a list is a problem if your opponent does the same. My regular opponent and I often change our all-comers list a bit when we play each other. It isn't a problem since we both have agreed to do so.

01-12-2007, 01:19
If both players agree to share lists then it's ok....moot point.

Now, if one player shows up with multiple lists and chooses one to play based on seeing his opponents army then it's just plain dirty. My group always played blind on gaming night. However, people knew there was about an 80% chance I would show up with VC, daemonic legion, or DoW but there was a 20% chance I would show up with Empire, Lizardmen, HoC or Tomb kings. At teh game store there were gitz that woudl create multiple lists for their army and would decide which list to play after you told them what army their opponent was playing, that was uncool. However, against DoW it's hard to customize a list to beat them becaus eof their options and diverse playing styles.

01-12-2007, 02:30
To be a good to very good player, you need to be prepared before the battle. Hey, your the general. You should know your opponents book better than he does. And you should be prepared to face such foe.
If you are starting out in the game, I can see why you would bring a all-comers list. Maybe you don't have the models yet or they aren't painted, which is understandable.
But once you gain experience, a true general "Prepares" for a battle. Uses his head. Alot of the fun for me is before a game sitting up at night going over both books and planning my attack. A All-comers list which I make once is very dull. It just sits in my case till my game. Bhah!
My Empire army (or Dark Elf or Dwarf) never looks the same. Keeps my opponent off balance. Makes my opponents think and they become thoughtful, intellegent gamers who aren't afraid of the "unkown".

01-12-2007, 04:15
I guess at this point it would be a good idea to clarify the concept of 'list-tooling'.

The way I see it and several of have posted in effect to there are several different concepts of this.

1) I make a list in a vacuum. The list I make I can travel around the globe with without change and attempt to be equally competitive with.
In my opinion this is probably the most difficult possible way to make a list, as different gaming groups can present radically different challenges.

2) I make a list based on my experience within my gaming group(s). I plan based on my opponents tendancies, and expect them to do likewise. However, the list I bring to any particular gaming session remains static unless I'm testing particular effectiveness of units, or army makeups. My army list on a given night does NOT change DUE TO the makeup of my opponents armies.

This idea I feel is not only wise, but also the signs of a good general. You take care to plan both your army, strategy and tactics ahead of time. I personally feel this shows respect to your gaming community and is what keeps the hobby alive. These individuals tend to be the most active with discussing situational uses of units and enjoy reviewing others lists for new and interesting combinations.

On a personal note I feel I fit into this category and have found myself reading the codexs, armybooks, registries, and army listings (I play nearly every GW game) like a codebook with secrets always there to be found. I like to cross reference this with the particular area that I'm in, and the gaming community that I've found myself working with at that time (I've moved quite a bit).

3) I make several lists and change them on the fly according to my opponent. I will choose lists based on my opponents army makeup.

I believe this is the result of one or more of the following things: too much money, too much time, too stagnant of thinking about how an army is "supposed to" work, lack of faith in their own abilities as a general, an overall powergamer, or a lack of the understanding of the spirit of the game.

On a personal note, I have found these gamers to be the ones most apt to start to get really picky about every detail once a game turns sour. Also I've noticed a tendancy towards blaming everything other than their generalship for anything other than a tie. Opponent victories are almost always "lucky" and disregarded as an anomaly to their normal pattern of victories.

Just some thoughts.

01-12-2007, 21:14
General rules
You turn up to GW with X pts of army X (2k for fantasy, 1.5 for 40k) and challenge people to games.
Feel free to swap out about 10-15% of that list after each game for next opponent. Maybe you want to try a new unit, maybe a different rank sturcture whatever.
Occasionally plan a game with friend where you both say "il take HE...Orcs....Empire" or whatever and both tool to the max to kill the other.
Basically as long as both sides takes the same, or an agreed max of tooling towards an opponent its fine.

Big TM
01-12-2007, 21:46
Me and my friends just turn up at GW and make a list to use against each other. We don't taylor them to each others armies, but it gives us a chance to change round units that didn't work last game. e.g. 3 games strait, your knights got shot by cannon. So I change them for more warriors, otherwise what's the point. Their just going to get shot.

What I also find, is that if you get to know some one and know that they don't know what to do if they come up against, say a fast opponent. So you may be tempted to make a fast army. This can not be because of the army they are taking, but the knowledge of how to deal with units.

Bingo the Fun Monkey
02-12-2007, 02:03
I generally take an all-comers list, or else ones that would be successful against Bretonnians, as I find these builds, for the O/G at least, are good against any army and even if deployment/composition doesn't go my way, my army can still make a good account of itself. I personally do not mind people tooling their lists to fight my specific army type. Especially with magic items that are race-specific: these are in the book for a reason and they aren't game breaking, but rather interesting. I try to live outside of the metagame, but I don't mind players who ride it.

02-12-2007, 02:21
As long as both parties are in agreement before the game, sure, why not? Many clubs and groups play this way, always seeking the advantage and they have a blast doing it. All the power to them. However, equally valid is the all-comers camp who believes that since real generals don't get to swap out parts of their armies and have to deal with the task at hand with whatever they have at the time, so should we.

Personally I fall more into the latter than the former, but I can play either style and have fun. :)

02-12-2007, 02:36
After a little thought I have come to the realisation that there is no such thing as "list tooling". Either you prepare for the game or you come with you all-comers list. It is your choice. I prefer to prepare. Simple as that.

02-12-2007, 03:52
For me it depends on the type of game your meant to be playing. A war simulation or a stand alone game.

If your playing a war simulation, a campaign of games, like, for example the Taros campaign, then yes tailoring is fine.

A stand alone pick up game? No tailoring, you can't, not without being, or seen to be being someone whom can't win otherwise.

Just recently, i played a game of Warmachine with my flat mate. Once he had set down his army i made a comment of "Wheres your jacks?" being as he had once proclaimed "The game is called warMACHINE" his reply? "I fancied beating you for once" i laughed and continued with the game. As long as this does not keep happening i'm fine with it.

But typically, the only thing we know of each others armies is the race. To which we do not tailor.

I will not drop my burst cannons just because i know my opponent is taking marines. Neither will they take heavy bolters over their missile launchers when facing my tau. We do all have multiple lists, to help keep things fresh, but all of those lists will "All comers" lists.

Of cause if we are playing a campaign, then tailoring to the race will be fair game.

02-12-2007, 04:16
I tool my army up all the time. First reason is that I don't like to play with the same list two times. That said, it would be silly to take things you know are weak against your next opponent. Since my main opponent nearly always fields his lizardmen, I know I can expect skinks, and usually either or both a carnosaur or stegadon. So why not bring things to face the most dangerous threats that you expect to be coming?

But only thing I look at is type of army. We never share any information about army composition, magic items etc until deployment. And no changes are made to lists when we start.

By the way, I also try to vary and theme my armies as much as possible.

One of my opponents field Khorne knights which most of the time are chosen too. If I do not anticipate to that by taking spear chukka's and doom divers & stuff, I'm dead before we start.

02-12-2007, 04:38
i usually play all comers as i'm too lazy to change my army around for different opponents, no the other hand, we have a rule at our club that if anyon is going to field forge world models the opposing player gets to re tool his list to account for stuff like airctaft and similar pain in the ass stuff

06-12-2007, 19:41
I try to adjust my list to fit my opponent, just as I expect them to do. If they don't tool their lists, it's no fun to tool yours because you would have an unfair advantage. I also play against dwarves on a regular basis, so using unaltered lists would result in me with a moderate magic army, nothing coming through and me getting slaughtered, which is no fun for either of us (especially me :D).

So on the one hand, if I know I'll face an army with heavy cav(HE, Bretonnia,...) I'll experiment some units that are good especially against heavy cav, but I won't take those units against other armies. On the other hand, I'm never gonna take a look at their lists or something, or revamp my army list especially for one army except for the sake of experiment. That is with the exception of Tzeentch, where the only chance of not being massacred is when you take a dozen scroll caddies. I really hate Tzeentch.

06-12-2007, 20:55
Yeah, whatever. Anyone wants to try that with me, IŽd simply keep Žem guessing which army IŽd bring.

06-12-2007, 20:56
cheesy maxed out WAAC lists = fair game, its each our own hobby to enjoy, you want to do that thats kl, ill play you, may write a list like it for fun.

List tooling = cheating imo. It just is.

06-12-2007, 22:39
I've found that some of my favorite games were when we both knew what army the other person was using, and even the mission.

It really becomes a game of cat and mouse because you know what you should take to hurt that team or win that mission, but at the same time your opponent will know this and take things to counter it.

I've had it a lot of times though that people change their list to beat me and I still beat them. In most cases I think you are better off using a list you are used to rather than throwing together some stuff the is good against the army you are facing and try to force it to work.

Just Tony
06-12-2007, 22:47
I have two gaming groups, since I've maintained my friendships in both towns I've lived in on opposite sides of my state. Oddly enough the clubs pretty much run the same. We will bring probably somewhere around 3,000 pointsworth, but more than likely every mini we own for that said army. Once we're there, we then select what we need for whomever we're playing. Ft. Wayne tends to be more WFB and Lafayette tends to be more 40K, but this principle still applies. The only time we run into "all comers" lists are in tournaments, or people just getting into the hobby that haven't gotten up more than what they have as of current. I see this as neither cheating nor unfair. The argument is made about bringing a gun to a knife fight and PWNing the opponent needlessly. However, if you bring an all comers list that doesn't have the tools to deal with more than, say, two cav units, and the opponent shows up with 7 or so, you just brought fists to an artillery fight. It's a double edged sword, but it falls on a general as to whether he wants to relive Themopole every time he plays, or if he wants to take his cue from someone like Patton, who studied his opponents and made sure to have the right tools for the right job.

Now that I think about it, though, it seems to me that "all comers" really only works for 40K. "Here's my firebase, here's my anti-tank, here's my counterassault" Fantasy has too many modules that are invariably too complex to be expected, especially with the wider selection of troop types, and wider basis of theme "Fast strike all cav, Shield wall, gunline". And you can't sit here and tell me you can make a list that can handle all of those successfully to give yourself a fighting chance in a pick up game, much less a tourney. Well, except for Empire. Detachments back by war machines with a flanker fast cav and a flanker knight unit pretty much has the upper hand in any fight. "I charge you with my knights. Oh, you stand and shoot me with a unit that I'm not charging, countercharge me in the flank in my own turn, and I won't do enough wounds to stop you from wounding on top of your automatic CR5."

You can equate sports/war/pretty much anything to army selection. Any force entering into a competition or some form of warfare will know before the event happens what they are up against, and will have the resources to plan accordingly. Unless, of course, they're being invaded during lunch or something, and have to defend against the attacking enemy with whatever's lying around. In THAT hypothesis, would you be invaded by a force roughly the same size as yours, with someone leading who thinks "Oh, well I'm only going to bring 80 men with me, and of those, ten are dedicated ballistic soldiers and ten are knights." I sincerely doubt it. Which is why, as I suggested earlier, if we were going true to form, we'd have more lopsided fights, unless we're going off of the idea that the army has had time to scout ahead and knows what they're facing. In which case, they will TAILOR their force for the mission at hand.

I'd like to think that we're not trying to homogenize WFB and turn it into 40K with wizards. I'd like to think we can still have that sort of variety that we enjoy without falling into the "Square, square, square, circle, triangle" aspect of 40K. I play each for different reasons. I'd like to keep it that way...

06-12-2007, 23:51
Depends really. If both sides agree to list tool and both have the capability to do so then I say fine. The problem comes when one side decides to tool without the others knowledge or one side doesn't have the capabiltiy to change their list. Case in point. I'm building a new Empire List at the moment and only have 1000 points worth. I don't have the models to make any changes and people at my club know what I'm running with. I'd be a bit put out if someone challenged me to a game then tooled up his list specificaly to take out mine.


07-12-2007, 01:48
I find it a bit bizarre that some people are so against making an army list for a specific battle. My friends and I say, "lets have a HE vs VC game next Saturday", so we know a week in advance what army we will be facing.

I thoroughly enjoy tailoring a list to meet a specific opponent, it adds another degree of stratergy to the game for me.

I think that some people play very reactively, they look at the opponents army and say to themselves "how will I deal with their X or Y?", then make an army accordingly. I prefer to build my lists more offensively. I don't so much react to what they might take, as I come up with a plan on how to defeat them, then take units that make that happen.

As an example, I might decide I want to go for a solid anvil in the center to meet their charge, with flyers harrassing from behind. I would be stupid to choose that tactic against my friends dwarves who will not come to me and who can pick off my flyers too easily. My flyers would also not get enough room to get behind the dwarves as they don't move foward much.

So I choose a tactic that I think will work, then make a list that can make it happen.

My army is vastly different every time I play. Magic items move around alot, characters move in and out of the roster. Even whole units might be left out for three games in a row. The tactic I choose each time is based mostly upon what I feel like playing, but is then reality checked against what army I will be facing. I don't tend to bring a scroll caddy against Khorne, I don't try to outshoot Empire, I don't bring dragons against cannon lines.

I think I would get bored of my army fairly quickly if I did not change tactics all the time. There is a certain degree of flexibility within some of my armies, but in the end 1 mage can't do a magic assault, infantry can't cross the board in two turns and my basic core troops are not going to act as much of an anvil. So if I want a specific task like that done, I change my list.

07-12-2007, 02:03
I think the point is less

*Are you in favour of tooling*

and more

*Are you in favour of tooling when your opponent doesn't have the same opportunity or expectation*?

As long as both sides are on the same level, then all is good. If one player has an unfair advantage, it sucks. If it's *Let's play next weekend* and you want a surprise, keep your force a secret and your opponent can't tool. If you agree to play *Orks vs Tau*, then I'd figure that each player is going to leave the AP3 stuff at home and bring High RoF weapons and some AT, whereas if either was facing an MEq, the High Str/AP2/3 stuff would get unlimbered.

As long as everyone is playing the same game with the same expectations, it's all good. :)

Kor Phaeron
07-12-2007, 09:33
I feel that it's OK to change the entire army between games if that's what you want to do.

I'd never build an army specifically to rip apart an opponent but I feel it's fair to pick whatever you want any given week.

I don't know why anyone would say there's no honour in changing your list, pretty sweeping and ill thought comment IMO.

07-12-2007, 13:26
I have no problem if a person wants to change a few redundant items when facing my army. For example if I'm playing Khorne Beasts I allow them to exchange the dispel scrolls.
I prefer to bring an all comers list and try to adapt my force to face what ever is put in front of me.

Gorbad Ironclaw
07-12-2007, 15:05
Now that I think about it, though, it seems to me that "all comers" really only works for 40K. <snip>And you can't sit here and tell me you can make a list that can handle all of those successfully to give yourself a fighting chance in a pick up game, much less a tourney.

Of course you can build all-comers list in WFB. It's not really as complicated as all that. It's just a question of asking you a handful of questions about how you will deal with this and that and then see what you can do with your list.

Hell, you could argue it's easier in WFB, because of the way combat resolution work. You don't need a good CC unit to counter an opponents CC units, weak rank'n'flank units will do just as well etc.

Crazy Harborc
08-12-2007, 02:54
Since 3rd Edition I've enjoyed spending a couple of nights a week creating a roster for an up coming game. It's part of what I enjoyed doing, it was part of wargaming for me. Now, I use Army Builder and crank out a roster in about one hour flat.:D Make that 30 to 45 minutes.;)

I have been in campaigns that only allowed minor changes in a roster used....week to week. That's fine when I am in a campaign. My regular longtime opponents have not mentioned it bothering them.

To each his/her own.;)

Bolter Bait
08-12-2007, 03:02
I tend to show up with a single list that I'll use no matter what the opponent is. Occasionally I write up an impromptu list to face a specific opponent, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that I build the list specifically to crush them - more to make it an interesting fight.

One thing I liked about the area down where I went to school at was semi-fixed lists. All participants for friendly tournaments, semi-competitive games would post 1000 pts of their list on a forum and we were not allowed to change those 1000 pts from game to game. Everyone and anyone had access to inspect and theory hammer on our set-part. However, the games we played were 1500 pt lists. Thus, after finding out who our opponent was, we were allowed to add 500 pts of whatever we could legally field on top of the fixed 1000 pt list. This way we could tailor to the opponent in a way that would make it interesting and unexpected while keeping folks from making a list that was entirely unbeatable by any given opponent.

It's a good system and I encourage all gaming groups to take it up.

08-12-2007, 04:38
I prefer a take all comers list, but I do feel people need to adapt.

So if your group starts moving towards using large monsters(dragons.Steam Tanks) I would expect players to take counter-measures.

I hate the people that go "Oh your playing _____, let me get this list then"

DarkLord Of Naggaroth
09-12-2007, 12:21
knowing and exploiting your enemies weaknesses is all part of tactics, it adds a new aspect to the game. You have to think of stratigies to protect your own weaknesses while thinking how to use your enemies to your advantage. Obviously if your oponent doesn't know you're doing this than it's not fair. But if they do, then I don't think it's a bad thing, I actually think it's a good thing -as long as you don't go over-board.

09-12-2007, 13:43
My own lists are all comers lists - but I don't really mind if you tool your guys specifically for me.

I'm still gonna cum and get ya!

09-12-2007, 14:11
In a pick-up game environment, it should be all-comer lists especially as you could fighting anyone from n00bs to tournament players or fluff monkeys to WAACers....

In a pre-arranged game against someone you know, I have no problem with list tooling as long as both parties agree. These can lead to fun games as both armies will be kitted out to exploit enemy weaknesses, whilst at the same time trying to prevent the enemy exploiting yours.

09-12-2007, 17:31
I never tool any army I use.
:pOne army to rule them all
One army to find them
One army to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

It always has to be a tournament style army. Playing against tooled armies? Why not - adds an element of surprise:p

Crazy Harborc
09-12-2007, 20:51
A fair amount of diferent views on wargaimg. It shows there are and will likely continue to be varying playing styles and various versions of rosters.

IMHO, we all can learn more from playing against opponents who have and use different "attitudes" about gaming.

One way to learn is to experience first hand knowledge that is new to me, you, us. IMHO, using knowledge unknown to an opponent is not unfair. Not sharing the knowledge would be unfair. To share it.....a very good way to share is by doing.

10-12-2007, 04:44
I tend to fiddle with my lists a not but not necessarily tooling for one opponent. I do tend to switch my rares mostly, the rest of the army is more or less set. Still I would swap my dispel scroll for a power stone against some armies, not sure if that counts as tooling or not.

10-12-2007, 07:07
I'm a Stillmanite. I collect all-comers armies to a set points value, paint them, and never touch them again except to play with them and do repairs.

I don't mind if people tool up their lists to defeat me, but I personally would never, ever, tool an army to defeat another. It strikes me as wrong. Hail Stillman!

10-12-2007, 08:16
I tool everything but do not take specific magic items that only work against one race and would be useless otherwise.

10-12-2007, 17:11
my veiw is that it is ok as long as both parties are aware that they can do it (in fact someitems in the ne HE book are only useful against certain armies so in fact encourages it) but I see it that way cause in RL a general will tweak his assets as he gos to battle to best give him the advantage.

however what I do (unless specified that tweaking is ok) I bring 3or4 lists (so no one knows what I am going to play) one list is combat powered, one is magic heavy offinsive, one is a bit more balanced and the last magic heavy defensive(at least for my HE).

if my opponent is magic heavy I ussually heavy I use either of the magic heavy armies if they are magic weak I go magic weak (I find it makes for more fun) of course I have a dominant magic defensive army Im working on that I would love to take against a Tzeenich army (but theres none in my area ...oh well)

Crazy Harborc
11-12-2007, 04:07
If I was to be up against an opponent who always only has one version of whatever army he pushs........I might think twice about tweaking.

By the by......My longtime regular opponents normally tweak their armies. Whenever I have played at the local GW store including in 3 campaigns opponents had different army lists each time too. In other words, around my table and at the GW store people, most people, most opponents tweak their army lists regularly.

11-12-2007, 19:43
I think that making your list is one of the fun of playing Warhammer, so in my view, taking the time to think about your opponent is army and to do some list-tooling is also part of the fun. When I play against a friend, I expect him to have done some list-tooling of is own and I never say "cheesee" when an opponent find the best possible amy list to beat my own army. I just try the next time to have a better list to opopose him.