PDA

View Full Version : List Writing--To Tailor or not to Tailor..?



Darchangel
15-01-2010, 09:47
Hello everyone..

An opinion for you all to stake your claim upon.

I have recently discovered, somewhat to my chagrin, that I may be in the minority of gamers who write lists for armies designed to take on all comers. I like to envision an army that is not designed to fight whoever I'm going up against (a "tailored" list), because I then have the ability to take only the best options against them, and then I feel my list is doing all the work, and no part of my own skill is involved in the fight. I also feel then like some units become shoe-horned into their roles and unconventional uses for them are never explored and exploited. The biggest issue I have with this practice, however, is that whichever player has more models will have an advantage in such a fight because they have more options to exploit.. it becomes an arms race, and makes the have-mores the winners, not the best generals.

But I could be wrong! I want to hear if there is some hidden virtue to tailoring army lists that I do not see and should appreciate. Although, I feel it only fair to mention, the argument that a real-life general would only take the right tool for the job is problematic--in order to be realistic, you would also need to dispense with points equality, standard terrain deployment, include weather conditions, and basically clutter the game with thousands more details to accommodate a misbegotten notion of "realism". I believe we dispensed with realism when we agreed to involve daemons from the warp who bend the rules of reality.

So tell me: How do you feel about tailored lists? Does your gaming group or store patronage usually do it? Usually don't? Why or why not..?

marv335
15-01-2010, 10:05
List tailoring is only a problem if only one opponent is doing it.
I don't generally do it, but what you will find is that most people tailor to their metagame whether they admit it or not.

Even an all comers list is usually biased to what they are most likely to face.

That's why Orks did so well in the tournament scene when they first came out.
All comers lists were usually anti-meq and couldn't handle the masses of Boyz

druchii
15-01-2010, 10:11
Hello everyone..

An opinion for you all to stake your claim upon.

I have recently discovered, somewhat to my chagrin, that I may be in the minority of gamers who write lists for armies designed to take on all comers. I like to envision an army that is not designed to fight whoever I'm going up against (a "tailored" list), because I then have the ability to take only the best options against them, and then I feel my list is doing all the work, and no part of my own skill is involved in the fight. I also feel then like some units become shoe-horned into their roles and unconventional uses for them are never explored and exploited. The biggest issue I have with this practice, however, is that whichever player has more models will have an advantage in such a fight because they have more options to exploit.. it becomes an arms race, and makes the have-mores the winners, not the best generals.

But I could be wrong! I want to hear if there is some hidden virtue to tailoring army lists that I do not see and should appreciate. Although, I feel it only fair to mention, the argument that a real-life general would only take the right tool for the job is problematic--in order to be realistic, you would also need to dispense with points equality, standard terrain deployment, include weather conditions, and basically clutter the game with thousands more details to accommodate a misbegotten notion of "realism". I believe we dispensed with realism when we agreed to involve daemons from the warp who bend the rules of reality.

So tell me: How do you feel about tailored lists? Does your gaming group or store patronage usually do it? Usually don't? Why or why not..?

Well at our local club we have a rotating crew of about 20 people, and a core of about five or six. On any given night there anywhere between eight and 10 games being played.

Most of the regulars (myself included) own between two and five armies.

So list tailoring tends to go up in smoke because people rarely schedule games in advance, and will rarely know exactly whom they're playing. So you could come with a list tailored to whoop some marines, only to brawl with guard or nids.

I've seen people turn up with nothing but heavy bolters and find themselves squaring off against Mech Eldar, or plasma, melta vets in vendettas playing Ork Hordes.

d

steevn
15-01-2010, 10:12
i make all my lists "all comers" but i buy some extra models so i can change them when needed. i don't like to rewrite a complete list to fit my opponent's.

what i do for my armies, never big changes and only for scheduled games (i ask the opponent what he would like to play against or tell them what i'll play), otherwise it's the all comerslists :

salamanders : meltas/MM to flamers/ML swaps against hordes, vindicator to whirlwind
tau : sometimes i change the weapons on the suits but i like my standard plasma/missilepod the most anyhow
eldar : scorpions into banshees if really MEQheavy (ex. deathwing)
IG: no changes
Greyknights : no changes

but for planetstrike and apocalypses i go wild and tune to kill :d

for fantasy i rarely do it (except the addition of scrolls), i find 40k more specialised with more chance to have really obsolete weapons in you army against certain opposing armies

Lord Solar Plexus
15-01-2010, 10:15
I don't think you are a minority. I do not tailor to fight any specific opponent either, and of the 10 guys or so I play with on a regular basis, only one is inclined to do that.

I also don't think that tailoring works as well as one might think. Let's take a cursory look at some examples from my gaming group:

Orks: Flamers come to mind, lots of them, or artillery such as griffons, but flamers and Griffons are useless against mega armour, Kans, Battle Wagons, trukk spam and whatnot, so you will need stuff to deal with that - and voila, you're balancing your list.

Tau: You will face some MEQ, some light infantry, some skimmers. No point in taking only plasma or only flamers or only one kind of anything really. A PBS would work extremely well against Tau - unless they mech up, so whether that is (effective) tailoring is up in the air.

Eldar: Same as above, all kinds of infantry with all kinds of saves, skimmers galore, possibly MC's - what do you really take? Autocannon of course but since they are amongst the best weapons to fight Rhinos, Chimeras, Devilfish and trukks, that is hardly a tailored list. Some psychic defence will be great - again, that also works against PBS, Marines, Lash, Nids and the odd Weirdboy.

Daemons: Okay, Daemons are different. Mystics could be considered tailoring. Still, your Inquisitor with psycannon is pretty useful against a foot council, too, and the Mystics are quite often suggested for tournament play, as other forces DS as well.

Then there is tournament play and leagues of all kinds, where you are bound to fight different enemies, so tailoring is right out.

Hypaspist
15-01-2010, 10:23
Definitely not in the minority. Round my end, we all have a gentlemans agreement to only ever bring all comer's lists, regardless of opponent. As Marv said there is nothing wrong with it either provided both players agree to it beforehand.

Agnar the Howler
15-01-2010, 10:31
I used to tailor, but only because it's a tailor GW. Most people outside of vets night don't have an army list and make up lists from what they brought, which was such a pain that I did it too because I wasn't having any fun being beaten across the board by anti-MEQ heavy armies that just happened to be packing heaps of plasma (this was mainly back in 4th Ed where Plasma was all the rage) against me, and then flamers all around for the nids army after me.

Now I have solid lists that I always use, lists that have aspects that were great against some armies and all work together. If I come out facing an all-infantry Ork horde with my Tau, then I stick it out to the end despite having only 1 submunition template and all my crisis suits being fireknife, I won't drop my two broadside suits for a second hammerhead and switch all my crisis suits to deathrain, scraping points for some cover-erasing pathfinders whilst i'm at it.

At first, tailoring appealed to me because I was new to the hobby and yet to chalk up a win against lists tailored against me and my Chaos, but after the first few losses, you grow a thick skin and don't really care if you lose, knowing in your mind that any victories for the enemy are going to be pretty damn hollow. I win my games through skill now, not through tinkering with my lists to exploit every weakness in a certain army.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, there is still 1 time where I tailor, and that's in pre-arranged tailor games. Say if I arranged a tailored game against marines next weekend with my chaos, we'd both aim to tailor our list as much towards obliterating the enemy as possible, it doesn't really matter who wins in those games, it's more about how much carnage you can cause in 5-7 turns.

Harfaern
15-01-2010, 10:51
As an Eldar player, I must confess I tend to tailor, but only if both players agree.

Playing with the same (or nearly the same) all comers list it's boring (IMHO). When you have a wide range of models, you want to change sometimes, but some units can only work against some especific enemies. Besides, when you know well your opponent, I think it's funny to try to guess what kind of units he will bring to the board, and build a list to counter that.

I can't see your point about "taking the right tool for the job is problematic". If you are a general and are sending an army to a planet full of orks, you will send as much anti-horde as you can, no matter which terrain, weather or whatever realistic details the batlle will have. In fact, knowing your enemy is part of the tactica.

Petay1985
15-01-2010, 10:57
I am a big fan of building an army around a concept with a particular theme, usually in the form of a 'all comers' list, occassionally due to the fluff behind my armies they may naturally tailor towards fighting Marines or Nids, but not because of expected opposition, just because my OCD doesn't like letting me break away from a fluff based theme!

Lord Solar Plexus
15-01-2010, 10:57
Not tailoring doesn't have to mean that your list never changes, at least not with the newer codices which all offer several viable styles. Of course when you only have like three useful choices in your whole codex or only a single troop choice, things look a bit different...

Oh, it just occurred to me that I do tailor under certain circumstances: When I know that I will be playing Planetstrike, I will do my very best to tailor for my role of attacker or defender.

Agnar the Howler
15-01-2010, 11:01
Of course, some things require tailoring like Apocalypse and Planetstrike (Titans don't care whether your army is balanced or not, nor do deep strikers who can assault on the turn they arrive care whether or not you built your army around shooting deep strikers down before they can charge you next turn) so I guess a good number of people can say they tailor in those circumstances, but you really have no choice if you want a good game, it's no use being an attacker and packing defensive army set-ups.

Phenski
15-01-2010, 11:36
As part of a long-term group, we have naturally swung more towards the 'tailoring' side (Luke...).
In fact we mentioned it about a year ago for the 1st time, had a good laugh and what stopped our cheese-beards from growing is the fact we dont tell anyone which army we are bringing (we own 3-5 armies ea.) on games night. As Harfaern mentioned, we always get a kick out of seeing what armies get deployed because guessing is part of the fun! During campaigns, and we dont play many, full lists are available to be drafted from as per scenario including mish-mashing armies

All that said though, the core of our (and im sure most peoples) lists are still designed by useful units that suit that particular generals style of war, synergy and theme(fluff or tactical). I would put all these things in the "Not-tailored" side of story, as these things are ::essential:: against all-comers and tailored lists.

-phenski

IAMNOTHERE
15-01-2010, 11:51
Like others have said I tailor in 1 circumstance - pre arranged games.

I tend to find that by taking a balanced list you can take on all comers - even tailored lists. Even if you lose againts tailored lists you keep the moral high ground.

azimaith
15-01-2010, 12:29
Hello everyone..

An opinion for you all to stake your claim upon.

I have recently discovered, somewhat to my chagrin, that I may be in the minority of gamers who write lists for armies designed to take on all comers. I like to envision an army that is not designed to fight whoever I'm going up against (a "tailored" list), because I then have the ability to take only the best options against them, and then I feel my list is doing all the work, and no part of my own skill is involved in the fight.

Whether you like it or not part of the skill in wargaming is army selection and building. Just as no general, no matter how ingenious, could serve in the military if he refused to use his most effective weapons against his most common enemy you should not assume that list building and choosing effective options is not part of the skill.

Everyone with a regular gaming group or store tailors their list to some degree. If you play somewhere where you fight lots of light armor and tanks you'll see people take lists with more weapons suited to deal with them. Thus, if they leave that particular metagame they may find their list much less effective.



I also feel then like some units become shoe-horned into their roles and unconventional uses for them are never explored and exploited. The biggest issue I have with this practice, however, is that whichever player has more models will have an advantage in such a fight because they have more options to exploit.. it becomes an arms race, and makes the have-mores the winners, not the best generals.

You're playing a game that requires models thus whoever has a larger variety can choose from more options. Thats just part of the game and theres nothing wrong with it. Its what makes wargaming profitable at all.



But I could be wrong! I want to hear if there is some hidden virtue to tailoring army lists that I do not see and should appreciate. Although, I feel it only fair to mention, the argument that a real-life general would only take the right tool for the job is problematic--in order to be realistic, you would also need to dispense with points equality, standard terrain deployment, include weather conditions, and basically clutter the game with thousands more details to accommodate a misbegotten notion of "realism". I believe we dispensed with realism when we agreed to involve daemons from the warp who bend the rules of reality.

So tell me: How do you feel about tailored lists? Does your gaming group or store patronage usually do it? Usually don't? Why or why not..?

Most people find it bad form to tailor your list upon sight of your enemies list, tailoring to combat the metagame i've never seen complained about ever.

Army composition should be a well loved and respected part of the hobby, part of being successful is to formulate strategies and build armies around exploiting them. There seems to be this misbegotten notion that a great general will just throw on a blindfold, spin around in a chair, then point to a bunch of random entries to make his army while a "list tailorer" or "less skilled" general, will carefully go over each entry and choose.

Frankly, if both players agree on tailoring lists (and its an unspoken agreement when it comes to just playing with friends armies regularly in most cases) that's great. I find the game is *richer* and more variable if you have several lists to choose from each tailored to fight a particular type of foe. Options you might shirk away from because of a MEQ dominated metagame suddenly become viable if you fight a GEQ and thus can see the light of day. For example, I may not take a thunderfire cannon in a standard SM list but i'd want one in a GEQ list. Separate lists based on broad archetypes allows models you would otherwise write off as "too inefficient vs MEQs" suddenly become a viable and worthwhile addition.

I find that "take all comers lists" are never take all comers and typically, lead to dominance of "GOTCHA!" lists that utilize overwhelming spam of certain units to overwhelm a take all comers list, while tailored lists will crush spam lists mercilessly. The greatest enemy of "power lists" or cheese units is tailored counter lists swapping before battle.

Its too bad list tailoring has such a bad reputation, a little bit of mutual tailoring can result in a far more diverse game.

Lord Solar Plexus
15-01-2010, 13:47
Whether you like it or not part of the skill in wargaming is army selection and building.


That is neither here nor there though. Unit selection and such is pivotal for any (supposed) all-comers list just as much as for a tailored one, you just have to think about more potential threats. That is a challenge of its own, as you do not know whether you will chance upon an MC or a horde or a horde of Rhinos. Does it sometimes tie your hands behind your back? Sure, so what! You just didn't think about this particular situation before, so learn and adapt!



Everyone with a regular gaming group or store tailors their list to some degree.


Maybe, but if the group is large enough and/or includes opposite archetypes and styles, that will not matter as the number of possible builds and opponents and playstyles skyrockets. Every new army entering the fray will add several builds...but I agree, there's no reason not to take the meta into account simply because everybody can do that. Changing your list upon seeing your opponent's forces however...who's the last to change his list, to get the last counter to a counter in then?

Trying to include assets that allow you to deal with a multitude of situations isn't just throwing random stuff together. What do you think they're doing at the GT?

MVBrandt
15-01-2010, 14:03
Intentional list tailoring is like obnoxiously loud harley riders. Also, well designed all comers lists should be able to tackle list tailors anyway and often.

I fail to see where there is merit or pride in seeing what your opponent has, and designing its perfect counter. You might as well play rock paper scissors where your opponent has to reveal his choice first. What's the point?

SPYDER68
15-01-2010, 14:17
Im complelty against tailor lists, if you make a list, try to make a balanced list.

When i make a list, i think about every army i could face.

Can i kill enough Meq's ?
Do i have enough anti tank ?
Can enough of that anti tank handle monst creatures ?
Do i have anything to deal with swarm ?

To me it takes the fun out of the game to tailor lists to your opponet.

shabbadoo
15-01-2010, 14:20
I play all-comers lists. Tailored lists work where both opponents are in on it, and it probably is the best way to play one-off scenarios or linked campaign scenarios with specific game/story objectives. It used to be this way most often. You would find out what scenario you would be playing, know what sort of opponent you would be facing, and then build a list to accomplish your objective against that foe. Your opponent would of course be doing the same thing. Generally it adds an interesting facet to the game.

My all-comers lists are very balanced, so they can pretty much deal with any army containing anything. Consequently, somebody "tooling up" against my armies is not much of a worry, as I generally find that some of my stuff will have an extra advantage against a "tooled-up" list, and some of it will have a weakness. However, the same can usually be said of the enemy army when comparing it to mine.

Balanced army lists- the ultimate cheese! :cheese:

:p

mdauben
15-01-2010, 16:20
I have recently discovered, somewhat to my chagrin, that I may be in the minority of gamers who write lists for armies designed to take on all comers.
Perhaps in your own gaming group, but lots of people like to build "all comers" lists. Whether becuase they are practicing for the tournament scene, or just becuase they perfer the idea of one list. This is actually my preferred way of playing. On the other hand, I don't necessarily mind "tailoring" as long as both players have the same opportunity to do so. If I show up at the store with my list made and my minis ready, I don't at all care to have my opponent re-write his list just to beat my army.


So list tailoring tends to go up in smoke because people rarely schedule games in advance, and will rarely know exactly whom they're playing.
Of course the downside of this is when you end up with people tailoring their list on the fly, after they get to the shop and find out who and what they are facing. I find this not only annoying (wasting time, seeking unfair advantage) but I have also never seen a list done five minutes before the game that was not filled with errors (sometimes deliberate). :mad:


Most of the regulars (myself included) own between two and five armies.
Same here. I actually started bringing in my army and not unpacking it until my opponent started deploying, so he would not know which army I was using and thus could not tailor his list. :p

Lord Malorne
15-01-2010, 16:30
OP:

List tailoring is in the minority.

Lord Malorne

Bunnahabhain
15-01-2010, 16:47
List tailoring is certainly not very common, I wouldn't like to put an exact figure on it.

As noted, it is only a problem if one player is doing it, and not the other. Even then, it can be fine. I've had "this is my tournament army I'm bringing on Thursday, bring an army to beat it."

Personally, I will only tailor armies for big, pre arranged games, as often as not to make them more cinematic, as close games are more exciting for both sides. If I know I'm likely to be facing 250-300 boyz, I'm certainly bringing more mortars of assorted sizes than normal. If it will be enough is another question, but a horde of orks charging either futilely into or gloriously through a rain of shells feels right....

Of course, I will often have multiple armies with me, so I will tend to pull out the mech list on the rolling hilly table, and the all infantry one on the cities of death type one. They're still pre written, all comers lists, so I don't really think of this as tailoring lists, rather sensibly adapting to broad conditions.

Skyros
15-01-2010, 18:58
I wouldn't tailor my list to beat a specific person. It's better to make an 'all comers' list...however that all comers list will depend on what your local meta is like.

Thud
15-01-2010, 19:05
Balanced army lists- the ultimate cheese! :cheese:

:p

It's true, though.

I've never really cared for list tailoring and I certainly can't be bothered to carry around 8 different army lists, so I make one that's good enough to beat anyone.

LKHERO
15-01-2010, 19:43
NEVER tailor. All-comers list every time!

Gearhead
15-01-2010, 20:01
I teach newer players, and to aviod even accidental list tailoring I use a table. They roll some dice, and I get my force. Somtimes it's Marines, sometimes It's Orks, sometimes it's Tau; I have no idea until they roll those dice. That way we're both on the same footing; I can't tailor my list to beat his and he doesn't even know what he'll be fighting. Both of us have to rely more on generalship than army compisition.

Nezalhualixtlan
15-01-2010, 21:01
So tell me: How do you feel about tailored lists? Does your gaming group or store patronage usually do it? Usually don't? Why or why not..?

There's really two relevant situations: Tournament, and Friendly games.

Tournaments are easy, usually you are locked into one list, and you want and should bring whatever you think will give you the absolute best chance of winning, as everyone else will be doing the same. Act accordingly within the rules, and do your best to win.

Friendly games are where things get a little more complicated. The best answer here is to figure out with your opponent beforehand what the two of you will do. Some people like to take power lists and try to bash each other's brains in, and that's great if it's something you both enjoy. Other people like to take "fluffly" lists which are generally less competitive. In terms of tailored or not, figure out what you and your opponent want to do. Generally the only time feelings end up getting bruised is if one player brings a less competitive list (fluffy or general and untailored) and the other person brings a power list or tailored list and thumps them soundly when there wasn't any agreement and the game ends up not remotely competitve. So again, come to an agreement and everyone leaves happy. If your know your opponent is going to bring a less competitive list, tone it down some so there the game can be more about the in game strategy than the fact the lists don't match up well. If you know your opponent is bringing a power tailored list, go ahead and do the same unless you want a challenge, but don't get bent out of shape if you do that and lose.

Customs will differ though from group to group, so bear that in mind too. For instance, among the guys I play with, people generally arrange games before hand and bring tailored and power lists and have at it. If you want to play a less competitive list, generally you need to let your opponent know beforehand so they can tone down the list accordingly (whether because you're building a new army and the stuff you have just isn't up to snuff yet, or you want a fluffy game, or whatever). So for our games, if you don't make it clear you are going to be bringing a less competitive list, expect a power oriented tailored monster facing you, because that's just our standard operating procedure. Generally the guys I play with are cool about toning things down for whatever reason if it's necessary as the competition in game is actually more important to having fun for us than anything else.

But again, the single most important thing I can think of in regards to this is just find out what's going to be ok between you and your opponent first - unless it's a tournament and then do what you can to win within the rules.

jsullivanlaw
15-01-2010, 21:10
List tailoring means the IG player is going to win... Not every codex has the same ability to tailor. With Dark Eldar i went up against an IG list with 3 Exterminators and a ton of auto cannon teams. 20 auto cannons overrall, all twin linked due to orders and the exterminator. I made 70% of my turboboost saves and still lost all my skimmers after coming in from dawn of war on turn 2. Lots of armies get boned by tailoring, just look at daemons. A few pieces of wargear/psychic powers/advisors and they become about half as effective. Tailoring is lame so luckily i've become good at the concede before deployment against those types of players...why waste my time?

Sir_Lunchalot
15-01-2010, 21:16
I tend to just play with my tournament list, and I let my opponents know when I set up a game. As for tailoring, I'd be stupid not to. My local metagame is Marinehammer 40k, with the occasional nob biker army. Out of my last two tournaments, one with six games one with five, I fought one army that wasn't marines of some form.

Outside of tournaments there's slightly more variety. My regular opponent is a marine player who tends to clean up the local tournaments. I almost always tailor my lists specifically to fight his army, not just generic anti MEQ. That's one of the few times where specific tailoring actually makes for a better game for both of us because without that the difference in skill means I get tabled, plus he likes the challenging uphill games; especially when he wins them (which is still more often than not) It's worth repeating this is the only time I ever tailor an army specifically to beat a specific player. I would not do that for a friendly game against anyone else. The only reason I do this is because a) he has asked me to do so numerous times, especially when trying out tourney lists, and b) this has proven to make for a better game for both of us.

Other than him, I tend to fight marines, marines, marines, some guard and my roommate has an ork army. The thing is the orks are the only army that scares me because nob bikers are just terrifying (plus my roommate is also one of the best 40k players in the province). The IG armies are played by people who are newer to the game, and well, just aren't as good, so me using an army tailored not to fight them actually makes for a better game. As for the marines... When >90% of players in my area play the same army, what else do you expect? If all comers for you means marines, marines, marines, chaos marines and nob bikers, than your all comers army should represent that. It's the advantage of playing an army not used by 90% of the players, that everyone's armies need to adjust to fight you.

selone
15-01-2010, 21:21
Myself and my gaming group don't just 'turn up' and somewhere so we play pre-arranged games pretty much all the time. Whether it be campaign games or one-offs there is a bit of tailoring. Space wolf player bought a flamer in every squad when playing against my Orks, I've had someone use a race specific item in Fantasy battle etc.
On the whole I don't mind and it at least means that their army isn't the same army every game, but sometimes the tailoring gets a little bit too much for my liking.

The Base
15-01-2010, 21:27
I think it's fair to make a list based around knowing the army you are fighting.

I don't think it is fair to make a list based around knowing the exact make up of the army you are fighting.

In this case your tactics are based around best guess of the make up of the army. However if your army is good and your tactics are also good you should be able to take all comers no problem.

chromedog
15-01-2010, 21:40
We have a mix of Powered armour armies and crap-saves horde armies in my club.
Tailoring for one leaves you open for the other to lay the smackdown.

While most armies at our tournies tend to be SM builds (spiky or otherwise), you need to beat ALL armies to take out the top spot (and get good 'soft scores'). Our bigger tourneys have 8 games over the weekend, so the odds that you will face an army not suited to your tailoring is moderately high.

carldooley
15-01-2010, 22:01
I love playing against tailored lists. . . I'll walk in with my Tau and let my oppponent tailor his list, and then go out and get my Space Marines.:shifty:

Occulto
15-01-2010, 22:21
As long as both players are fine with it, what's the problem? (I agree tailoring your list after you've seen your opponent's is pretty lame - but in my experience most people don't carry round enough miniatures to do it).

All comers lists can get quite boring - especially when you see the same "jack of all trade" options over and over again. :rolleyes:

Tailoring allows you to field specialised units without excessively gimping yourself. For those of us with decent sized collections, often it's the only time we get to use some of our more esoteric options without wearing a big "smack seven shades of snot outta me" sign round our necks.

The best example of this is the Culexus assassin. Too specialised for most "all comers" lists so unless you play with tailored lists, chances are you'll rarely (if ever) face/use one on the table.

The other side to tailoring is the mission. Standard missions are designed so that people never know what they're going to play next, but agreeing in advance can be a lot more fun. If I know I'm defending in a seige-style mission, I'll pick a very different army than if I know I'll be attacking. (My opponent can do the same).

In the older rulebooks there was much more of a focus on this - for the non-standard missions you used a different force org chart depending on whether you were attacking or defending.

Working out what tools are the best for a specialised job is just as much a challenge as fine-tuning a list that'll go well against everything from horde IG to mech DW.

People need to stop thinking about tailoring as a bad thing just because some they know some jerks who abuse it. Tailoring changes a lot of options from "bad" to "good" and makes you look at your codex in a very different light. If you know you're coming up against DE or Tau, you don't need to worry about how you're going to take on Landraiders or Monoliths, do you?

DaSpaceAsians
15-01-2010, 22:39
As far as tailoring goes, I just swap heavy weapons and special weapons while doing my best to remain WYSIWYG

Glabro
16-01-2010, 00:44
So tell me: How do you feel about tailored lists? Does your gaming group or store patronage usually do it? Usually don't? Why or why not..?

Tailoring for the metagame (that is, making a list you'd expect to do well in a tournament) is fine. Tailoring against your opponent's army, or worse, his particular list, is not, unless you both agree to do so, or unless you've been losing to that list a lot and need to see how to beat it (but that's a bit of a cop out - tune your normal list and learn to play it better!).

Some guys can't help but tailor against the opponent's army. That's why it pays to have different armies, like orks and marines, and not tell the opponent which one you're going to bring.