PDA

View Full Version : List Tailoring



Ksarn
14-10-2010, 06:48
Ok, so I got accused of list tailoring today playing a dark elf player using my high elves. I'd like your thoughts on it. I know some circles don't consider list tailoring to be a problem but here its considered kinda cheesy.

Yesterday I played an orc player. Jind_singh from the forums, anyway roughly speaking my list was this,

Archmage
Mage
18 Phoenix Guard
10 Swordmasters
10 Swordmasters
10 White Lions
5 Dragon Princes
2 Lion Chariots
30 Spearmen
24 Seaguard
1 RBT

I won the game, but I had issues and worries about the chariots, pumpwagons and the doomdiver he had, keep in mind this was my 2nd game with my high elf army so its still evolving.

Anyway, I don't personally consider myself a list tailor (er?) This same dark elf player thinks I tailored against him previously about a year ago which I admit I did. I basically took an empire infantry horde (no warmachines and shooters) with 1 character in 7th against his Dwarves and got slaughtered. I had a lot of fun doing it too, I knew I had no hope in hell of winning. A unit of 70 halbs in 7th was poop. Anyway he was angry because I didn't bring a wizard and he had to bring a rune priest.

Anyway, that aside, I built 2 RBT's and finished my dragon princes today and decided to use 3 RBT's for this game and see how they did. I also wanted to take some archers to deal with light chariots, fast cav and warmachines (on 6's) Soooo, my list changed to this.

Archmage
Mage
18 Phoenix Guard
10 Swordmasters
10 White Lions
5 Dragon Princes
2 RBT
16 Archers
20 Seaguard
20 Spearmen
2 Lion Chariots

I made this in the parking lot before our game as I wanted to try out more shooting and see if it helped my 10 man units survive longer. I was accused of tailoring my list against his army...

What do you guys think? Is it tailored to beat dark elves?

He had something like

Lord
Level 4
Level 2
Cauldron
6 Cold one Knights
14 Corsairs with handbows
14 Corsairs with handbows
20 RxB
1 RBT
Hydra
35 Spearmen
20 spearmen
2 Cold one chariots
2x5 harpies

Oh and he was pissed that we rolled meeting engagement and for some reason he deployed far in his corner and I countered with doing the same giving me 2 free rounds of longbow fire into his rxb's he conceded on turn 2 because of this. Even though I had killed 6 harpies, 4 rxb while he killed 4 archers and I killed 6 Seaguard and my level 2 via a miscast.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
14-10-2010, 06:53
You tailor your list, when you make choices deliberately to counter your opponents army. So the only one, who can answer your question is; you :)

ftayl5
14-10-2010, 06:59
Well I don't think this is a particularly tailored list, looks to me like the particular dark elf player you were playing was an idiot.

Djekar
14-10-2010, 06:59
I think the crux of it is an honest personal assessment (perhaps an oxymoron, but we'll assume not for this discussion): Did your knowledge of your opponent influence your decision making process?

-Did you build the list to counter the dark elves inherent strengths/ take advantage of their inherent weaknesses?
-Did you build the list to counter the way that your opponent generally plays dark elves (i.e. if he usually brings lots of hydras did you choose fire magic)?
-Did you know what your opponent was bringing to the table even in a vague sense and build your list based on that (i.e. "I feel like bringing lots of magic this weekend" so you make sure to take lots of magic defense)?

Answering these questions honestly (and privately) will probably give you a lot of insight. I know from personal experience with a small gaming group, that it is very hard to avoid all of these aspects of talioring.

I have tailored lists in the past, and I've found that it always leads to games that are less fun for me and my opponent than they could be. I remember a game of 6th where I specifically took a DE monster list + gunline to destroy a friends beastmen because I knew he would have lots of lightly armored, poor leadership troops. The game was about as one sided as games get.

As far as him being mad that you mirrored his deployment and outshot him, I can only assume that it's an exacerbation of the original problem - he thought that you had tailored to his list by bringing more shooting than normal, so he was even angrier when you used that shooting to "outplay" him.

rocdocta
14-10-2010, 07:03
well i used to be for tailoring, but now am against it. but really if both know that its going to be tailor city, well then thats fine.

Gorbad Ironclaw
14-10-2010, 07:16
Well I don't think this is a particularly tailored list, looks to me like the particular dark elf player you were playing was an idiot.

Got to agree with this. It sounds to me more like the Dark Elf player have a problem than it's anything you are doing.
"Oh no, you have taken one of everything, clearly you have tailored your list to beat me!"

He should be overjoyed you brought RBTs, it gives his harpies an easy way to get lots of points while probably not being nearly as dangerous to his army as the same points value of archers (High Elf shooting in general isn't that good, but other elves are pretty much the ideal target). But from his reaction to the game it sounds like what he really wants is for someone to turn up and then cheer him on while he slaughters there army that preferably doesn't put up a fight.

Echunia
14-10-2010, 07:19
Your opponent concedes on turn two? After 6 harpies and 4 xbows? Are your serious?
If this is the case it sounds like your playing a massive crybaby. My tip is to completely ignore whatever he says because he will probably complain about anything you do so don't even bother.

Also who can honestly say that they do not tailor their lists just a little bit? If you change your lists between games and you already know who your facing then its almost impossible to make an unbiased decision on units and that's fine. Sure, it shouldn't be taken to absurd lengths such as stacking a lot of flaming attacks vs tomb kings and woodies or something. But a little tayloring is impossible to avoid and isn't really an issue. Just try to be honest to your self and play to have fun more than to win (also avoid that dark elf player) and you'll have fun anyway.

eyescrossed
14-10-2010, 07:24
Well I don't think this is a particularly tailored list, looks to me like the particular dark elf player you were playing was an idiot.

I think you're right.

Grimsteel
14-10-2010, 07:47
so my question is what is wrong with making a list to counter an certian army? 'know your enemy know yourself' A large part of the enjoyment of this game is making lists and making a list that is strong against dwarves or one for lizards is part of the 'art of war'
I dont make a list custom for another players list but a dwarf list is for me without dispel scrolls and the puppet. if its not a tourney whats the prob with making a DE only list or an empire strong list? I think when you agree to a game and then go to make a list or your opponent makes his list he is surely considering what he will be facing and what would be pointless to bring. I bring a list where all my lords/ hero's are immune to killing blow when I go against vamps or DE's. Point is if its not a tourney are we not missing out on a large part of the 'art of war' when we dont make a list utilizing the knowledge we have of our enemy and the same goes for them.
If you really want to say your list is general purpose then make one before going to the game store and pick a few players and roll a die to see who your going to play. I think everyone tailors their list when they make it after knowing who their opponent is, faced too many Empire lists which suddenly take the metal lore when facing my choas knights to think everyone isnt adjusting their army to fit their opponent. Why even omit a large part of the strategy of this game? A tourney is an exception but its challenging to see if you can make a list that is strong against your DE opponent and he makes one strong against your army. Its your best vs their best and claiming your lsit is just a general list is usually BS unless you already have it made and then play someone you didnt know you where going to play.
My point...just say,' I am making a 3k list to face your dwarves...see what you can do about it.'

theorox
14-10-2010, 09:04
Everybody tailors their lists to certain extents.

It's impossible not to do it. At least for me, because i never use an armylist more than once. :)

And that Darkelf player looked like he had a major advantage list-wise! Those RxBowmen would have shredded you when he got in range, and you could'nt do very much to the big blocks of spearmen except magic. He seemed to have as strong shooting as you, better combat and probably better magic. That is crazy.

What a...person.

Theo

Artinam
14-10-2010, 09:18
In contrast I always use the same list, after a few battles (4/5 sometimes more) I determine what aspects are lacking and either determine how I can improve their performance or whether I should remove them from my list.

LordoftheBrassThrone
14-10-2010, 09:40
Thats kind of crazy, in a r3ecent game against skaven in the first turn my level 4 blew his head up with his first spell, and my hellcannon killed itself with a misfire. In total I lost over half my army in the 1st turn (it was only a 1250pt game), and yet in the end I won (12 warriors killed a HPA, 12 censer bearers, 40 clanrats and 20 stormvermin :D). It would have been no problem at all for him to reverse his situation and win in comparison to that, yet it sounds to me like theres something wrong with him.
I wouldnt worry about it.

Evil Hypnotist
14-10-2010, 10:22
Tailoring your army to suit your foe is just good Generalmanship IMHO, until this thread i had never really heard it mentioned negatively before.

If your opponent is determined to stick to the same army list time and time again (how boring) then well done to him for sticking to his guns but he has to understand that every so often it will come unstuck, like it did against you. Throwing his toys out of the pram about it is down to him being childish and not anything to do with you or your army.

To add to LBT's post I played a game last night and had my army gutted in turn 3, I was pretty much left with just a chariot and my Daemon Prince, yet by the end of turn 6 it only came down to a a poor set of ward save rolls that I didn't sneak a cheeky win on points. Still, despite the loss I learnt a lot about my army and what to take against that opponent next time (or specifically what not to take!). Your opponent should have done the same, but I get the impression he would only be happy with a crushing victory against you, like Gorbad said.

theunwantedbeing
14-10-2010, 10:49
Tailoring your army to suit your foe is just good Generalmanship IMHO, until this thread i had never really heard it mentioned negatively before.

So good generalmanship is choosing rock after seeing your opponent has scissors?

Hardly, any monkey can do that.

Good generalmanship is turning up with paper and beating those scissors without needing luck.

List tailoring is an abhorrent way of playing and doesn't encourage clever tactics or interesting list builds, it stops people from taking what they think looks cool in favour of what is effective. That defeat's the point of the hobby somewhat as it's a game for fun, winning is secondary and a nice bonus when it happens.

kramplarv
14-10-2010, 10:53
Tailoring > All comers. Why is talring worse? The game is MADE for tailoring. The games is based on the asusmtion that some units/combos are better against certain armies than others. Look at the Ice banner of the Ogres... or the helm of the skavenslayer. etc.

Tailoring is just fine. If I know I'm playing against the undead, I would surely make sure that I have magic defense and defense from psychology. When fighting Dwarfs, I would need a lot of flyers to charge those warmachines and/or anvil early on. Etc.

Artinam
14-10-2010, 11:01
Different viewpoints I guess. As a Bretonnian I can take an Anti-orc shield (worsening his animosity phase), I would find something like that completely unfair. 'Alright your using army X, ok let me get my anti-x tool'. (you can't change your list on tourneys either). 'Your army is magic weak, ok let me get my Level 4 out so I can blast you to smithereens', 'oow nice an infantry army, lets get my gunning line out'.

Very unpleasant in my opinion, I have never seen the purpose of those items. List tailoring is not done in my environment.

Gaargod
14-10-2010, 11:24
YourAlso who can honestly say that they do not tailor their lists just a little bit? If you change your lists between games and you already know who your facing then its almost impossible to make an unbiased decision on units and that's fine. Sure, it shouldn't be taken to absurd lengths such as stacking a lot of flaming attacks vs tomb kings and woodies or something. But a little tayloring is impossible to avoid and isn't really an issue. Just try to be honest to your self and play to have fun more than to win (also avoid that dark elf player) and you'll have fun anyway.


Actually, i don't.

I used the same lizardmen list (Admittedly, infrequently) for over a year. I took it to a couple of tournaments and did passably well with it (7th ed lizzies, carnosaur+cavalry list. Never saw another like it in person).


In 8th ed, i still don't tailor. Saying that, i have 3 varieties of lists, and give my friends the chance to choose one - the ridiculously hardcore one which i've had all massacres with, a more average one and a fairly low power themed one. But i keep all those lists the same no matter whom i'm playing, even if the lists themselves evolve.


The big 'tailoring' in 8th ed that's very common is magic. You don't change a single model in your army, but changing lores is very powerful - for example, taking metal to counter a steam tank if you haven't another way to do it, then next game taking death to obliterate undead.

Desert Rain
14-10-2010, 11:32
I've never tailored a list, unless my opponent wanted me to do it. The fun of the game is trying to find a list that can deal with as many threats as possible. I've always used balanced lists with a little bit of everything, and as I play in a store I almost never know what army I'm going to face so tailoring is almost impossible if I wanted to do it.

Snake1311
14-10-2010, 12:17
Tailoring is pretty *******, especially since some items are specifically designed against certain armies. The intent of those items is to get them if you're having trouble against that army and not everything else - just as a listfix basically.

Plus, list tailoring just escalates ridiculously - player A changes his list 1 to an optimal list 2 vs player B; player B than changes his list so B2>A2; then A3>B2, B3>A3, etc. etc. At one point, it either goes around in a loop, or results in two retarded (by all comers standards) lists.

Anyway, generally you can tell who will win before the game starts 90% of the time - its the person who was last to change his list.

As a dwarf player, whenever any of my opponenets bring no magic defence at all (we're talking 2 - 2.5k games) this usually results in a raised eyebrow for me. If some HE player decides to stick the i-hate-anvils item in his list just before he plays me, i'd probably give him a slap round the head.

BTW, with a few exceptions, you don't get to pick your lores pre-game anymore. They have to be in your list, so no changing around.

eyescrossed
14-10-2010, 12:26
I think it's a bit unfair having Magic Defence you can't use...

I know no Dwarf players who hesitate to let me trade my Dispel Scroll for something else, for example.

kramplarv
14-10-2010, 12:29
Different viewpoints I guess. As a Bretonnian I can take an Anti-orc shield (worsening his animosity phase), I would find something like that completely unfair. 'Alright your using army X, ok let me get my anti-x tool'.


of course not. If you use your anti-orc thing when fighting orcs you are plying the game GW intended you to play. :) They would not have made that item unless they planned it to be used against orcs. :)

R Man
14-10-2010, 12:34
Tailoring is fine. Remember your opponent can do the same to you and should be. This makes the game interesting as you now have to guess what your opponent will bring.

Anti-Tailoring presumes that your opponent is only reactive and can't guess what your next move is. And part of being a good general is learning to deal with enemies that might be optimized against you. Its not a one way street. Too many forget that your opponent is trying to out general you too.

Snake1311
14-10-2010, 13:12
Having Magic Defence you can't use shouldn't be a massive hit to you, unless you've overinvested. And overinvesting = bad list design. It really does come down to whoever edits their list last!

Kramplarv - items designed against specific armies underperform against other armies and massively overperform against the army they are meant for. By design, they are priced pointwise against a CHANCE to face that enemy, not a certainty.

R Man - 'out generaling' someone has a lot to do with your battle tactics in the game, and not just with your list. As it has been mentioned before, its easy to beat scissors with rock. The best games are the ones where the two opposing armies are of equal power, and it is the battlefield decision that make the difference.

eyescrossed
14-10-2010, 13:14
When a Dispel Scroll could be changed to a Power Stone, it's a massive difference...

Woodsman
14-10-2010, 13:42
of course not. If you use your anti-orc thing when fighting orcs you are plying the game GW intended you to play. :) They would not have made that item unless they planned it to be used against orcs. :)

Apart from spending lots of £££ on their models I'[m not sure GW has ever told me how they intend me to play games.

I'm personally anti list tailoring -
I find it unfluffy (this obviously isn't an issue for some people, that's cool).

For a couple of my armies and especially when I was first into warhammer I only have the models for one list, therefore I cannot respond to any tailoring. Sure you can tailor a list to massacre mine and that's how it stays.

In my experience tailoring tends to lead to a guessing game of who can bring the strangest list which their opponent wont have second guessed and is unlikey be able to deal with.

I rarely organise a game, just turn up with me men and bash whoevers closest/wants to be bashed. This makes tailoring impossible even if I did want to.

Harwammer
14-10-2010, 15:56
If you don't want to be tailored against say you're thinking of using one army when you arrange a game but then change your mind when writing the list (just don't tell the opponent). I did this a couple of times against tailorers and it didn't make me very popular with them. Whoops!

RanaldLoec
14-10-2010, 17:30
So its wrong to choose freely from my army list if it makes my army more effective vs said opponents army?

I have a large model range for my empire I like to vary my lists and try out new ideas, if this is list tailoring I'm guilty.

On a personal note I make my opponent declare and role for his magic lore spells before deployment. Changing your lore after you've seen my army is called cheating.

I write what lore I use next to my wizard in my list.

Urgat
14-10-2010, 17:34
Anyway, I don't personally consider myself a list tailor (er?) This same dark elf player thinks I tailored against him previously about a year ago which I admit I did. I basically took an empire infantry horde (no warmachines and shooters) with 1 character in 7th against his Dwarves and got slaughtered. I had a lot of fun doing it too, I knew I had no hope in hell of winning. A unit of 70 halbs in 7th was poop. Anyway he was angry because I didn't bring a wizard and he had to bring a rune priest.

You're really a nasty awful powerplayer.


Everybody tailors their lists to certain extents.

No, I don't :/


Tailoring > All comers. Why is talring worse? The game is MADE for tailoring. The games is based on the asusmtion that some units/combos are better against certain armies than others. Look at the Ice banner of the Ogres... or the helm of the skavenslayer. etc.

Right. If I ever play a list tailor(er?), I'll wait for him to be done, and then change my list to match what he took. So he's probably going to want to change his list again, because his tailored list will now be a crappy list. Then I could change mine again, but instead, I'll ask someone else a game.

Jind_Singh
14-10-2010, 17:55
Actually Ugrat Ksarn get's bad press a lot of the time on the tables! He does change his armies a lot, but then so do I - we both have large collections and get bored easily with the same list over and over.

His bad press comes from his play style - he's a tough nut to bring down, but he's not really doing anything bad - he's not a stickler for the rules so if you forget to do something he's happy to let you go back - he likes the en-mass death of units, but he plays hard! He knows his rules, he knows when to commit forces and he knows how to destroy units whole sale - point in e.g. I had 50 orcs with warboss charge his unit of 20 phoenix guard with a mage - he challenges with mage, I accepted and lo and behold I got an education:

Mage can only be hurt by magical attacks
Any model in base contact with mage counts their magical weapon as normal

i.e. you have a mage that will never die in close combat unless he's up against a Daemon player!

He then counter charges the unit, makes their leadership their strength value, reduces my boyz to toughness 1 and kills 40 odd orcs in one round of combat - boom!


His play style can be frustrating too as he does what an elite army commander does - sits back, weakens your units down, and when he's got a 1:1 situation he'll start charging forwards - and as a horde player who needs to get into combat it'll take me forever to get there, dying step by step! But you can't fault a man for his tactics, they are legitimate!

He his by no means a power player or a WAAC but he plays the game well and good for him I say - it raises my game and there is a good reason why I seldom win against him - he's a better general!

As for list tailoring as a whole - who cares? If they didn't want an Ogre player to have fun once in a while v's Skaven why would they include that item that reduces leadership in Chaos/Skaven armies?

Why would a Tomb King player take his casket of souls when he's facing a ld 10 army that has re-rolls from BSB - wouldn't he be better off taking a tomb scorpion or giant in that case? Why waste his time?

why would an Orc player take lots of boar boyz if he knows he's facing a gun line army?

See what I mean - there is list tailoring and then there is list tailoring! Ksarn would be the first of the two!

Bac5665
14-10-2010, 18:09
I wouldn't list tailor, or want to play against someone who is list tailoring.

There are two reasons for this. Lets say I play dwarves with an Anvil because its fun and fluffy and I enjoy the model and all these good reasons. Now lets say I'm playing against a HE player. If there is list tailoring, I almost have to drop my Anvil because if I don't, it will be screwed by that magic item the HE player WILL take. I won't have fun if my favorite toy is useless, so I can't take it, but I won't have fun without it either. So if I'm playing in a list tailoring environment, I won't play HE at all, if I can.

But without list tailoring, I don't have to worry about match-ups like that that screw with my army composition; I can take what I like without worrying about rare counters available only to one or two armies.

The other reason, stressed by many players above, all-comers lists are the only way to get balanced and fair games, or at least get closest to it given GW's rules. Games like me value fair and balanced gaming very highly and anything that takes away from that must go if it can. Blind match-ups (which is the only way I play) are the easiest thing you can do to improve balance in your games.

List tailoring hurts balance because some armies can tailor much better than others. Empire can tailor for skaven much better than the other way around. So there's even less balance with tailoring.

Now, balance and fairness do not have to be concerns of every player, and I'm not arrogant enough to try say that list tailoring makes you a bad player. And in the right circumstances, it does add strategy to the game in terms of more challenging list building. But I've long ago decided that list building, while fun in and of itself, should always be secondary to the game itself; I'd rather play a fun game than use a list that was fun and clever to think of, if using it would upset my opponent or make for a bad game.

Freakiq
14-10-2010, 18:16
List tailoring breaks the game by awarding the player that has bought the most models.

I tend to bring more tan one army to keep my enemy guessing to avoid it.
If I know he's tailored against my Empire I'll just bring out my Chaos warriors instead.

Though if I'm playing against someone wo doesn't tailor I'll just be open about which army I'll use.

Evil Hypnotist
14-10-2010, 19:21
I have to be honest, I'm a bit confused....

I posted earlier defending list tailoring but from the later posts it seems that I, being said defender, am an evil monster who only cares for winning, with no thought to the background of my army, nor the battle itself.

I know this isn't the case. My army lists are always themed above anything else, I don't care if I will win with a Khorne/Slaanesh army, Khorne hates Slaanesh in the fluff so I don't mix them unless I represent all 4 Gods. My force has a background and I always try to put the battle in some sort of context.

I have a regular opponent who I have been learning the fantasy rules with, we are both inexperienced with fantasy and started playing pretty much since 8th came out. He plays High Elves, I play WoC. I know what units he has, he knows what I have. We both use the same basic army but change (tailor) parts to try out new things.

My examples are such:

I don't use marauders as my core, only warriors mainly because I really don't like the marauder models. After a couple of games my opponent started taking bolt throwers and using the Lore of Metal to increase his effectiveness against them. Is this list tailoring as you guys see it?

My opponent had a torrid time when I took a Daemon Prince because he kept failing his Terror/Fear tests, the next time we played his Swordmasters had a banner to make them immune to these tests, the Swordmasters promptly cut the DP down and claimed their revenge. Is this list tailoring?

I don't see this as a bad thing (I actually suggested taking more bolt throwers!), it has forced me to look at alternative ways to play against the problems I come across. Next time I am going to try a Khorne hero on a chariot and see if I can break his Swordmasters early. I see it as an evolution of our tactics as we both try to adapt and overcome, something I believe is part of being a general of your force.

This is where my confusion comes in; are those who have vilified list tailoring arguing against something more than looking to improve on past experiences? While are those defending it referring to that same improvement, rather than trying to make the most uber-lists imaginable? I'm not naive enough to think that the points system is balanced but at the end of the day it's still 2000/3000, etc points aside. I know that if I get completely trounced by someone who seems to have the perfect counter to what I have taken I will go away and think about how to improve, exactly as I would do if I had been the victor.

So have I got the wrong-end of the stick, or am I the monster? ;)

yabbadabba
14-10-2010, 19:38
Everybody tailors lists, thats a fact.
What most people don't do is change their army once they have seen their opponents - I see that as as unfair as any other form of deliberate and unbalanced advantage added to the game.

So how do we tailor? If we wish to play a certain way, if we know ahead of time that the scenario is unusual. If we are a casual/fluff gamer but we want to put some effort into winning a tournament. Hell if you know you are facing an army type, or a player with a certain style you will tailor to suit that. You will tailor your army if you only have a limited range of models, or based on your gaming experiences with certain units. In short we are tailoring our armies all the time.

However to seek deliberate advantage over your opponent by seeing his army list before the game and then choosing your army, that is wrong.

Bac5665
14-10-2010, 19:39
Improving your list over time is great! Keep doing that.

What I dislike is when another play and I agree to play a game, I say I'll be playing lizardmen and he says he'll be playing DE and we both write new lists designed to be especially effective against the other race. And then, I write a different lizardmen list to play dwarves the next day, taking things that are better against dwarves.

If I'm going to tinker with my list, it should be to make it better against an unknown opponent. I should design my list as if I could be playing anyone. That way, I don't ruin someone's fun by attacking a specific fun part of their list, nor am I as likely to have my list ruined by a bad match up. I see that a win-win.

But there are other styles of play and other considerations of what makes a game of warhammer fun, so there is no right or wrong here, and very few, if any monsters. (Though WAAC jerks come close.)

CrownAxe
14-10-2010, 19:54
I think it comes down to intent. Because in the end it's about having both players are having fun and if you're tailoring so that you will win then you're probably not fulling this for your opponent.

Evil Hypnotist
14-10-2010, 20:02
Everybody tailors lists, thats a fact.
What most people don't do is change their army once they have seen their opponents - I see that as as unfair as any other form of deliberate and unbalanced advantage added to the game.

I agree completely.

AMWOOD co
14-10-2010, 20:14
It really does depend on the environment. My friends and I are all hyper competitive with our gaming, constantly trying to one up the other. As such, we tend to agree on a game, say "I'll use this army," and then build our lists. We allow a fair bit of leeway in terms of proxying so that no one is purely limited in what they use (eg. "Sure, those ogres can be used as characters.")

Now, that being said, we all have certain styles of play. When I play Chaos, I tend to use lots of heavy armour, either in infantry or cavalry; some spawn; 1 unit of fast cavalry; and lots of magic. One of my opponents will likely take effective anti-magic and units that beat the snot out of armour. I don't use the same army over and over, but I have trends.

When I play greenskins, they all know I don't have cavalry, but I do have 2 chariots and tonnes of Orcs and goblins both. They can't be sure If I'm fielding an artillery train, a fanatic field, or a choppa block, or a combination.

Finally, we play what most cnsider larger games, 3000 pts usually. This makes certain decisions mean more and others mean less. Sometimes someone dies quickly (I've had my Chaos go up in smoke from an Empire gunline more than once), but that happens. We have fun, we joke, we laugh (Hellblaster making my Chaos Lord 'holey'). Our gaming style simply allows things to not stay stale (he's been playing gunlines for the last 3 games, I'll show him).

WarmbloodedLizard
14-10-2010, 20:14
If you have almost no idea what army you'll be playing, you will tailor to the metagame.
If you know your opponent has 3 armies, you will tailor against these three armies.
If you know what army your opponent is going to play, you will tailor to this army.

That's why I like playing people that have more that one army: I cannot tailor against a single army but still have some Idea what I might be facing. But even if you know each others armies, there are still a lot of options that have to be considered. (sadly, there are much fewer useful builds in 8th. with many armies, you can pretty much forget going combat heroes/lords)

The only reason not to, is because you WANT to play an all-comers list, e.g. to train and refine it for a tournament (or because you are bad at list-building^^).

however, if I knew what EXACT LIST my opponent was going to play, I would either ask him to not disclose his list next time, or I would try to build a list that was about the same powerlevel. But I would definitely be annoyed.

Surgency
14-10-2010, 20:15
What I dislike is when another play and I agree to play a game, I say I'll be playing lizardmen and he says he'll be playing DE and we both write new lists designed to be especially effective against the other race. And then, I write a different lizardmen list to play dwarves the next day, taking things that are better against dwarves.

So you know you're playing against DE, and your opponent knows he'll be playing against Lizards, and you both write a list that should be equally powerful against that specific race. Neither of you has an advantage, and you've created a potentially great story.

The way I see it, its not like an army marches around to randomly fight whatever army they come across. When the muster is given, they know who they're going out to meet, and so will call for the appropriate regiments

Now, if you need to see what units are being taken, then thats going to extremes. But myself, and the people I play with, have no problem with the standard "I'm bringing Skaven, what are you bringing" type questions, then building a list from that knowledge

Maoriboy007
14-10-2010, 20:27
Everybody tailors lists, thats a fact.
What most people don't do is change their army once they have seen their opponents - I see that as as unfair as any other form of deliberate and unbalanced advantage added to the game.

This is as true as it gets.

Having a regular base list that you can give minor tweaks to if you have foreknowledge of your opponant is fine. Generally speaking , every list I bring to the table doesn't change once I reach it.

Lazarian
14-10-2010, 20:53
We stopped tailoring lists around here some time ago. The only way I could see tailoring as possibly acceptable is if both players know the army book of the opponent and has access to everything so they can pick whatever they want.

Anytime someone tailors a list against someone who has already set their list is frankly cheating. If you knew what your opponent was taking and picked accordingly, thats worth almost too many points for your army.

Every list I take now is viewed through the lens of taking that army in a tournament that would feature every type of army. All comers lists are really the only way to avoid abuses in this regard. I think of lists that are self contained and can counter general threats, hammers and anvils. I also stopped writing lists on the fly just before a game some time ago too, that avoids most of the tailoring pressure.

I typically have a few lists ready and would never make tweaks unless I were asked specifically by my enemy, even after setting up. If its the case where I happen to have two lists available I will either roll or ask my opponent what they want to play. This is at home playing with my group

If im at a LGS I will only bring one list and just deal with whatever shows up. Say what you want tailoring in every form is pretty underhanded, while yes on a subconscious level you might make a choice here or there based on a variety of efforts its very easy to try your best and remove these biases.

Lazarian
14-10-2010, 20:57
So you know you're playing against DE, and your opponent knows he'll be playing against Lizards, and you both write a list that should be equally powerful against that specific race. Neither of you has an advantage, and you've created a potentially great story.

The way I see it, its not like an army marches around to randomly fight whatever army they come across. When the muster is given, they know who they're going out to meet, and so will call for the appropriate regiments

Now, if you need to see what units are being taken, then thats going to extremes. But myself, and the people I play with, have no problem with the standard "I'm bringing Skaven, what are you bringing" type questions, then building a list from that knowledge


If both of you have access to everything youd want and feel like your opponent is on your level this is just about the only way I could see tailoring being used. Its still not preferable though.

Surgency
14-10-2010, 22:54
Anytime someone tailors a list against someone who has already set their list is frankly cheating. If you knew what your opponent was taking and picked accordingly, thats worth almost too many points for your army.


cheat

–verb (used with object)
1. to defraud; swindle: He cheated her out of her inheritance.
2. to deceive; influence by fraud: He cheated us into believing him a hero.
3. to elude; deprive of something expected: He cheated the law by suicide.
–verb (used without object)
4. to practice fraud or deceit: She cheats without regrets.
5. to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.
6. to take an examination or test in a dishonest way, as by improper access to answers.
7. Informal . to be sexually unfaithful (often fol. by on ): Her husband knew she had been cheating all along. He cheated on his wife.
–noun
8. a person who acts dishonestly, deceives, or defrauds: He is a cheat and a liar.
9. a fraud; swindle; deception: The game was a cheat.
10. Law . the fraudulent obtaining of another's property by a pretense or trick.
11. an impostor: The man who passed as an earl was a cheat.


Some people really need to learn what cheating actually is

R Man
14-10-2010, 23:03
R Man - 'out generaling' someone has a lot to do with your battle tactics in the game, and not just with your list. As it has been mentioned before, its easy to beat scissors with rock. The best games are the ones where the two opposing armies are of equal power, and it is the battlefield decision that make the difference.

Only if you assume that games have only one player. Both players can list tailor. Take the scissor and paper example, now reverse it. All of a sudden is not your rock vs their scissor, its their Rock vs your Scissor. Now you will really need good generalship to win. It goes both ways and to me being against list tailoring is basically saying "I don't want to fight xyz, therefore its wrong to take them'

Think about it, isn't it just another way of crying 'cheese'?

I think someone said something like: 'good generalship is fighting rock with scissors and winning anyway'. Well how is this situation supposed to happen if neither side is able to use their weapons effectively? Random chance?

Urgat
14-10-2010, 23:24
Everybody tailors lists, thats a fact.

Again, no, that's not a fact, my list has barely changed in 12 years, and it's been the same wether I played VC, DE, WoC or Brets, it only really changes when we play themed scenarios and I'm somwhat forced too, so stop claiming to know what people do as if you knew The Truth, it's incredibly annoying.

eyescrossed
15-10-2010, 06:10
Now, if you need to see what units are being taken, then thats going to extremes. But myself, and the people I play with, have no problem with the standard "I'm bringing Skaven, what are you bringing" type questions, then building a list from that knowledge
This. Except that we tell what armies we're likely to play sometimes - for example;

Me: "I'll be playing Warriors, Wood Elves or MAYBE Vampire Counts."
Him: "Oh, okay. I'll be playing Bretonnians, Dwarfs... Or possibly Empire. Probably the first two, though."
Me: "Fair enough. I'll see you then!"

Grimsteel
15-10-2010, 07:24
So good generalmanship is choosing rock after seeing your opponent has scissors?

Hardly, any monkey can do that.

Good generalmanship is turning up with paper and beating those scissors without needing luck.

List tailoring is an abhorrent way of playing and doesn't encourage clever tactics or interesting list builds, it stops people from taking what they think looks cool in favour of what is effective. That defeat's the point of the hobby somewhat as it's a game for fun, winning is secondary and a nice bonus when it happens.

if this was a game of rock paper scissors I wouldnt play how incredibly boring. If your opponent says I am bringing 3k rats see what you can do about it you go and make a list to handle a bunch of rats. A large part of the strategy in this game is making a list that you think can handle a certian challenge like facing 3k of rats or 3k or dwarves. Tailoring your list to you enemies army should be done by both sides with the exception of tourney lists. I like the idea of seeing what I can come up with to meet a challenge and if I am fighting dwarves I will have 2 lords and no magic. If fighting vamps I protect my lords with killing blow immunity.
If you want to pretend that your just walking through the woods with your army and suddenly a force of rats attack then I can see how that would be entertaining too. But I like the challenge of seeing what I can put together to meet an enemy on the feild of battle. Like I said before a large part of the 'art of war' is ' know your enemy know your self'. I dont see any problem at all with saying to a freind make a 3k list to fight my woc this saturday. Its fun imo to see what creative ways they can get to my Lords or kill my knights. I enjoy the challenge of finding a weakness in the army and making a list to exploit that weekness. It is simply a further tatic and challenge in this game of tatics imo and if you want to play it the other way where you simply pull out a list and go ...that is fun too but there is no problem with setting up games knowing the opponents army and seeing what you can come up with to defeat it so long as they are doing the same for your army. Also, so many players who seem to have a problem with list tailoring are suddenly pulling dispel scrolls out of their lists when facing dwarves or adding metal when facing my chaos knights. I say if your list is completely unaltered when you get to the game store and you dont know who you are fighting and you play it as is and they do the same then thats a fair way to go about it. But anyone who makes a list after they know who they are facing will be making changes like scrolls etc and if they say they are not I would say they are full of BS.
The so called list tailoring would only be wrong if you make the claim that your using a set list and your opponent uses a set list but then you change yours to knock out his army. There is no rock scissors paper decisions in making a list to meet an enemy on the feild of battle. If you play the set list game it can be fun, but setting up a game knowing your opponent and devising a strategy to defeat them is alot of fun too, if they are aware of it and are making their list to match your army also. IMO it adds to the strategy of the game. I have 3k WOC and I am comming for your dwarves ...what you going to do?

Like in a footbal game what do both teams do the week before the game? They watch films on the team they will be facing on Sunday and find their strengths and weaknesses then they meet on the game feild and play ball! They adjust their game play to meet their opponents strengths and exploit their weaknesses.

Jind_Singh
15-10-2010, 08:08
Big deal - I know most of the times what army I'm playing and I'll tailor my army to meet them head on. I have a solid selection of my force, normally 70%, which is set in stone and then the other 30% is fluid.

If I'm playing WoC I know he'll have a low model count so I can go elite - bring on my Black Orcs.

If I play High Elves taking Black Orcs and Squig Hoppers is a complete waste of time, of points, so I'll take something else.

If I'm facing Dark Elves it won't matter what I take as I'll get spanked anyway!

But my opponent also knows he's facing either my pure Orcs, pure Gobbos, or Orcs & Goblins - so it's a fair trade off.

But a list should be made BEFORE you see your opponents army/list - there should be no other way of doing it - you have to anticipate what you might face, otherwise it's a low blow to sportsmanship.

Memnos
15-10-2010, 08:52
Was that in favor of the poster you were quoting's point, Surgency, or against? I'm uncertain of the point of posting the definition of cheating. Specifically, you posted that this was an accepted definition of cheating:


[i]cheat

3. to elude; deprive of something expected: He cheated the law by suicide.
–verb (used without object)


If the person created a list expecting he would be facing other generic lists rather than "I am going to screw over your list" lists, then the expectation is being cheated. That would seem to indicate the person was correct. I read your post and felt the tone was that you were arguing. However, I recognize tone doesn't translate in to text, so you could very well have been agreeing. Care to remove the ambiguousness?

Surgency
15-10-2010, 09:54
Tailoring lists isn't cheating, by any sense of the word. The ONLY way it'd be cheating, is if both players agreed to an all-comers list, and then one person brought a tailored list. The term "cheater" is thrown about on this forum for just about everything, from blatent rules violations, to RAW discussions, to a simple discussion as to why you shouldn't tailor lists. No one actually seems to know what cheating actually is, as I pointed out.

I'll say it again. Tailoring lists is NOT cheating, is NOT wrong, and CAN actually be fun, fluffy, and make for great games! OMG, its nuts, isn't it. All it takes is a little open-mindedness about things. There is a place for all-comers lists, and theres a place for tailored lists.

Myself, I hate playing generic, all-comers lists. It makes my army 1 dimensional, it makes it bland, takes away the flavor. So I have a BUNCH of different lists. My opponents know my list will change, depending on who I play, and they're okay with that, because then they don't have to play the same boring list over and over again. It works out well for both parties involved. And my opponents (gasp gasp!) have the opportunity to play different lists against me! It makes each battle unique, and varied, rather than "Oh, look, my 2 clanrat units, stormvermin, bell, and doomwheel are fighting your 2 seaguard, white lions, chariot, and mage. Again."

Memnos
15-10-2010, 10:12
Myself, I hate playing generic, all-comers lists. It makes my army 1 dimensional, it makes it bland, takes away the flavor. So I have a BUNCH of different lists. My opponents know my list will change, depending on who I play, and they're okay with that, because then they don't have to play the same boring list over and over again. It works out well for both parties involved. And my opponents (gasp gasp!) have the opportunity to play different lists against me! It makes each battle unique, and varied, rather than "Oh, look, my 2 clanrat units, stormvermin, bell, and doomwheel are fighting your 2 seaguard, white lions, chariot, and mage. Again."

That makes sense. I do have a question, though:

How do you handle players that don't have the funds to own multiple armies and who decides what they're playing first?

Like, if I said I was facing you and you said ""What army are you bringing?" and I said, "I dunno. What army are you bringing?", who would have to break first?

For instance, I could field a Throgg Troll army, an OK army, a very hard Daemons list, an Orc army, a Dwarf or a Beasts army. I have large, diverse versions of all of them as I've been playing this game for a while and have attended auctions and such. If you said you were playing a Skaven army and I decided to play a Dwarf army with hordes of flaming artillery only to change my mind if you decided to bring an Elite army to have a horde of character killing Daemon goodness, is that fair?

It seems to me that your way favours he who has the most disposable income. While that's fine for your internal group, is it really fair for pickup games at the local gaming store?

theunwantedbeing
15-10-2010, 10:17
I think someone said something like: 'good generalship is fighting rock with scissors and winning anyway'. Well how is this situation supposed to happen if neither side is able to use their weapons effectively? Random chance?

No.
The Scissors player has to make sure that the rock player doesn't get to use his tools. often through flanking, manovering and concentration of firepower/killing power onto a single area before moving on. In some cases it's sacrificing an entire unit simply to cut out a keypart of the enemy army (like a bsb or a mage).

It's rather more complicated than random chance.
Is Rock wins, it's not good generalship unless he's done something clever or had truly aweful luck.
If Scissors wins, provided it wasn't luck then he's been a good general as his list had an inherrant weakness to what his opponent brought to the table.

I daresay your not quite understand this.

theorox
15-10-2010, 10:20
Different viewpoints I guess. As a Bretonnian I can take an Anti-orc shield (worsening his animosity phase), I would find something like that completely unfair. 'Alright your using army X, ok let me get my anti-x tool'. (you can't change your list on tourneys either). 'Your army is magic weak, ok let me get my Level 4 out so I can blast you to smithereens', 'oow nice an infantry army, lets get my gunning line out'.

Very unpleasant in my opinion, I have never seen the purpose of those items. List tailoring is not done in my environment.

This assumes that the opponent does'nt do the same thing against you, wich he would. Tailoring to an enemy who already has a set list is of course not nice, but if you both know what army your opponent will be using, obviously you will try to build lists that are effective against the other persons army. Geez, i thought that's what list tailoring was?? Obviously it's not okay to make your list in such a way that your opponent won't have the oppurtunity to do the same.

Wow, i thought that was the scenario we assumed? :wtf: Not going all-out to defeat the opponents list because you know what he's taking...

Theo

Artinam
15-10-2010, 11:19
Can't you just mess with the mind of your opponent and 'lie' about your army. Yeah I might come with Brets, Empire or Skaven. Then bring Vampire Counts as you had a 'last minute change of mind' and you find Vampire Counts completely fun.

I also don't understand how you all think all comer lists are bland, I just try different styles of units versus a variarity of opponent. I don't take the unit because I think its better against army X but it will overall work better. I adjust my list to general trends of playing. In 7th my Bretonnians suffered a lot towards Fear Causing enemies (can't roll a decent fear test) in tourneys. What I did was replace a units Knights of the Realm with a unit of Knights Errant. This is a 'long' process where I find the general weaknesses in my list. Against Orcs they are a mediocre choice and Knights of the Realm are much better, but I will not replace them.

Different perspectives I guess, the only time I tailored a list was against Dwarves (against whome I have never won) who insisted I switched my Damsel with a Fighty Paladin to have a decent chance (didn't matter a lot).

kramplarv
15-10-2010, 11:40
Again, no, that's not a fact, my list has barely changed in 12 years, and it's been the same wether I played VC, DE, WoC or Brets, it only really changes when we play themed scenarios and I'm somwhat forced too, .


tailoring! :)

I think a lot of the confusion comes from people don't use tailoring to define the same thing. For me;

Tailoring = If I know I will fight orcs, I will build an list that fits my playstyle and the conditions of playing against a horde of T4 infnatry.

Other peoples tailoring = Choosing a list, looks on opponent, re-write his own armylist to fit exactly against the opponent. Example: David brings a lvl2 wizard to the game, He founds out that Gustav have no wizards at all. So David re-writes his army to have two lvl4 wizards and a level2.

Very different things.

Tokamak
15-10-2010, 11:46
Tailoring your list is like playing rock-paper-scissors with both you and your opponent getting to 'tailor' their hand.

It's lame. It removes a tactical layer of the game, the challenge of building an army that works against anything. Not necessarily an all-rounder army, just an army that is so good at what it does that it is able to defeat most foes.


I think a lot of the confusion comes from people don't use tailoring to define the same thing. For me;
Both definitions are lame in my book.


Myself, I hate playing generic, all-comers lists. It makes my army 1 dimensional, it makes it bland, takes away the flavor.

Your army doesn't have to be all-rounders at all, you can make it highly specialised and still be able to deal with whatever is thrown at you. I don't tailor my army, and my list doesn't include cavalry, magic or ranged, it's just themed infantry only.

You'd find that it's actually the tailored armies that are bland and flavorless. The fun of highly specialised, non-tailored armies, is doing their specialty so well that it covers up for their weakness.

Grimsteel
15-10-2010, 13:38
Tailoring your list is like playing rock-paper-scissors with both you and your opponent getting to 'tailor' their hand.

It's lame. It removes a tactical layer of the game, the challenge of building an army that works against anything. Not necessarily an all-rounder army, just an army that is so good at what it does that it is able to defeat most foes.


Both definitions are lame in my book.



Your army doesn't have to be all-rounders at all, you can make it highly specialised and still be able to deal with whatever is thrown at you. I don't tailor my army, and my list doesn't include cavalry, magic or ranged, it's just themed infantry only.

You'd find that it's actually the tailored armies that are bland and flavorless. The fun of highly specialised, non-tailored armies, is doing their specialty so well that it covers up for their weakness.

utter nonsense. if you both bring lists made to face each other there is nothing wrong with it and it is involves some critical thinking when making the list. You can play a tailored list if you and your opponent are in agreement. You can decide to show up at the game store and play a general list which I do whenever I am getting ready for a tourney. The only wrong way of playing a tailored list is if you look at your enemies list then make one to beat it. Anything else is fine and I think setting a date to meet on the battlefield and then making a list with some preparation is more fun than simply showing up and fighting an army who happens to be available. Its a game and I will play the way I want and those I play against do the same. I like 3k games some of my regular competition like smaller games so I play smaller ones from time to time. I like making a list but I will play a general list whenever someone is ready to battle. Playing a general list is not using more strategy and making a list using your knowledge of your enemies army is more competitive IMO. Do you think many generals simply run around with whatever troops they have at their disposal without preparing for situations? Gather information before waging war. If you play your army cause it looks nice and not because it is effective then are you not really just showcasing your models/painting? Dont need to play a game to do that.
Play a general list and have fun. Set a date to meet an opponent on the battle field with both parties aware of what they will be facing and see what creative ideas appear in your list and in your opponents.

mrtn
15-10-2010, 14:31
My opponent and I tell each other what army we're going to use. After that we each make a list. Personally I've never used a list twice.

RanaldLoec
15-10-2010, 14:39
While I've read this thread I've written an empire army list to face my opponents skaven. It's a 4000 point game my army is around 9000 points. I've taken a few units that have become a standard in my 8th lists and then I've thought carefully about my character selection and which lores of magic I'm going to take.

Once my list is finished that's it.

I have taken units that I know will be more effective vs skaven.

I've taken a few magic items that will work well against skaven.

The army is mine I will choose what I want to take and no list NAZI is going to tell me what I can and can't take. I've written an army that conforms to the 8th ed percentages and limits from my empire army book.

This is not cheating its called warhammer.

Oh and I've no standard list and I have never played in a tournament.

Adui Askari
15-10-2010, 15:38
I never knew 'List Tailoring' was such a big deal!

For tournaments or pick up games it makes perfect sense to have an all-comers list. But if I know what I'm facing, I like to think that my General, who personifies me on the board, will assess his options and make a few decisions. Fighting a gunline? Monsters, sit this one out. Vs Chaos, with no shooting? Hey monsters, come back, all is forgiven, you're on the team! Why would I take dispel scrolls against dwarves? Or more importantly, why would my shaman? I fully expect other generals to make the same decisions before the game, and don't really see it as a problem. I'm fascinated to see the result of other peoples ingenuity.

Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for someone who wants the tactical challenge of never tailoring a list. Probably tactically much better as a result, hats off to them. But I play for fun and fluff, and prefer a narrative context to my battles rather than a more competitive context. I have about 8000 points to pick from, and i like trying different things out. Often not the most advantageous course of action!

I agree that jerks who take several lists with them, wait to see the enemy army and then dig around in a folder and produce list 3c 'Anti-elite' or whatever are pretty low. But then i get more satisfaction if I win, or salvage a draw! And this type of 'list tailoring' should surely be considered distinct from the softer 'i know roughly which army you're bringing next week' tailoring.

Peace out y'all, can't we all just get along (until we try and massacre each other on the tabletop):D

yabbadabba
15-10-2010, 15:56
Again, no, that's not a fact, my list has barely changed in 12 years, and it's been the same wether I played VC, DE, WoC or Brets, it only really changes when we play themed scenarios and I'm somwhat forced too, so stop claiming to know what people do as if you knew The Truth, it's incredibly annoying. I know English isn't your first language Urgat but contradicting yourself in a single paragraph is not only poor form but it undermines your argument too.


I never knew 'List Tailoring' was such a big deal! It isn't, but some people like to think it is. What is a big deal is seeking an unfair advantage.

King_Pash
15-10-2010, 16:08
Why don't you just agree with your opponent pre-game: do you want to have a competitive game (list-tailoring, powerful items etc.) ot do you want a fun a friendly game (use unusual items and combos, not powergaming). We tend to agree to this pre-game and that way both of us have a good idea of how hard a list we will be facing.

Jind_Singh
15-10-2010, 17:09
Besides -what about the other side of the coin? I HAVE to tailor my lists just to give my opponents a fair game! What works well v's OK is horrible against the HE, but if I took the same army one of those players is in for a dull game as they stomp, at will, through my lines.

Bac5665
15-10-2010, 17:55
Besides -what about the other side of the coin? I HAVE to tailor my lists just to give my opponents a fair game! What works well v's OK is horrible against the HE, but if I took the same army one of those players is in for a dull game as they stomp, at will, through my lines.

What army do you play? I can't think of any army build that's good for He that can't handle OK.

Malorian
15-10-2010, 17:57
My 2 cents: list tailoring is only ok if both sides are doing it.

Bingo the Fun Monkey
15-10-2010, 20:06
Oh I don't know, I show up with a list to play strangers. My Inner Circle knows who's playing who and it's pretty much expected to tailor a list...slightly. The Bret player still hasn't taken the Animosity shield against me, but I've never fielded all my doom divers against him either.

Don Zeko
15-10-2010, 21:17
My 2 cents: list tailoring is only ok if both sides are doing it.

Exactly. List tailoring is a problem if and only if there's an asymmetry between the players. If both use all-comers lists, that's great. I generally prefer to play this way, but I understand why other people prefer not to. So if both players have similar amounts of knowledge about their enemy's list, that's cool too. But if one player knows substantially more about the other player's list when he is deciding what to bring, you've got the Warhammer equivalent of insider trading: using an unfair advantage in information to get an unfair advantage on the battlefield.

R Man
15-10-2010, 23:08
No.
The Scissors player has to make sure that the rock player doesn't get to use his tools. often through flanking, manovering and concentration of firepower/killing power onto a single area before moving on. In some cases it's sacrificing an entire unit simply to cut out a keypart of the enemy army (like a bsb or a mage).

It's rather more complicated than random chance.
Is Rock wins, it's not good generalship unless he's done something clever or had truly aweful luck.
If Scissors wins, provided it wasn't luck then he's been a good general as his list had an inherrant weakness to what his opponent brought to the table.

I daresay your not quite understand this.

Then why does this work for one player but not the other?

Perhaps I should be more clear. Often when these posts are made there is a presumption of an active player (who is presumably someone involved in this very conversation) and a passive player (who is assumed to be unable to either think ahead or tactically innovate). To go with the rock and scissor example, if we say list tailoring is bad and wrong and shouldn't happen. This means that rock can't be taken against scissor (if we assume this would be binding). Which means that your opponent is denied the tactical challenge of fighting rock despite his lists inherent weaknesses. And it goes the same the other way, if you have the scissors and your opponent has the rock now your tactical challenge scenario is reality. If we fall back on 'list tailoring is wrong' then your basically saying 'rock is cheesy. Ban rock'.

To use a Warhammer example I play Bretonnians. If I fight Empire I will probably fight large amounts of Imperial Infantry and Cannons. Do I claim my opponent is list tailoring? In other words: Cry Cheese? But some would argue that infantry and artillery are the essence of an Imperial Army. Especially when I have juicy bowmen who out-range Imperial Hand-gunners standing idle. So in the end I'm basically telling my opponent what to take. Is there any generalship in that?

AMWOOD co
17-10-2010, 03:40
My 2 cents: list tailoring is only ok if both sides are doing it.

Agreed for the most part. Then, of course, the experimental armies come out of the wood works where something completely new is being tried. I still recall the first time I saw two dragons in a single 3000 pts army in 6th.

The only time I can say that I built an army with the sole purpose of singling out and destroying an opponent is when a friend of mine bragged about using Lord Kroak for a week before our next fight. If he didn't do that, then I would have been caught unawares. Instead, because of this little bit of foreknowledge, I brought a goblin army with a great shaman and 4 other shamans with a total of 5 dispel scrolls (this was 6th edition so an all goblin character group gave me an additonal 3 big bosses at 3000 pts. 9 characters was so fun back then). Kroak didn't get a single spell off the entire game. His unit was also destroyed by a unit of Knights flank charging the Saurus unit he was in. He wasn't pleased.

Since then, he has been as ruthless as I am. It was a matter of lesson learned and payback to come. Payback came later when he fielded Grimgor against Archaon and broke Archaon's frontal assault (remember, 6th edition). He anticipated Archaon and acted accordingly, and I walked (or rode) right into it.

Like I said earlier, we're hyper competative. We give as good as we get and look forward to the next game and the next challenge.

yabbadabba
17-10-2010, 08:25
@Amwood - it works the other way too. I spent 2 weeks boasting of how, in Space Marine, my Abominatus itan was going to cream my opponent. So he turns up with an army specifically designed to take it out. Turns out I didn't make it! I think his army fell apart at the end of turn 2.

Sometimes a game ca start long before the first dice is thrown :evilgrin:

Da GoBBo
17-10-2010, 10:42
Ok, so I got accused of list tailoring today playing a dark elf player using my high elves. I'd like your thoughts on it. I know some circles don't consider list tailoring to be a problem but here its considered kinda cheesy.
...
Anyway he was angry because I didn't bring a wizard and he had to bring a rune priest.
...
I made this in the parking lot before our game as I wanted to try out more shooting and see if it helped my 10 man units survive longer. I was accused of tailoring my list against his army...
...
Oh and he was pissed that we rolled meeting engagement and for some reason he deployed far in his corner and I countered with doing the same giving me 2 free rounds of longbow fire into his rxb's he conceded on turn 2 because of this. Even though I had killed 6 harpies, 4 rxb while he killed 4 archers and I killed 6 Seaguard and my level 2 via a miscast.

I haven't read through all the thread. I just wanted to say this person appears to be an idiot on several occasions.

Edit: I guess we sort of listtailor around here, but only in the sense that we try to have allcomerslists. This works great because it allows us all to employ any unit we have acces to and not have it be a waste of points. We sometimes ban certain items, but that hasn't happened since 5th edition.

Earthbeard
17-10-2010, 10:48
My 2 cents: list tailoring is only ok if both sides are doing it.

Have to agree here, personally I just build a list nefore I even reach the flgs and know who I'm playing and give it a whirl, who really cares either way how well it does.

Haravikk
17-10-2010, 12:48
I know no Dwarf players who hesitate to let me trade my Dispel Scroll for something else, for example.
So long as the Dwarfs get to swap their Runesmiths when a non-magic army comes along then everyone can have fun! Though I find Runesmiths do a decent job even when their main purpose is gone :)

I've always preferred to try and gear my army up to face anything, so I usually have a mix of "enough" anti-magic to avoid too much magic supremacy from my opponent, good combat blocks, supporting shooting, and characters that can hold their own against most opponents or go monster hunting if it becomes a problem. After a few years I'm still trying to find just the right balance, so I do rarely field exactly the same list twice, I also lean heavily towards units that I just like, regardless of how over-costed they may be :)

Tae
17-10-2010, 13:23
Everybody tailors their lists to certain extents.

It's impossible not to do it. At least for me, because i never use an armylist more than once. :)

Theo

I disagree. My WoC and DoC have one list and one list only for each army. Now yes that list changed from 7th to 8th, so I guess you could make an argument for list 'tailoring' in that I altered my lists to suit the type of game 8th is instead of 7th, but neither army are, or will be, tailored against an individual army or an individual opponent.

My DE aren't either, however I've not really found a list I'm comfortable with yet, so they're still changing bits and pieces. But, again, once I find the list I'm happy with that'll be 'the one'.

oldschoolmonk
17-10-2010, 17:38
I say avoid the problem by writing out generic lists and printing them off with all details (such as mage lores). Of course this works primarily if you have an open gaming environment. If you prearrange games then expect people to bring adjusted lists. Because we have an open environment I adjust my list to the local metagame but not by list (reason I take a level1 Metal caster).

Your list didn't look especially tailored for Dark Elves. I'll happily engage a shooting war with High Elves, and 3 Bolt throwers are a great target for my 2x5 shades and 2x5 harpies. He's an idiot and a whiner, complaining due to a tactical error on his part and trying to blame you as a defense.

AMWOOD co
17-10-2010, 19:45
Sometimes a game can start long before the first dice is thrown :evilgrin:

Didn't Sun Tzu say something along that line? It's as true now as it was 2500 years ago.

Lazarian
18-10-2010, 08:35
cheat

–verb (used with object)
1. to defraud; swindle: He cheated her out of her inheritance.
2. to deceive; influence by fraud: He cheated us into believing him a hero.
3. to elude; deprive of something expected: He cheated the law by suicide.
–verb (used without object)
4. to practice fraud or deceit: She cheats without regrets.
5. to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.
6. to take an examination or test in a dishonest way, as by improper access to answers.
7. Informal . to be sexually unfaithful (often fol. by on ): Her husband knew she had been cheating all along. He cheated on his wife.
–noun
8. a person who acts dishonestly, deceives, or defrauds: He is a cheat and a liar.
9. a fraud; swindle; deception: The game was a cheat.
10. Law . the fraudulent obtaining of another's property by a pretense or trick.
11. an impostor: The man who passed as an earl was a cheat.


Some people really need to learn what cheating actually is


I know this was last page however my definition of cheating, in this case the asymmetrical list writing that was mentioned earlier complies with definitions 2,3,8 and 9 from my perspective. Just to defend my ability to comprehend English and know what I mean :rolleyes:

I cannot see how people view tailoring lists in any way but a specific instance where both players agree to it as anything but cheating. Only with friends who have done this for a while would this be considered a worthy idea amongst our group. I still contend in most cases knowing what your enemy army is has to be worth around 20% of your points. If you tell me your playing army X and have already made out an all comers list, I then go out and make a list for army Y, I feel confident my 2k army would beat a 2500 point army or so.

Again if both players are roughly the same experience and seem to grasp the idea well and both reveal what they want from a game, I guess its ok. Anything deviating from this I personally feel is at least being dishonest, at worst, cheating. Sounds harsh, but this knowledge really is important in the hands of someone far more prepared than their opponent.

Zilverug
18-10-2010, 09:33
If you know you will play a single game against the Dwarfs, is it bad not to buy a Dispel Scroll?

yabbadabba
18-10-2010, 09:47
If you know you will play a single game against the Dwarfs, is it bad not to buy a Dispel Scroll?Apparently so :eek:

theorox
18-10-2010, 10:16
Everybody tailors lists, thats a fact.
What most people don't do is change their army once they have seen their opponents - I see that as as unfair as any other form of deliberate and unbalanced advantage added to the game.

So how do we tailor? If we wish to play a certain way, if we know ahead of time that the scenario is unusual. If we are a casual/fluff gamer but we want to put some effort into winning a tournament. Hell if you know you are facing an army type, or a player with a certain style you will tailor to suit that. You will tailor your army if you only have a limited range of models, or based on your gaming experiences with certain units. In short we are tailoring our armies all the time.

However to seek deliberate advantage over your opponent by seeing his army list before the game and then choosing your army, that is wrong.

THIS!

That is exactly how i feel too. Thank you fine sir, for finding the words for me. :D

Theo

Haravikk
18-10-2010, 19:40
If you know you will play a single game against the Dwarfs, is it bad not to buy a Dispel Scroll?
Dwarfs are the main tricky one I suppose. Under normal circumstances you can't know how much magic (if any) an army is going to field against you. However, with Dwarfs you do know with 100% certainty that there is no magic they can field against you with their current list.

I'd argue that it isn't really fair, or more specifically sporting, to tailor your list in such a case, as you're diverting points you'd normally spend on anti-magic into extra equipment. Add to that that most Dwarf armies past 1500 points are going to include anti-magic with a high degree of certainty and if you remove your own magic then you're only widening the gap as you're essentially making the Dwarf player pay 20-30 points more than their Runesmiths are now worth, on top of any wasted magic runes, while you've freed up extra points to spend.

Lazarian
18-10-2010, 21:23
If you know you will play a single game against the Dwarfs, is it bad not to buy a Dispel Scroll?

It is if your opponent has already made a list and your good to go. If you talk to your opponent before hand, tell him what your doing and let them make specific changes then go for it.

You get frankly better at Warhammer or any other miniature game by dealing with less that favorable conditions, while anti-tailoring tough love seems tough, its actually good for you. Try making a list, sit on it for a while and then take it to a LGS where you wont know the makeup of your enemies. Watch how the games unfold, it will help you list write better, plus wont be unseemly in many situations. Try making armies that have in mind an opponent possibly from every army and work on strategies that can take out everyone.

I dont take a dispel scroll in most of my lists, i design general anti magic clauses or simply work on making my magic phase better than my opponent. A dispel scroll is nice, however its not always needed, especially if your opponent is not going magic heavy or your playing Teclis or Book of Hoeth.

One thing I want to make clear, while I and others on here see tailoring as bad, I dont think its the case the people playing are trying to do something underhanded in most cases. Its how most, if not all people started this hobby and its a thing that needs to phase out.

As far as saying everyone tailors, well they dont. I make out one, maybe two lists for the armies I have and they are pretty set. Only after battlefield experience do I change them, and never just for something that happened that was an outlier (bad diceroll, inherently bad unit matchup, poor placement on my part, ect.). Part of this stems from most of my armies look identical, even across the spectrum of different army books. I tend to take lots of setups, confident magic phase, good blocks of hammer/anvil units, redirectors and things in general to snipe warmachines and redirectors. These tenets dont change based on my opponent. If im playing dark elves, I have shades and dark riders, especially and even if my opponent has no warmachines to speak of.

This philosophy is why I tend to shy from the dispel scroll in general. Some armies its useful, more often than not in the past I've been paralyzed as when to use it and many games it sits there. Id rather use the points in something I would always find useful. It makes me actually use and monitor my dispel dice more and has improved my philosophy on that matter in many cases. Plus your arcane item slot is typically very valuable on the one or two characters who can take them.