list tayloring vs balanced lists for friendly games

[Wolfshade]

No, not company strength, chapter strength....

[knas ser]

End of the game all that was left was his avatar and my sniper scouts, they were hiding at the top of the tallest building I could find.
the thing killed Vulcan He'Stan, a sterguard squad, a tactical squad and a venerable dreadnought over 7 turns. It was horrific, but hilarious.

If it's any consolation, it's a horrible points-sink.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Not compared to He'Stan + 10 sternguard with combis / 2 heavy flamers.

[Demonus]

I actually like the new avatar with fast shot and the disarming exarch power.

On topic, we play mostly a group of friends (8-10) team games 2v2 but also play 1v1 games or 1v2 games. A couple guys only have 1 army, so at any given time I can tell you what they are playing. Even though they have a good mix of stuff, the Tau player will ALWAYS play 2+ Riptides and Broadside guys. The Sisters Player will ALWAYS have executioner tanks and a few rhinos full of chicks. The Blood Angels guy used to ALWAYS field Dante + Sang Guard. He mixes it up a bit now. And the SW player ALWAYS has at least 12 Longfangs in a fortress/ADL.

I own several armies and love mixing things up. Sometimes I ask my opponent "what do you want to play?" and Ill make a list. I dont care if they tailor, it makes it that much sweeter when I win. Sometimes we agree "Ill play This, and you play that".

Of course on occasion we had someone that would wait to see what you were playing THEN make his list. This led to me switching out armies last second to mess with him.

[SON OF ROMULOUS]

i know i have several companies of space marines then it spills over into guard chaos grey knights so what i've always done has been to select an army and to play that army for a month. this seems to allow me enough time and motivation to work on new projects and to continually expand the forces that i have. it also means that i hopefully don't go a year with out playing with an army. this translates to having access to alot of crazy combinations as well as allied lists. but as others have said if you play some one enough times you can start to get an idea of what they will and what they wont bring.

[Joe Mix]

I get together and ola

[AdamHarry]

With respect, I already set out my terms as I see them and I wrote that I consider choosing of lists to be part if the game. Not meta-game or any other subtle way of conceptually separating it, but part of the game in all senses. Obviously you disagree, but you are incorrect to tell me what I am actually referring to as if I had misspoke. I'll repeat, that when I started playing back in 1st edition, it was an expected part of the game - it has strategy, trying to outwit your opponent and is fun. Returning to the game after a ling absence it is weird to see a faction has arisen that want to divide it off from 'The Game' as this separate thing that can be likened to cheating. I feel a little like I've been in a Stasis field and I've come back and said something about a legion and everyone is going : "no no. You mean a Chapter". No, I meant Legion.

I see what you are saying. But I would counter by saying there are several different ways to play a specific Army. Marines for example - you could run a wide variety of lists with different specializations or make a very generic list and still be a marine Army. I would not consider "Army" and "List" to be interchangeable. That is all I meant by it.

And I do consider metagaming is part of the game. What you are describing has a name now. That part of the game is referred to the people I play with and most of the players I've encountered at tourneys as "Metagaming"

Very easily. I enjoy making lists based around different play styles. I have my fast attack list, my footdar list all depending on how I want to play and what I want to try out. I have that anyway even if I play the same enemy time and again they wont know what they're facing as I choose my lists on a whim. It takes me five minutes to throw together an army if I'm in the mood to so sometimes I'll do it there and then. If someone says 'want to fight my orks' I'm unlikely to pull out my heavily anti-vehicle list..

That what I was referring to when I wrote "... how can you tailor your list vs your opponent? You can't unless you build the list on the spot." You can have "pre-set" lists with you and make some changes in 5 minutes and play. I would consider that building a list on the spot. You may view it differently if considering the minor tweaks in 5 minutes before the match as just that - minor tweaks.

Please don't take my tone as aggressive or in an "I know the best way" - I'm enjoying learning about what you think and how other play. It's all very interesting and I'm enjoying this discussion.

[knas ser]

I see what you are saying. But I would counter by saying there are several different ways to play a specific Army. Marines for example - you could run a wide variety of lists with different specializations or make a very generic list and still be a marine Army. I would not consider "Army" and "List" to be interchangeable. That is all I meant by it.

And I do consider metagaming is part of the game. What you are describing has a name now. That part of the game is referred to the people I play with and most of the players I've encountered at tourneys as "Metagaming"



That what I was referring to when I wrote "... how can you tailor your list vs your opponent? You can't unless you build the list on the spot." You can have "pre-set" lists with you and make some changes in 5 minutes and play. I would consider that building a list on the spot. You may view it differently if considering the minor tweaks in 5 minutes before the match as just that - minor tweaks.

Please don't take my tone as aggressive or in an "I know the best way" - I'm enjoying learning about what you think and how other play. It's all very interesting and I'm enjoying this discussion.

Okay, but for the third time, I consider list building part of the game and reject that it is "metagaming". Metagaming is something outside of the game itself that influences the game. I reject a distinction between the parts of the game that involve choosing lists and the parts of the game where you move miniatures around the table. Metagaming has negative connotations - like when you use knowledge your character wouldn't have in an RPG - and even if you don't think it has negative connotations, it inherently separates it out as not part of the normal game, brings in suggestions of influencing the game itself by outside metagaming. I wont accept your terminology for these reasons. Your distinction of separating it out from other parts of the game is arbitrary.

As regards a specific army can be played in different ways - yes, I am aware of that. I didn't use Army and List as interchangeable at all. If you think that, then you must have misread me. I don't take your tone as aggressive, but I do find it as a little patronizing, in that you state the obvious in such a way as to suggest people aren't aware of it or lay down your own definitions as if authoritative and again told me to use your terms. I disagree. And the definition matters - the moment you say something is "metagaming", you've separated something out from what is considered normal. To me, it's perfectly normal and routine and there is no distinction.

[Stone Edwards]

One of my first returning games of 40K was against my friend who is an Eldar player. He had Eldar and I had Dark Angels. His Avatar was wrecking havoc among my tactical squads and the turn after he slaughtered them I got some sternguard into range for some combi-meltas. I declared my intent to fire the meltas, they were the only strong weapon I had in the area, and my friend nodded sagely and said "Ok, if you must." I rolled, hit three times, and wounded three times. I grinned victoriously and shouted "Ha! Got you!" to which my friend just giggled and said, "sorry, but the Avatar is immune to melta attacks". Not only had I failed to wound and kill the Avatar, but I'd wasted my combi-shot...I was devastated beyond measure.

That sounds like a really jerk move on his part. Expecting your opponent to know every special rule for your army is a bit unreasonable.

On topic personally if you are playing a set-up game I think it's ok to tailor to the army you're going to be playing against to an extent but not to their list. There's enough variety in each army that I think that is fair.

[SON OF ROMULOUS]

I dunno for me when i work on a list i tend to as i have said previously work around a general strong core and then go from there. i look at each battle and see what work and what didn't work for that given list. was it the list? was it a particular unit? was it luck? was it tactics? there is a lot to be considered. for me i simply choose not to tailor a list to a particular opponent. some times i like the challenge i get from not necessarily having all the correct tools to handle the situation.

It could be that I'm just a little twisted in that aspect. I like to wrap my head around my army as well as its design. Looking for both strengths and weaknesses. So for me it makes it so that list tailoring isn't really interesting to me. I'd much rather work on what some would consider to be going towards a tournament/ take all comer's style of list.

Currently i have been Working on a World Eater's list all summer and to be honest with you all its been painful and to my own dismay more frustrating then challenging. I'v had games where I've won and Games where i have gotten annihilated. I both blame it on my gaming group and appreciate them for being who they are. Each has their own army selection to choose from and decent size collections. it makes list building a very unique challenge. One week player A can choose to bring orks or imperials or his beloved Dark eldar. This give you alot to think about when making a list in and of itself. the same list you bring has to be able to fight 3 very different races. Dark eldar will kill you with speed as well as a withering hail of lance and poisioned rounds. Imperials can pound you with lasgun's to battle tank to sternguard crimson fists.. To facing the green tide or a harrowing assault by ork truck boyz backed up by lootas and foot slogging mobs of boys.

While player B can bring imperials necrons tau eldar orks. just looking at his lists bring in another 3 factions alone and when you calculate the different army types with in the imperial category you have everything from ultra marines to ravenwing bikers. It opens up a whole new can of worms.

Thus For Some one like me my lists always need to follow a take on all comers approach. This for me is often one of the most trying part of the hobby. the list building area has you considering what to take what to cut and from there those decision impact how your army functions and performs at the tasks it's then given.