Wednesday, 9 January 2013

Tailoring and Ethics: Tailoring to your environment


  1. Totally agree with you. Tailoring within your local enviroment is always going to happen to a certain extent (for example, loading up on a few more melta weapons if the locals field a lot of tanks), but that's no bad thing. It keeps things interesting and ensures a more balanced games.

    To take my Space Wolves for an example, no matter the opponent, I always field a 'core' force of pair of Rune Priests, two or three Grey Hunter Packs, Long Fangs and my Fenrisian Wolves, but I always leave about 500 points or so free to take units more suited to the opponents I'm facing. For example, I might take melta-armed wolf scouts if I know my opponents use a lot of static shooty units on their back line backline, or wheel out my Thunderwolves if I know my oppoent is going to be surging towards me.

    It's not a bad thing, it makes for more interesting games, keeps your army fresh and fun to play and reduces the chances of a 'bad' match up, leading to very one-sided games.

    The only time I'd have a problem with tailoring is if it was done in a power-gamey kind of way - like changing your whole list every game to counter every unit you know your opponent fields

  2. It makes perfect sense to tailor your list to your opponent. It's fine gameplay. Although I am meh to with 40k. Games take an hour plus. And it's no fun to play orks when the other guy has loaded up with a gazalion flamer templates (for example). Lets compare it to Magic. No one in Magic says what colours are you playing? And then goes and builds a deck for it.
    Of course it does punish people who have less models than someone else. If you know what someone has, you can totally destroy them.
    But still it makes sense.

    Also worth noting, our leagues are 6 months epics. Of course fixed list (despite being superior for balance) doesn't work. Tournaments are usually weekend affairs, usually in some sort of swiss style. So you only play a max of 3-5 games anyway.

    Knowing the mission is a terrible idea. It makes sense for stuff like planetstrike, seeing as the list requirements are unique. but otherwise you are totally missing the point of having different missions. It supposed to encourage interesting list building. Take for example a full death company army. They are (supposedly) paying for some exceptional killing power with the inability to score. It's the gamble you take. If I know I'm playing kill points? Well off we go. If not, then they stay at home.

    Perosnally though, my Guard never changes. I always field autocannons. No one fields light vehicles locally though, so they are completely wasted. But they will nevr change.

    1. Interesting.

      1. You've just made the point for why you adjust your lists. If you are playing orks and you expect that your opponent will field flamer spam then don't play a list that supports his plan. Go for killa kans and looted vehicles, and try to play the ranged game with lootas. That is why you do it, and you both know what codexes you are each using.
      The analogy doesn't reallt work for Magic because M:tG is very much geared towards aggressive WAAC play these days. Warhammer has always been (outside of tournaments) meant for casual friendly fun.

      2. Our leagues are far too long but everyone wants to play and I can't turn anyone down. There are days when I wish we were just a small club again.

      3. Knowing the mission is a good idea. It gives more variety in what you play. Have a mission where it is capture objectives, then you play more Troops. Have a wipe em' out style mission, then play the death company and the really nasty options that you don't normally do.
      I do conceed the point up to a point. It is why I much prefer to include missions from the Battle Missions book (one of GW's best IMO) because you get a much wider variety of play styles and they force players to adapt. Some of the missions are slightly favoured to one side but that is the point. It means that players must adapt and prove their worth as the general. But enough grumbles have come up that I didn't include them this time.
      But in opposite to what you've said, and I do appreciate that it is your valid POV, a lot of the players have contacted me since I mailed out the missions and rules to say that they are looking forward to this upcoming league because of being able to adjust the lists based on opposing codex and knowing the mission. If the guys are liking it, then it must work for us locally.

      4. Sadly, no one will ever play light vehicles again. 40K is too harsh on them and they aren't worth playing.

    2. If everyone likes knowing the mission, then fair play to them. Just another nail in the current 40k coffin for me. I don't like it and it's one of the reasons I declined to play the league.

    3. Thinking about it I should probably qualify point 1 again. I'm not arguing for or against knowing your opponent. I personally prefer playing against a list that is not built for or against any particular army. I'm also happy though to arrange games in advance.
      I think the problem is the lack of space we have. (this isn't a criticsm) But being so limited in space, games usually have to booked. And so this culture of always knowing who you are against builds and is the norm. I used to drag my army down randomly on club nights in case I could get a game in, usually couldn't due to all tables taken, or no opponent as everyone who had an army was playing game already. If more people who were available for pick up games, then that would be great. But we don't and we have to live with that.

    4. I'm with you there. I wish we had more table space. Then perhaps it wouldn't be an issue and pick up games would be more random.