Pre Game Army Re-arangement

[Kahoolin]

I put no, but I don't mind it being done against me.

I try to make ONE balanced list and use it in every single game I play, for several reasons.

* I don't have much spare time and my girlfriend gets up me when I overspend on warhammer (especially if I cut into money meant for bills!) This way I plan my army carefully and I stick to it.
* I make my army tournament friendly. This means at least 40% troops, no more than 20% or so on any other category if possible, nor more than 20% on armoury, etc. I can then use it in any tournament against all comers and get decent points for army comp too.
* In non-tourney games who cares if you win or not?
* In tourney games it means I am using an army that I know inside out and back to front, instead of some cheesed up variation of my "normal" list that I have little experience with.

So for me this is clearly the most logical method. Not for everyone though, some people prefer to experiment constantly. I guess it's the difference between the sort of person who is on a quest to find the perfect weapon, and the person who decides instead to practice every day with the weapon that they have until they have mastered it (me).

I don't care if someone does it to me coz in a friendly game it doesn't matter if I lose, and in a tourney they CAN'T do it to me.

By the way, that first option on the poll, I don't think military comanders, modern or otherwise, have limitless availability in the sort of troops they have to fight a battle It depends on which units are where and how fast they can get to the necessary theatre.

It's not like US officers in Iraq can say to the insurgents "Oh you've got some of those, well hang on, don't attack yet, I just need to order some of these up to counter them, 'kay?" So swapping out your army is actually very unrealistic if you look at it that way.

[H0urg1ass]

It's not like US officers in Iraq can say to the insurgents "Oh you've got some of those, well hang on, don't attack yet, I just need to order some of these up to counter them, 'kay?" So swapping out your army is actually very unrealistic if you look at it that way.

Well, yes and no. What we can and DO often do is to say things like: Iraqi troops don't wear body armor so we aren't bringing any armor piercing bullets to this battle. Also, we know that sand and fine particulate dust fouls up the engines on our main battle tanks so we need to make sure that we bring the tanks that have the modified air filters.

Last, and probably the most obvious one is to say "hey, it's a desert environment so lets wear some desert camo". It's not like the changes have to take place during a battle, and I'm not suggesting that the side bar be able to be used in the middle of a battle. It makes sense however to show up to a battle with the correct equipment for fighting that battle.

Most of these decisions are pre battle and make a lot of sense.

[General Disarray]

absolutely you should be able to swap out your equipment, in a normal engagement.
if it's an ambush and you're the waterboys, then you shouldn't be prepared, but generally commanders know the terrain they're going to fight on, the terrain they may have to move to and the enemy they are looking for and what he generally carries.
you don't send SWAT out to arrest drunk drivers.
in afganhistan they're using mountain troops and SF. not because that's all we had in the area OR because they make the greatest all around army.
besides, that's one of the imperiums greatest strengths. they have a specialized troop for every conceivable situation.
now, there are a number of situations that can go wrong and the game you thought you were going to play doesn't happen. some people try to plan for that, while others just disengage and except the loss. the thing is, in a tournament you know it's going to happen which is kinda the prepping thing people are complaining about...

[Novelizer]

I will switch but only like 20% to 10% of my list I don't build a taliored list but I modify my standard list.

[Kahoolin]

Hmmm very true.

Then again there is no real world correlation for the sort of situation we are describing here. A modern army doesn't face naked enemies who can shrug off bullets one day and then superwarriors with impenetrable body armour the next.

We aren't really relating to reality here. Swapping out armies is a meta-game tactic for winning a wargame with rules.

But if we were talking about realism, then what we are talking about is the very thing that makes some arimes win wars and some lose. If you have the weapons to defeat your foes you will defeat them. Real-world armies are limited by their technology and when someone comes along who can counter that technology they win the war.

Beacuse 40k is a balanced game (unlike real life), in theory each army has the capability to defeat every other army by modifying their army list. So you are right, I suppose each commander would have brought what they have available to defeat the particular foe they will be facing.

[nichodemus10]

I do it, and that is what I put. However once I get a list good and set I will probably be more structured with it. Right now I am just playing fun games with my friends, and we chose a scenario and army before we start to make lists and don't typically use the same army...I think the only army you can say I play regularly is Nids, though I have played tau, chaos, blood angels, ultramarines, space wolves, Daemonhunters and guard. So right now I am making lists to beat scenarios, but soon should have all of my nids and daemonhunters which will stay more or less concrete even though bringing termies against orks and worldeaters is like giving your points away and that is what two of my friends play.

[THE Hersh]

I voted that I don't swap my army around but I don't mind, etc. This is not entirely true. I am always "playing" with my army, (swapping a rav for a lictor, or some such). However, my list is essentially the same from game to game, and I don't tailor my army for my opponent, I tailor my army for how I want to play.

As to having a 250 point swappable list. In a recent tourney at the local club they did just that. 2000 point battles, 1500 of which had to be the same as your last game, (but it didn't have to be the same 1500 points game to game). You had 500 points that you can customise for each battle. There were a couple of rules for this. You couldn't modify a unit, unless you swapped it out completely, (you couldn't lose the shields on your archers, without the whole cost of the unit counting against your 500 points), and your characters had to stay the same. It was a good tourney, won by the Lizardmen over the Vampire Counts.

[Osaria]

Playing WHFB and the GW I deployed my army completely and then was informed that we will be using the Lustria campaign rules for the forests (as in everything on the table green is difficult terrian) and reused to play unless I was allowed to change my army list and redeploy. Since my army would have been locked in the places they were placed and his would have free roam and I was not told ahead of time I think it was resonabile, he didnt knowing he needed it to win vs. my hoarde and we didnt battle.

[The_Giant_Mantis]

I have to say, of all the players I've played, the calculator squad are probably the only ones who actually really annoy me.

I don't have a lot of money to spend, and what I do have spare I tend to spend on conversions and trying to make my models look good. I can't afford to go out and buy extra squads which I can cycle in and out, and as a result my general army list is basically 'all the models I own.' So I can't compete with people like that on the same level.

40k is a game.. okay, a real life commander would try to tailor his force to meet his enemy, but real life commanders often have a variety of resources at their disposal, which can be commited at the appropriate time in the appropriate place. 40k players might not always be in the same position.

Also, as has been suggested, real life isn't supposed to be fair.. If the Chinese PLA fought the Japanese SDF, the result would be, at best, short and bloody, due to the massive superiority of one side over the other. Unlike real life, 40k is supposed to be fair, therefore, using real life logic to justify the way you play it does not work, unless you fancy playing against a side which is 3 times larger than you or composed entirely of over equipped shock troops because 'that's what it would actually be like.'

Finally, I'd argue that list switching detracts from any real skill in the game. If it's simply a matter of whose list is better tailored to destroy the other, then the actual performance and skill of both players in the game becomes a secondary factor. I don't mind losing, but I'd rather be tactically outwitted by a superior opponent than beaten simply because my opponent's list is tweaked towards destroying my army.

[Osaria]

Originally Posted by The_Giant_Mantis

If the Chinese PLA fought the Japanese SDF, the result would be, at best, short and bloody, due to the massive superiority of one side over the other.

Yea those mechanites really makes the JSDF overpowered. Damn you Tsukiyoka indestries!