Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Im interested in what Oddball said about the balance of lists in euroland. What would you be the key differences?

Someone else said that "troops dont count towards this" I guess this makes sense...

You can spam troops too.

Chaos SM does it particularly well, with cult marines. With Chaos you can even take more than 6 troops by including daemons. If your opponent doesn't have enough killing power to clear all those objectives, with everything being tough and fighty and a troop unit and some fearless, you can win a lot of games that way.

My EC list has been doing very well, with very little of what I consider spam. I've got two lash princes, sure. At 'ard boyz level I have 3 oblits, and I almost always have 2 defilers (at the big Waaagh 2009 I had a vindicator instead] and my troops mix regular CSM with noisemarines to cover my bases with anti-horde and anti-tank.

I take a page from the redundancy book in that there's very little in my army that comes by itself - 2 princes, 2 noisemarine squads, 3 CSM squads, 2 defilers and then either a squad of oblits or a vindicator. I was complimented three times at the big waaagh on how my army supports itself and covers all its bases - yet I'm also called a spam army by some.

Its not spam to have an army that is redundant.

Vulcan ; MM Dread x 3, 2 x 2 LS ; 3 tacticals, 2 Term Squads in Landraiders.


That's not spam its jsut a good list soem would say its spam because you are capitalizing on spamming multimeltas and h. flamers.

I see a LOT of criticism of vulkan lists that spam melta.

Honestly.....seriously?

"Here's my vulkan list"
"wow, cool, what's on those landspeeders"
"heavy bolter and assault cannon"
"and those tactical marines?"
"plasma gun, lascannon"
"and the termies?"
"went with stormbolters and cyclone missles"

That's like taking Belial and taking no terminators. Why bring a character that gives a special ability to certain models then NOT bring lots of those models? It's called a theme. Nobody cared when salamanders took lots of heavy flamers and flamers before.

I like to take pedro and no sternguard. DONT JUDGE ME.

There does seem to be some confusion on this thread about what 'redundancy' and 'spam' mean, so would it be better to clarify our terms of reference before going further?

For me, 'spam' is picking a good unit, then taking the same unit again and again.

This is undeniably effective, but has its flaws - primarily because it is a one trick pony. For every netspam (TM) army, there is a counter. Also, they tend not be 'futureproof' - which is fine if you have enough spare money and time to update to the new hotness every time a book gets released. Most of us have other things in our lives that demand money.

'Redundancy' is having multiple units that can do the same job (even if they are not exactly the same unit) - so that if one gets hit, others can step in.

The reason that I believe this to be better is that the counters are less obvious. Spam lists cause their own downfall with target priority - your opponent should easily recognise which units are the greatest threat and will neutralise them accordingly. Also, they give you greater tactical flexibility, because you have more open options.


The term 'battleforce' has been thrown into the debate in its usual disparaging sense and I am NOT advocating 'one of each' or taking poor units in place of better ones just to be different. What I am saying is that a good army with inherent redundancy can be built without just spamming units - and I would also argue that it would be better in a tournament setting because of its greater flexibility and avoidance of the standard counters to netdecks.

Using the term 'Netdecks' in 40k pisses me off. This isn't MTG or YGO. When you ask for deck advice in those games you don't get tactical advice, because the game doesn't have that depth. 40k however has a selection of best possible lists, often more than one per book, and so it's obvious that the best players, those with list building ability as well as table top ability, naturally gravitate towards on of those lists. Some armies have an obviously best way to play them - it doesn't mean you've copied someone else's fething army just because you happen to have the same stuff as them, not being a moron, and able to tell for yourself what's good.

I think it’s funny that some folks seem unable or unwilling to distinguish the middle ground between the “best” units/lists and the “bad” units/lists. Most codices contain certain units which are “best in class” for a given force org slot, but often they contain others that are not far behind, and may offer alternate virtues. Like CSMs vs Plague Marines.

If I bring a squad of 10 CSMs w/2 meltaguns instead of a squad of 6 or 7 plagues w/2 meltaguns, I’ve got less durability vs. small arms, but greater durability vs. power weapons, fists, and AP2 guns. Are the plague marines generally better? Sure. Are they so much better that you’re stupid to ever take CSMs? My ‘ard boyz wins beg to differ.

Anyway, the core points of redundancy and flexibility are inarguable. The issue I have with the OP is that it posits that Spam is a component of all the strongest lists. Spam (the heavy repetition of the exact same unit) CAN make for a strong army, but also can make for more tactically-limited and inflexible army, which are weaknesses. Whenever you copy and use a common standard build, you also make tactical decisions easier for any opponent who is experienced in facing said build.

This is part of why many tournament players attempt to find variant builds or strong combinations other than the most common net lists. Part of it is simple pride; wanting to come up with our own lists. Part of it is that having something less common can make it harder for our opponents to come up with good counters at the table.

ManwithIronHands wrote:what would this be called,

captain
cmd squad

inquisitor lord
mystic x2
servo skull x1
landraider

5 terminators
LRR
5 assault terminators
LRR
inquisitor
mystic x2
LR

10 man tac sqad
rhino
10 man tac sqad
rhino
10 man tac sqad
rhino

LR
LR
LR

this is my typical 2500 point list yes thats a total of 7 raiders and variants in a legal list

Im going to slit your tires.

Land Raider spam is soooo last year.

Elessar wrote: Generally speaking, HollisMason is right, and anyone who disagrees, is wrong. You may consider it boring not playing a Battleforce piece of trash list, I consider it boring to lose all the time against better lists, even when I'm a better player, because I'm not better enough/get the wrong mission/can't be bothered using terrible units for the sake of it.

I would consider this an increibly narrow-minded view - you can't simply say that anyone who doesn't play the game like you do is 'wrong'

For you, HollisMason may be right - iF all you care about is WAAC and ultra-competitive spam lists - if you ONLY want to play tournament games against the same identikit armies. Is this you? Then HollisMason's may be the right view for you.

I like playing weird armies. I find it fun to face (and play) a handicapped, but themed force. I play to win, but i don't start a game attempting to GRIND MY OPPONENTS INTO THE GROUND YEAAAHH HURRRRRR! It's just a toy soldier game. If you have this attitude, i would imagine you a pretty sad individual, and probably not mich fun to playa against.

I would consider it a shame if EVERY time i faced an Eldar army, it was the same build. I'd consider it a shame if everyone ONLY used the same build of 'the best units', reducing the infinite variety of the game to twelve 'best of' lists that you play again and again and again and again.

Oh sorry, am I wrong?

Have i got warhammer wrong?

Am i playing it wrong?

OddJob. wrote:What makes you a great general is playing against other top generals week in and week out. For a long time I was king of the hill locally, but I have improved my game immesurably by playing on the top tables at GT time. I'd go as far as to say that if you aren't playing against the big boys in the tournaments then you aren't a top player.

So you'd go as far as to say that if you don't like to compete in tournaments, you can't be a good general? Or that there's just no way to prove it?

We're not really discussing friendly lists ; a lot of the list I post are just bizzaro land and I enjoy them.

What I am saying is that in the competitive field and enviroment the strongest list consist of spam to a degree and multiple redundancy.


Let's just stop using spam and say multiples.

Is that better because we changed the semantics?

No not really;

Just because you decide to take for instance 2 Nob Squads and 2 Shootboyz w/ 2 battlewagons doesnt change the core o the army.


Some people prefer Attack bikes to Landspeeders in a Vulcan army.


Regardless they serve the same functional role and in multiples.


If you want to build a strong competitive list your list needs to have multiples of units and redundancy.


That's it.

There isnt a argument about common sense or playstyle or what your flavor is.

Redundant Spam lists for lack of a better term and a term I just pulled out of thin air is a STRONG LIST if done properly.


Look at most lists that win tournaments GW and otherwise.

They have either 1. spam 2. redundancy

or a combination of both.

ArbitorIan wrote:

Elessar wrote: Generally speaking, HollisMason is right, and anyone who disagrees, is wrong. You may consider it boring not playing a Battleforce piece of trash list, I consider it boring to lose all the time against better lists, even when I'm a better player, because I'm not better enough/get the wrong mission/can't be bothered using terrible units for the sake of it.

I would consider this an increibly narrow-minded view - you can't simply say that anyone who doesn't play the game like you do is 'wrong'

For you, HollisMason may be right - iF all you care about is WAAC and ultra-competitive spam lists - if you ONLY want to play tournament games against the same identikit armies. Is this you? Then HollisMason's may be the right view for you.

I like playing weird armies. I find it fun to face (and play) a handicapped, but themed force. I play to win, but i don't start a game attempting to GRIND MY OPPONENTS INTO THE GROUND YEAAAHH HURRRRRR! It's just a toy soldier game. If you have this attitude, i would imagine you a pretty sad individual, and probably not mich fun to playa against.

I would consider it a shame if EVERY time i faced an Eldar army, it was the same build. I'd consider it a shame if everyone ONLY used the same build of 'the best units', reducing the infinite variety of the game to twelve 'best of' lists that you play again and again and again and again.

Oh sorry, am I wrong?

Have i got warhammer wrong?

Am i playing it wrong?

OddJob. wrote:What makes you a great general is playing against other top generals week in and week out. For a long time I was king of the hill locally, but I have improved my game immesurably by playing on the top tables at GT time. I'd go as far as to say that if you aren't playing against the big boys in the tournaments then you aren't a top player.

So you'd go as far as to say that if you don't like to compete in tournaments, you can't be a good general? Or that there's just no way to prove it?

I'm afraid you don't understand my POV at all. :(

I'll try to explain.
Winning = good.
Winning = fun.
Not being able to win = bad
Not being able to win = not fun.
Spam lists = one trick pony lists = bad, because when you aren't winning, you CANNOT win.
Spam lists therefore are not ultra-competitive, only fools think they are. The person using them usually is, but that's different.
Redundancy = the ONLY way to RELIABLY win 90% of the time.
There are often multiple great builds in a Dex, Eldar have 2, because they're outdated and need updated immediately after the Dark Eldar in 2011...but you'll (hopefully) see that then.
Playing 'weird' armies is fine, in your own home. Take it to a Tournament and you have no right to cry when you get stomped.
I always try to make sure my opponents have fun.
I don't play like it's a tournament in non-tournament games, because I'm not a dick, and because I understand how to vary my game, not just my army.
I can throw games if necessary, even with a better list, because I'm not a sad individual at all, and can easily stand to lose, AS LONG AS I HAD A CHANCE OF WINNING.
STOP STOP STOP using the term WAAC to label people who say they want to play a decent army, it shows a basic failure to understand the concept.


Writing a list to win games is in no way the same as being a dill weed. WAAC Gamers cheat. A cursory glance at my posts in the last 3 days will reveal that I hate cheaters probably more than 90% of gamers. Implying I am a cheat by saying I'm a WAAC player is a surefire way to get to Heavy Flamered. It wwould be hypocritical of me not to flame you for it - but since I don't think that was quite your intent, I have not as yet.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Troop choices don't count towards the spammage.

G

Bloodcrushers are not troops.

ArbitorIan a battleforce army is horrible, trust me I know. For the first sixth months of playing Warhammer 40k I played the chaos space marine battlefore with Abaddon, I somehow got it too a thousand points. Its a horrible army to play or play against.

I literally had NO way of winning a game, even against a casaul list. Battleforce armies are terrible.

Lord-Loss wrote:ArbitorIan a battleforce army is horrible, trust me I know. For the first sixth months of playing Warhammer 40k I played the chaos space marine battlefore with Abaddon, I somehow got it too a thousand points. Its a horrible army to play or play against.

I literally had NO way of winning a game, even against a casaul list. Battleforce armies are terrible.

I'm not saying you should play a battleforce army.

I just think there's a middle ground between the 'example SM army' in the codex and, on the other end of the scale, using the most generic web lists that only feature spam of what's widely regarded as the 'best' unit.

I'm not suggesting you only use the contents of the CSM battleforce. I'm also not suggesting you read up on 'competitive' builds and only ever field Dual Lash, PMs and Obliterators. If everyone did that, playing against CSM armies would get boring very quickly, to the detriment of the metagame.

There is no national metagame, to borrow a phrase from everyone's favourite permaban.

Successful 40k armies need two things: the focus to carry out a winning game plan, and the versatility to stop any enemy game plan. All army building debates center around that tension between focus and versatility.

Fifth edition changed, fundamentally, the nature of army building by only having troops score. This has changed what armies are top drawer (Nidzilla and SM terminator spam suffered the most) because it made armies with good troops choices even better. In addition, the increase in armor's durability has made vehicles far more of a factor. Thus, the need to deal with MCs and terminators and the like in 4th is now replaced by the need to deal with Mech. Curiously, mechanizing is in many ways the best way to deal with mech, leading to a vicious circle.

Demogerg wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Troop choices don't count towards the spammage.

G

Bloodcrushers are not troops.

HA! HA! HA!

I run one squad. That is not spam by a long shot.

I won't call you any nasty names. : )

G

Polonius wrote:Successful 40k armies need two things: the focus to carry out a winning game plan, and the versatility to stop any enemy game plan. All army building debates center around that tension between focus and versatility.

Fifth edition changed, fundamentally, the nature of army building by only having troops score. This has changed what armies are top drawer (Nidzilla and SM terminator spam suffered the most) because it made armies with good troops choices even better. In addition, the increase in armor's durability has made vehicles far more of a factor. Thus, the need to deal with MCs and terminators and the like in 4th is now replaced by the need to deal with Mech. Curiously, mechanizing is in many ways the best way to deal with mech, leading to a vicious circle.

If no-one around runs Mech, NidZilla is as good as ever, because you can't get away. While Scoring changes are a slight issue for Zilla lists, they're not the main problem by a large amount. 5th also dramatically changed the missions in such a way that gunlines almost became entirely unfeasible. Cue someone telling me they win Tournaments with Devastators.

Just because YOU can, doesn't mean you SHOULD be able to, and doesn't mean those of us with more competitive opponents can.

ArbitorIan wrote:

I'm not saying you should play a battleforce army.

I just think there's a middle ground between the 'example SM army' in the codex and, on the other end of the scale, using the most generic web lists that only feature spam of what's widely regarded as the 'best' unit.

I'm not suggesting you only use the contents of the CSM battleforce. I'm also not suggesting you read up on 'competitive' builds and only ever field Dual Lash, PMs and Obliterators. If everyone did that, playing against CSM armies would get boring very quickly, to the detriment of the metagame.

I have a question for you. Your post seems to be mostly aimed at the morals of the situation, what a player should do in trying to do the best for the hobby, not simply to win. Yet there is, as there often is in these things, a not so subtle dig at idea that it's possible to build a better list. When you speak of "generic web lists that only feature spam of what's widely regarded as the 'best' unit.", are you implying that the consensus is wrong, and the strongest lists are different? Or are you saying that while they are the best, players should use other stuff?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Elessar wrote:[
If no-one around runs Mech, NidZilla is as good as ever

And if nobody is better than me, I'm the best player in the world.

ArbitorIan wrote:I like playing weird armies. I find it fun to face (and play) a handicapped, but themed force. I play to win, but i don't start a game attempting to GRIND MY OPPONENTS INTO THE GROUND YEAAAHH HURRRRRR! It's just a toy soldier game. If you have this attitude, i would imagine you a pretty sad individual, and probably not mich fun to playa against.

QFT
No matter how cool you think your models are, their still toy soldiers.
Anyone who takes this game that seriously where they need to win-win-win is TFG that noone wants to play.

labmouse42 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:I like playing weird armies. I find it fun to face (and play) a handicapped, but themed force. I play to win, but i don't start a game attempting to GRIND MY OPPONENTS INTO THE GROUND YEAAAHH HURRRRRR! It's just a toy soldier game. If you have this attitude, i would imagine you a pretty sad individual, and probably not mich fun to playa against.

QFT
No matter how cool you think your models are, their still toy soldiers.
Anyone who takes this game that seriously where they need to win-win-win is TFG that noone wants to play.

This is one for HBMC's Casual Gamer Mafia all star lists.

A dismissive, insulting sweeping generalization of a group of gamers that completely ignores the irony of it's own indignation? I'm not saying it's the platonic ideal of the type, but it's a pretty pure form of it.

whitedragon wrote:Land Raider spam is soooo last year.

...but its effectiveness is timeless.

Deadshane1 wrote:

whitedragon wrote:Land Raider spam is soooo last year.

...but its effectiveness is timeless.

But deadshane, we're worried about you. Effectiveness = trying to win = raping kitties. You don't like raping kitties, do you?

Answer yes or no: Have you stopped beating your wife?

Mannahnin wrote:Answer yes or no: Have you stopped beating your wife?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Answer yes or no: Have you stopped beating your wife?

yeah, now that I spend all my time at your mom's house.

Ba-zing!

Polonius: Why are you growing that paunch, Mannahnin?
Mannahnin: Because every time I make love to your wife, she gives me a cookie.
(with credit to Eddo Brandes)

I absolutely HATE WAAC tournament players.


...because they make it more difficult for ME to WAAC at Tournaments....which is how I have fun.

In yer face CGM.