Redundancy is not a catholic term for a lapsed nun now in the process of a sex change in order to fuel her candacy for mayor of Eureka , California ; Spam is not a canned meat product

Spam in the form of you take a lot of one particularly good thing as to overwhelm your opponent and nullify his ability to eliminate this threat from your army.

Redundancy is another one. You take multiples of things that accomplish the same goal so that if one is lost the others take its place in its role or multiply its role in the force organization by accomplishing the same thing.


It's why lists are successful. It's a common military tactic; its been used in warfare for the last oh I dont know since our ancestors decided to start throwing rocks at the other monkeys to knock them out of their trees and take their bananas / rocksex their womenz.


It's why list work; its why you should use it.


1 Landraider = easy kill
2 Landraider = easy kill
3 Landraider = not so easy
4 landraider = difficult
5 Landraider = What the hell I'm going to spit in your drink when you are not looking

3 Obliterators = Annoying
6 Obliterators = Very Annoying
9 Obliterators = I am going to poison your dog.


Comedic Analogies aside ; these are important to know not so much the killing your dog part but the realization that Spam and Redundancy are what win Games.

Once you realize this ; that almost all winning Tournament armies are redundant and spam , you will be a better player.


Here are some check lists to creating a list :

1. Does my army have something that can accomplish the same goal as this unit YES/ NO
If no; add it. If Yes , add one more if possible to insure maximum frustration in your opponent.

2. Is this unit a lynchpin of my army and will its destruction cause the collapse of my army quicker than the crotch of my trousers at an 80 year strip contest YES/ NO
If no continue ; If yes, re-examine your list and possibly restructure so that your army does not rely on that specific unit or take a duplicate of that unit if possible. 2 is better than 1 except with Venereal Diseases.

3. What is the focus of my army and what will it do best; there is a reason the military doesn't train soldiers to fulfill all roles but instead trains specialist roles.



All of this leads to the building of a list that is focused ; redundant; and has spam.

I agree that spam is annoying and shows people are more interested in winning than having an interesting army or a fun game. I play warhammer games because they have incredible stories behind each army, to show off my modelling chops and to compare my work to what other people are doing, and to have some good clean competition. Spamming units tarnishes those things somewhat. I don't think people that spam should be shot behind a woodshed or anything and they are well within the rules to pick any army choices they like, but you would never find me running an army with 5 land raiders. It wouldn't be fun for me and it isn't fun for my opponent.

Personally, I think land raider spam is a lot harder to deal with, and a lot smarter for the player choosing it, compared to oblit spam. Oblits are 75pts each and 9 of them is a huge chunk of an army to waste on something that gets 9 total shots. With that many points I could take 3 full squads of havocs(4ac+4bolter) with ACs and still have points left over for rhinos, more havocs, or to spend elsewhere in my army. 2x12 ac's = 24 str7 ap4 r48" instead of 9 lascannon/plasma cannon/etc shots. I prefer 2 squads of havocs with 1 squad of oblits so I can have mass of shots and also the versatility of oblits to fill in with whatever weapon I need. Could also take 2ac+2ml for versatility as well. If you choose dakka preds instead you get 4x the amount of shots instead of 2x , at the cost of range and strength(but when you're firing 4 more shots and able to move 12" does it really matter?). Who cares if you have a TL flamer when a dakka pred is firing 8 shots instead of 1 with equal to or better than strength for roughly the same points.

the point of obliterators is being able to fight any kind of fight you want. yes, a dakka pred can dish out a lot more shots, but if your playing a space marine army those shots are "eh" at best. but an obliterator has a weapon for any situation. also, there's a pretty good chance of that predator to be blown up with one good shot. having two wounds, a +2 armor save, and an invulnerable save make them just as survivable if not more survivable than a predator. not saying an obliterator cannot be blown up in the same fashion, but there are more things protecting it than a predator.

i re-read your post and notice you also mentioned havocs, they are a pretty stationary unit. at least obliterators have slow and purposeful and have the ability to deep strike. your going to be spending a lot of time re-positioning them if you dont do it right. (lololololololol just don't even argue this point, i didn't realize we were having the same argument on another post,)

obviously no one is going to be taking 9 obliterators squads of 3 are overkill. squads of two are preferred. i think 4 is acceptable for 1500 points. considering your other options are almost all ordnance weapons. i like knowing my shots have a decent chance of hitting. i ;d rather see my shots straight up miss than scatter and give my hopes up of landing maybe on something.

For those who think that variety is the spice of life, and spam is the king of meats, I would like to present the alterantive army builder!

hollismason is dead right with what he says and would endorse everything with one slight coda.

'Two things that do the same job do the same job.'

Everyone who writes spam armies forgets this, so let me illustrate.

LRVanquisher puts out AP2 hurt from the comfort of a MBT.
LRDemolisher puts out AP2 hurt from the comfort of a MBT.

Putting one of each does not instantly dilute your army and make it less viable than 2x LRVan or 2x LRDem.

Now, before anyone starts on about relative strengths and ranges of these two, I mention it because most IG armies take these tanks for anti-TEQ duty. The important bit is the AP2 and the rest is a bonus. Clever writing of your lists can give you the best of both worlds, with more flexibilty than pure spam.




However delicious that is.

Two small seer councils with two farseers or One council & one Avatar. Job done. Same thinking applied?

If your intention is two tough CC units that provide support for your line, then yes.

You have to place it in context with the rest of the army, of course.

I'm not saying spam is bad, just that, in the immortal words of Obi-wan Kenobi, '...you can't win, but there are alternatives to spamming...'

I agree that the spam approach is quite successful in 40k.
However, spam sometimes prevents you from adding some flexibility into the army.
E.g., instead of another Tactical, an outflanking Scout squad is sometimes very useful.

You all just said what took me until 'Ard boyz to figure out(course i have only been playing since last year). Before then i wasn't exactly sure why everybody used spam lists i knew they won with them but just thought they had been playing for a while and knew how to play. Everybody at 'Ard boyz had a spam or really nice mech list then it dawned on me ooo these lists work really well. I just like some variety in my lists usually thats my only problem with spam lists.

some lists tho work almost only with "spam". I see you dark eldar. Raiders... raiders and more raiders. It feels like spam... but its just a mechanized list, and they are all paper thin.

Many units in the DE codex are outshined by basic others, wyches, warriors, and ravagers. Pretty simple, and cheap, able to take many.

It's just basic common sense sure you can make a army that has 1 of everything. 1 tactical ; 1 biker squad ; 1 scout squad ; 1 terminator squad.

It just won't be as effective agaisnt an army that has clear focus and multiple redundancies.

It has no redundancy.


Spam or redundancy though to not miss the point is not making an unbalanced list. If I have a 10 man biker squad as my "tank" hunter unit and nothing else the list is not "Balanced" you need in addition to any order to create a viable list.

This is what is redundancy ; spam is where I take multiples so lets say I have a 10 man biker squad for tank hunting and 2 landspeeders. That's better.

Now what is the next stem well 2 6 man squads and 2 landspeeders are going to be even more effective.


It just increases the effectiveness of the army.

I disagree with this sentiment.

Its not about spamming units that do one thing. Its about units that can do everything.

Lets look at some of the units in the top tier armies.

dakka pred
HF/MM landspeeder
Vendetta
Seer council
Fire prism
oblits
Tau hammerhead
ect

Notice how every one of these units can shift and perform most rolls on the battlefield?

The reason these are spammed is not to add redundancy but because usually there is one 'Best' unit in each of the force organization chart options for this.

This way your opponent really can't decide on priority targets because no matter what he kills, the entire rest of your army can still step in and fill the role.

I played against a dude in a FLGS tourney and he ran 4 dreads a LR and a tac against my Necrons and a wiped the floor with him because of it. In the end of the day if your spam unit costs more than the amount of points they will kill i say break it up a bit and leave 'em at home

Just because you spam or have redundancies in your list do not automatically make your list win.

It takes some skill at knowing what units to spam and what parts of your army to be redundant.

Points based system + unbalanced list options = multiples of best options

I generally concur with Hollis. Repeating unit selections is usually a sign of a good list.

I agree with this. The main thing I don't agree with that 1 or even 2 LR's are still VERY hard to kill lol!

I'd say

1 Landraider = Hope you brought some meltaguns
2 Landraiders = Hope you brought a LOT of meltaguns
3 Landraiders = This is not going to be fun.
4 Landraiders = %*$& you.
5 Landraiders = I'm going to slit your tires.

One thing I'd actually like to add to this though in a serious note.

Another aspect of redundancy in Warhammer is also Duality. Duality = The ability for a unit to have multiple purposes, and for it to be able to do those purposes WELL. For example, you used the Landraider and Obliterators as a redundant unit. Both have one major distinction in common. They both have "duality". Obliterators can pop a tank (meltaguns and Lascannons!) while also taking care of infantry (flamers etc.) and heavy infantry (plasma cannon). They can do multiple jobs with efficiency.

The same goes for a landraider. While it's staple of AV14 is probably the reason why it's so godly, it's ability to function as multiple things is its key to being good and being worthwhile to spam. The standard vanilla raider can be a scoring unit (stick troops inside), tank killer, assault carrier, and can even take care of heavy infantry like Terminators and Obliterators and hurt Independent characters and Monstrous creatures well! It functions well in multiple manners.

When we look at something without duality (lets say A heavy weapons squad with heavy bolters or a Landspeeder with a Heavy Bolter and Assault Cannon) they function in basically one single way. The heavy bolters won't really do well against most tanks, they have a shot at killing an x-port on some LUCKY dice, but they really can only function in one manner, killing troops. They can't kill tanks efficiently. The landspeeder is the same thing, barring rending from the assault cannon, it functions to take out light infantry to maybe some 3+ meqs. But when it comes across something like a Predator or Vindicator or other tank, it really can't reliably handle it well. Unlike it's cousin the MM/HF landspeeder who can take out tanks VERY well while still being able to fry infantry, it can do both things efficiently.

If the game were perfectly balanced, then it would be a real decision between redundancy and flexibility. No one unit _should_ be able to just do everything and players would be forced to pick units based on relative strength/resilience to a task.

However, the game, like the world, is not perfect, and thus we have:

[quoted from jmurph]
Points based system + unbalanced list options = multiples of best options


When there is a clear "best in slot" choice in an army list, as so many of these Tactica threads seem to be trying to find, the "winning" strategy is to take as many as possible. Does this make you a better player? No. Taking a sub-optimal list and using it well makes you a better player. Spamming a list is a statement that you understand the game isn't balanced, and you're going to exploit it as hard as you possibly can. This isn't necessarily wrong; in competitive environments, it's necessary. But, don't confuse rules exploitation with actual generalship. You are manipulating the imperfections of the system, not utilizing a flexible and realistic force. Real militaries use diversified troops and armor for good reason, but then again, they don't look at battles as lasting 6 turns and being based on Kill Points.

Spam lists have many advantages for folks who aren't interested in a rounded force;

Easy to learn - you've got one thing you do, and the resilience to do it pretty much no matter what.

Easy to collect and paint - It's all the same, no need to worry about cohesion or anything.

Highly forgiving - So you're not a pro at eyeballing distances and you miss your charge distance half the time. Who cares? When 2 miss, the other three will make enough of a mess to make it not matter.

And the downsides?

Boring - For your opponent, and you eventually. How pretty is that spam list sitting on the shelf? Frustrating to your opponents if they have to put up with it frequently.

No flexibility - When you're a hammer, every problem looks like a nail right? Right?

Tailored solutions - Here's the big one. Once your trick is old hat, everyone will know how to beat it to pulp. Good as some of the spam lists out are (Vulkan, Lash/Plague, Raider, even Chimera spam) , once the tools are developed to beat it, that tool works against your ENTIRE army. No bait and switch for you, it's just uphill charges now.

All in all, I think you can see I'm on the versitility and diversity side of things, but I do recognize that for a competitive list to take to one tournament and blow it away, powerful spam lists are the way to go. Just remember, I hope, that your friends would like to see some variance just because, well, it's a game.

It's the basic principle that more is better. What you take more of is what is important.

Some lists are powerful and naturally "better".

Let's look at the winning lists that win tournaments; if you will notice they all have the commonality of " multiples" and redundancy.


You can take 60 Scout Marines with Close Combat weapons ; thats spam it serves a specific purpose.

It's not going to do a hell of a lot of good against someone who say has 3 tacticals in 3 rhinos.

Now let's look at the above.

60 scouts is not ultimately going to win a game , however having multiples of a unit does serve the function of redundancy.


So while 60 scouts on their own may not; 60 scouts /w 6 dreadnoughts or 30 terminators will for instance.


Why?

Because its redundant and killing 1 10 man squad of terminators does not defeat the army.

When you look at your army you really need to ask these questions?


1. What is this units purpose? CC ; Antitank : Antihorde? DO I have something in my army that can adequately replace this unit if it is destroyed?

This is why multiples of one type are good.


2. Does this meet the focus of purpose or goal my army is trying to meet?


Tactical Flexibility is not lost with lists that spam correctly.

Halsfield wrote:. I don't think people that spam should be shot behind a woodshed or anything...

i do

GeneralRetreat wrote:When there is a clear "best in slot" choice in an army list, as so many of these Tactica threads seem to be trying to find, the "winning" strategy is to take as many as possible. Does this make you a better player? No. Taking a sub-optimal list and using it well makes you a better player. Spamming a list is a statement that you understand the game isn't balanced, and you're going to exploit it as hard as you possibly can. This isn't necessarily wrong; in competitive environments, it's necessary. But, don't confuse rules exploitation with actual generalship. You are manipulating the imperfections of the system, not utilizing a flexible and realistic force.

QFT

Spamming units is useful but unimaginative tactic. It doesn't make you a great general. What makes you a great general is playing with a non-competitive army and STILL winning.

I think people confuse certain aspects of redundancy and spam.

This is redundant
Librarian
Librarian

5 man Terminator w/ redeemer
5 man Terminator w/ Redeemer

Tactical
Tactical
Scout
Scout

;
Lash Prince
Lash Prince

Termicide
Termicide
Troop Troop Troop
Obliterator
Obliterator
Obliterator

Those are redundant list that use list spam.

This is Spam

MoF

Dread w/ melta
Dread w/ melta
dread w/ melta
Dread w/ Melta
dread w/ melta
Dread w/ melta

Scout
scout
scout
scout
scout

It spams the crap out of 2 specific units in the premise that it will face a list that although able to overcome that individually when in large numbers it will not be able to.


It's not a "easy win" all armies take some modicum of skill.

Yeah, I think jmurph has the best concise analysis of how it works.

Every time a new codex comes out, the players comb through it for the best "value" units--that is, those that have the biggest imbalance between high capability and low cost. Some units emerge as imbalance stars (TH/SS termies, hydras, valks, shoota boyz, speeders), and others go on the "currently nerfed" shelf (falcons, devastators, deff koptas).

Then players look for imbalanced combos and force multipliers (i.e. Vulkan) and the spam ensues.

There's actually a theory in statistics/math about how the longer a system of rules is in place, the more refined the winning strategies become--and therefore the more limited the number of viable strategies becomes, because anybody who varies from the top strategies becomes less competitive.

Personally I do find it fun to go up against an opponent's best possible list, whether I'm playing a spam list or not. But it's an acquired taste--I used to whine about cheese too when I first started losing to powergamer lists.

[edit]
But I also agree that it gets kind of depressing when a new Eldar player posts a mech Eldar list on the army list forum and all us Dakka vets come around and say, "You really should have a farseer and an autarch, and then 2 or 3 DAs in serpents, and 2 FDs in serpents and then 3 fire prisms." As if there's only one viable list for Eldar. We could save a lot of time by just sending every newbie on the army list forum around to Steleks blog.

Overspecialize, and you breed in weakness. It's slow death.
- Major Motoko Kusanagi Ghost in the Shell

Spam lists are great, until people start bringing the counters to them.
A SM biker army full of meltas will destroy LR spam. That same list will suck against a 150 model ork army.

ArbitorIan wrote:

GeneralRetreat wrote:When there is a clear "best in slot" choice in an army list, as so many of these Tactica threads seem to be trying to find, the "winning" strategy is to take as many as possible. Does this make you a better player? No. Taking a sub-optimal list and using it well makes you a better player. Spamming a list is a statement that you understand the game isn't balanced, and you're going to exploit it as hard as you possibly can. This isn't necessarily wrong; in competitive environments, it's necessary. But, don't confuse rules exploitation with actual generalship. You are manipulating the imperfections of the system, not utilizing a flexible and realistic force.

QFT

Spamming units is useful but unimaginative tactic. It doesn't make you a great general. What makes you a great general is playing with a non-competitive army and STILL winning.

And then you meet the player who is an equal general to you but didn't bring a gakky list and you never beat him.

Fun, casual games, bring whatever you want. Tournaments, bring what it takes to win.

Flavius Infernus wrote:
But I also agree that it gets kind of depressing when a new Eldar player posts a mech Eldar list on the army list forum and all us Dakka vets come around and say, "You really should have a farseer and an autarch, and then 2 or 3 DAs in serpents, and 2 FDs in serpents and then 3 fire prisms." As if there's only one viable list for Eldar. We could save a lot of time by just sending every newbie on the army list forum around to Steleks blog.

The thing with this is, its just going to take any new player a couple months to realized what the most viable eldar army is. Then he is going to spend a whole ton more monies in order to fix his current army to make it competitive.

This way, at least he only has to drop $500+ once instead of twice.


I know cause I have done it.
And dropping 500 on an army and then finding out it can't compete with top tier sucks.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:For those who think that variety is the spice of life, and spam is the king of meats, I would like to present the alterantive army builder!

hollismason is dead right with what he says and would endorse everything with one slight coda.

'Two things that do the same job do the same job.'

Everyone who writes spam armies forgets this, so let me illustrate.

LRVanquisher puts out AP2 hurt from the comfort of a MBT.
LRDemolisher puts out AP2 hurt from the comfort of a MBT.

Putting one of each does not instantly dilute your army and make it less viable than 2x LRVan or 2x LRDem.

Now, before anyone starts on about relative strengths and ranges of these two, I mention it because most IG armies take these tanks for anti-TEQ duty. The important bit is the AP2 and the rest is a bonus. Clever writing of your lists can give you the best of both worlds, with more flexibilty than pure spam.

No, terrible example, because one is a single-shot weapon designed for shooting enemy tanks badly, the other is for clearing hordes of armoured foes.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, there ARE only 2 ways to play Eldar.

There's another way to put this 'redundancy' idea.

METAL BOXES!

So is this Redundancy or SPAM?

Belail
Interrogator Chaplin [Teminator Armor/Combi-Plasma]

Elite
Deathwing Command upgrade [Assault Cannon] x1
Deathwing [Assault Cannon] x2

Troops
Deathwing [Thunder Hammer/Cyclone] x1
Deathwing [LC/Cyclone] x2
Deathwing [Heavy Flamer] x3

I like to bring a strong list with some "not the standard internet build" stuff in it. If I beat the standard internet power builds, I derive additional satisfaction from the win. More fun, and without the whining.

Taking a crippled army list to make an example isn't as funny as you think.

Anpu42 wrote:So is this Redundancy or SPAM?

Belail
Interrogator Chaplin [Teminator Armor/Combi-Plasma]

Elite
Deathwing Command upgrade [Assault Cannon] x1
Deathwing [Assault Cannon] x2

Troops
Deathwing [Thunder Hammer/Cyclone] x1
Deathwing [LC/Cyclone] x2
Deathwing [Heavy Flamer] x3

Why would that be spam if you're playing pure Deathwing where Terminators, Raiders, and Dreads are your only options? That would be like complaining about Necrons having one troop choice.

Elessar wrote:Also, there ARE only 2 ways to play Eldar.

I think you mean there are only 2 ways to WIN with eldar I'm sure there are plenty of ways to play with them

Touche.

Spam is for the weak of brain.

G

I think that spam may be forgiven if it clearly fits in with the fluff and theme, for example I am doing the Seattle Battle Bunker's IG regiment's 8th company, it happens to be the mech company, with 7 chimeras, 2 Russes and in apoc a stormlord (yay transport). That is fine, a DE raider raid is fine, wraith army is fine, deathwing is fine. You need a good excuse to explaine 'nidzilla, however.

The reason spam, or rather more accuratly target saturation works is what is called the Lanchester Square Law, which stated that that the forces' comparetive strength is not in numbers vs numbers or 1:2 but the square of the forces like 1:(2)4 or (2)4:(3)9 because not only do you have twice the firepower, but twice the survivability, meaning that if 1 leman russ is good, 2 is 4 TIMES(!) as good. Thus LR spam. Redundancy is a different animal, you just don't want to put all your AT eggs in one basket, a natural reaction, smart and perfectly fine at low levels.

Pretty much.

I never use spam.

G

On the other side of the pond the spam lists don't tend to do so well. Sure. you might find a few in the top 20, but by on large the most successful lists are much more personal with a few surprising units to specifically added to counter the local metagame.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArbitorIan wrote:Spamming units is useful but unimaginative tactic. It doesn't make you a great general. What makes you a great general is playing with a non-competitive army and STILL winning.

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.

Oddjob is right, IMHO. The top lists in America don't spam the same unit over and over because someone might play a spam version of the counter. I also think that the 3 tiered objective scenario (which also has 3-4 bonus point mini-objectives) is beginning to spread out of Adepticon. These types of scenarios go well beyond the simple scenarios from the main rulebook and force army lists to become more versatile in order to accomplish the diverse objectives of each mission.

No longer can an army rely on victory points each game or claiming an objective to win each game. Tournament players never know what the scenario objectives will be and have to be prepared for a wide range of possibilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now if the scenario you play is line up and kill the enemy, then spam lists will have their place, but not in the mojority of todays major tournaments.

sniperjolly wrote:I think that spam may be forgiven if it clearly fits in with the fluff and theme, for example I am doing the Seattle Battle Bunker's IG regiment's 8th company, it happens to be the mech company, with 7 chimeras, 2 Russes and in apoc a stormlord (yay transport). That is fine, a DE raider raid is fine, wraith army is fine, deathwing is fine. You need a good excuse to explaine 'nidzilla, however.

The reason spam, or rather more accuratly target saturation works is what is called the Lanchester Square Law, which stated that that the forces' comparetive strength is not in numbers vs numbers or 1:2 but the square of the forces like 1:(2)4 or (2)4:(3)9 because not only do you have twice the firepower, but twice the survivability, meaning that if 1 leman russ is good, 2 is 4 TIMES(!) as good. Thus LR spam. Redundancy is a different animal, you just don't want to put all your AT eggs in one basket, a natural reaction, smart and perfectly fine at low levels.

This is pretty much what I am getting at; Redundancy and multiples whether you like to call it spam or not is a incredible force multipliar.

Spam is a way for average gamers to do better. The best lists are not easy to play.

G

what the hell does a balanced list mean anyway?

A list that has multiple different units with no cohesion?

That doesn't make any sense.

I've defined Spam and Redundant as well as redundant spam.

What is a "balanced list" definition?

Green Blow Fly wrote:I never use spam.

G

Lies.

Ive played against you and one of your spam lists.

Troop choices don't count towards the spammage.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Spam is a way for average gamers to do better. The best lists are not easy to play.

G

It's also a way for good gamers to do better. No list is easy to play when up against a good general.

I think the word redundant isnt being used quite correctly here. 'Redundant' carried connotations of being unnecessary and superfluous, which can only really be applied to spammed choices that can only perform in a single role. These choices also tend to be the ones that dont suit spamming well.

For example,

Taking three squads of devastators all with lascannon creates a lot of redundancies in your list because there is only so much anti-tank that you require. Once all the vehicles have been dealt with then those devastator squads become significantly less useful. As a result you dont see any top performing lists spamming lascannon devs.

Obliterators, Hammerheads or Fire-prisms, on the other hand, can deal effectively with multiple unit types. They dont create redundancies in your army list because they are so versatile. They will always be useful for something.

Redundancy will only arise if you focus too heavily on dealing with a single unit type, and dont take others into account.

As for spamming, the best units for spamming are those that are the most versitile, as i have suggested above. Ig mech-vets are a prime example. They combine excellent anti-MC and anti-tank ability (3 melta guns) with good anti-infantry ability (Chimeras with hull HF) and good durability (cheap AV12 transport). Lots of armies have trouble dealing with such a large number of vehicles that put out such a good amount of firepower.

Finally, being able to tell which units are superior to others and being able to write an army list to take advantage of that is a good quaility in of itself. Spamming effective units doesnt make you less of a player because you chose to take advantage of your armies strengths. To win a game you must bring both and effective list and play well with it. This isnt to say that spamming is essential. It isnt. But army building is a large part of 40k and you should expect people to try and create the best lists that they can, particularly in competitive situations.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I never use spam.

G

This make me chuckle

Yup. Redundancy is only one leg of a successful strategic tripod. You also need flexibility and synergy.

Nurglitch wrote:Yup. Redundancy is only one leg of a successful strategic tripod. You also need flexibility and synergy.

Where does player ability come in? Or luck? Or rules knowledge? Or concentration on the mission?

You can be the luckiest lucky lucker luckianium and rules knowledgable concentrationist skilled player in the world I give you 250 Grots and you will still lose.

Army Composition is 50 percent of winning the game.

one MC and one tank would walk up and be invincible, do the runtherds get PK's?

Hollismason wrote:You can be the luckiest lucky lucker luckianium and rules knowledgable concentrationist skilled player in the world I give you 250 Grots and you will still lose.

Army Composition is 50 percent of winning the game.

lols. I agree, although I could probably still beat a Battleforce army.

What I take away from this is that our ancestors had sex with monkeys.

hawkeye wrote:What I take away from this is that our ancestors had sex with monkeys.

AIDS

Okay I guess I have been knocked off the moral high ground.

* gets up and brushes off the dirt *

let's look at some winning armies at the national level:

lash spam -> 2x lash prince, 6-9 Oblits, lots of mechanized Plague Marines

mechdar -> lots of wave serpents, + prisms or falcons

these two armies don't have lots of c
viable choices for 5th edition so it's hard to knock these lists from the perspective of background, especially CSM seeing that cults took a big hit in trade for some very solid troop choices... Berzerkers and Noise Marines are also good in addition to Plague Marines

Vulkan Marines -> lots of thunder termies plus anything with melta weapons

Fateweaver Bloodcrusher spam -> not much needed to explain this one in any detail. The other two viable lists seem to be MC spam and mono Nurgle with Epidemius. I do think there are actually a lot of other great army lists that could be crafted from this codex but it's a lot easier to just stick with the big three. This codex does not seem to be very popular overall and I suppose that is mainly due to people feeling uncomfortable with an entire army that deep strikes.

There are some other spam lists but I don't think they are well proven in terms of success such as DE raider spam with tons of lance weapons.

Here are two of my best army lists:

:13th Company:
Wolf Lord on bike
Storm Claw bikers
Big squad of Wulfen + Wolf Priest
Long Fangs
2x Grey Slayers

:Blood Angels:
Sanguinary High Priest + Honorguard all with jump packs
Chaplain + DC all with jump packs
2x tactical squad in drop pods with power fist & meltagun
Venerable dreadnaught with MM & HF in drop pod
Furisio dreadnaught with meltagun & HF in drop pod
5x terminator with 2x assault cannon
5x scouts with bolters, sniper rifle, heavy bolter

:Space Marines:
2x Librarian (TDA) with terminator command squad 2x assault cannon
3x las/plas
5x Devs with 4x HB
5x Devs with 4x ML

I also had a hot EC list for CSM.

I am unsure what people are thinking I run/ran that is a spam list. My BA now don't have more than two of any particular unit and my mono Khorne daemon list has 2x Grinder and 3x Bloodletters... Honestly I don't personally consider either of these to be spam lists but maybe my definition of spam is different from the more popular mindset. Feel free to correct/enlighten me.

G

In all honesty, you play those in Tournaments?!?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Except 13th Co, obviously.

I forgot to mention IG mech vets. There was a lot of hoopla following the release of this new codex. It has won any big events but I think it's too early to throw in the towel yet.

G


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I won all three games with full massacres and full bonus points at the adepticon championship RTT two years ago with my 13th Company. Like I said the best lists are not easy to play.

The BA list I posted I lost less than five games out of well over 100 in tournaments. I never took them to a big event but I played them all over.

G

You also omitted AirCav.

In fairness, 2 years ago was 4th, so it doesn't count for anything now.

This is a whole different ballgame.

Frankly, I think the Marine list is trash, the BA is the better of the two legal ones. You EC list intrigues me, I wrote a couple a few months ago I'd really like to try out, I'd quite like to see yours.

AirCav seems like the best that IG has to offer lead by Straken... It's expensive though. All the lists I posted were legal at the time I played them.

G

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

Yes, but all of your lists do have redundancies.

Meaning they have multiple ways to accomplish the same thing.

It's just good army building period.

Just because you say " these lists are balanced". doesn't mean it is just like if someone says " your list is spam" doesnt mean it is.


By my definition of Spam and Redundancy some lists do meet those criteria but others do not.

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.

Mannahnin wrote: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)

If you can't work off a single cookie while having sex, you're Doing It Wrong.

Spam=You only have one gun or one unit type, reitterated over and over again (within the FOC) to fill your army up

Redundancy= You have more than one of a critical unit so that if one critical unit dies the others can pick up it's slack.

In some cases it's true that these can be combined a little (Seer Council and/or Nob Bikers anyone?) but most of the time, if you try to spam you will eventually be owned. Lets take the case of Vulkan meltagun spam.

Ok, you have tons of meltaguns, so your good at dealing with AV14, but what if you fight an army with lots of fast skimmers (ala Dark Eldar) who don't care that your marines all have bolters for anti-troop, and guess what! You can't auto fall back out of CC (because of Vulkan), you will be stuck in there until the assault pulls you down.

"This is why you bring TH/SS terminators with that list you git" "AHAH! See! Not meltagun spam anymore!"

Green Blow Fly wrote:

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

So I just imagined those 14 bloodcrushers, gotcha.

I think a major part of the advantage to "spam" lists is being omitted here. A good spam lists renders a large portion of the enemy's army completely ineffective. For example, when facing a traditional "balanced" composition army, everything under strength 8 is pretty much worthless against a land raider spam list (and with glancing being so weak, even str 8 is pushing it). Likewise, horde-style armies reduce the effectiveness of expensive AT weapons (although they aren't completely ineffective).

This is another reason why mechanized builds are so successful in 5th. Not only are vehicles cheaper, tougher and safer than in 4th, but the ability to spam them, overpower/eliminate the opponent's AT capabilities and then rampage freely ignoring AP/horde weapons is tough to beat.

I seem to think there are two styles of very competitive/effective armies. Some spam incredible points-efficient units, some (like MM/HF landspeeders) are effective against anything, while others (vendettas) may be a little more specialized, but are so points-efficient you can't afford to pass them up. These armies have enough tools to effectively counter anything they meet.

Other lists choose very powerful units, and force the opponent to play into their gameplan. Land Raiders with TH/SS termies is an example, or lash chaos. They don't really adjust much to the enemy...they have a very powerful gameplan and execute it pretty much the same way against any opponent.

The line between these two types blurs quite a bit, but it seems to me the most successful lists fall in here somewhere.

Still waiting for Demojerk it chip up again... and yeah you must have imagined 14 seeing I only run eight total in one rank including two heralds. You got a case of the potty mouf.

G

Grimaldi wrote:I think a major part of the advantage to "spam" lists is being omitted here. A good spam lists renders a large portion of the enemy's army completely ineffective. For example, when facing a traditional "balanced" composition army, everything under strength 8 is pretty much worthless against a land raider spam list (and with glancing being so weak, even str 8 is pushing it). Likewise, horde-style armies reduce the effectiveness of expensive AT weapons (although they aren't completely ineffective).

This is another reason why mechanized builds are so successful in 5th. Not only are vehicles cheaper, tougher and safer than in 4th, but the ability to spam them, overpower/eliminate the opponent's AT capabilities and then rampage freely ignoring AP/horde weapons is tough to beat.

Is that really spam though? If someone is fielding an Ork horde army, all their models may have a toughness, but it does not mean they are all fielding the same unit. There could be shootas, sluggas, lootas, etc... On the same token, a 'mech eldar may be fielding all armor but his tanks identical. There could be fire prisms, vypers, falcons, and wave serpents.

Going all infantry or all armor is part of a strategy. Spam is using one effective unit choice (or combo) multiple times. This would be lash-oblits, or LRs.

Elessar wrote:Where does player ability come in? Or luck? Or rules knowledge? Or concentration on the mission?

Those parts come in during the game. I was talking about principles for building lists, of strategy. That said, stuff like knowledge of the rules, ability to focus on the mission, and luck are all simply assumed if you're planning on playing the game. Player ability is, naturally, the ability to implement tactics within their chosen strategy, compute strategic and tactical pay-offs, and deal with contingencies.

labmouse42 wrote:
Going all infantry or all armor is part of a strategy. Spam is using one effective unit choice (or combo) multiple times. This would be lash-oblits, or LRs.

I think it's just different levels of the same theme. You take all armor units because it denies the ability of your opponent's AP weapons. You take all land raiders (or demolishers, vets in chimeras, whatever) because they are the most effective type of armor to spam.

Then don't use the word spam use multiple of the same type or duo or whatever.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Still waiting for Demojerk it chip up again,

G

Ouch, that burned me hard. At least I dont burn my own "crew" at 'ard boyz semifinals.

Hollismason:

Trying to stem the tide of Internet gamer jargon may result in loss of faith in humanity...

Hollismason wrote:Then don't use the word spam use multiple of the same type or duo or whatever.

Arguing semantics doesnt help here.

Demogerg wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Still waiting for Demojerk it chip up again,

G

Ouch, that burned me hard. At least I dont burn my own "crew" at 'ard boyz semifinals.

Your word means nothing. You can continue to remain among the anonymous shirking in your abject fear.

G

I didn't know the semantics of the word spam and redundancy was important in tactics and strategy. Perhaps this thread should be moved to 40k discussion where it belongs.

I agree most with GeneralRetreat.

I'm not going to agrue with anyone whether their list is spam or not but it is an easier way to play. This game is pretty complicated since each race has so many special rules. I think "spam" lists are actually easier to play against since they inherantly have less flexibilty.

I play Orks because I love the army, I used to lose almost every game but that's the Ork Mantra, you never truly lose as long as you come back for another go. A "player" should pick the race he/she likes and then pcik the type of army he/she is going to enjoy.

If all you're into is winning there are other games more "broken" than 40K. If you guys want to try a broken game play Star Wars:CCG from Decipher. That was the worst written game ever.

There is nothing wrong with a new codex coming out and lots of people start playing that race or a particuliar unit of that race. That's why GW writes the codices the way they do - to sell more stuff. The fun part is trying to find counters, which there always are. It's called evolution!!

Oblts are great I'll admit but for the points I still think a Shoota Boy is still the best bargin in the game. I use Burnas, Skorchas, and BikerBoyz in ever list not because they're the best unit but because I enjoy the idea of them the most.

Play for fun!!!

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Demogerg wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Still waiting for Demojerk it chip up again,

G

Ouch, that burned me hard. At least I dont burn my own "crew" at 'ard boyz semifinals.

Your word means nothing. You can continue to remain among the anonymous shirking in your abject fear.

G

this is very OT to the OP, I am sorry that you cannot deduce who I am, but I am not afraid of you in the least.

If you would like to continue this discussion, we should take it out of this thread.

Okay send me a PM stating your identity. I see that you do wish to remain anonymous here at Dakka, which confirms my suspicions regarding your character and lack of terpitude.

G

It just goes to basic army composition ad purpose. before you put your models on the field will allow you to play a better game.

Let's look at a redundant Spam list or whatever and see what it calls for

Let's look at a bike list for marines and play one of these things is not like the other.

One of these things is not like the other.

Space Marine Bike Captain
Bike Squad
Devastator Squad
Predator

It doesnt make your list "balanced" it makes your list adhoc and unfocused.

Compared to
Bike Captain
Bike Squad
Attack bike

Just because you take more than one of something doesn't make it spam it means your army has focus and purpose.


Play how you like to play but in a competitive enviroment lists that have clear multiples ; redundancies are always going to be the most dominant.

Polonius wrote: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?

Ok. Well, first, let's clarify 'better'. I think the 'better' unit is the more fun one with the theme, and a lot of people here disagree with me. However, I can certainly see that there are more competitive units around, and therefore more competitive lists. Forums such as Dakka spend a lot of time figuring out these 'uber-competitive' lists. For the most part, they're right. These lists really are the most competitive. You can choose to take them, or you can choose not to. Since these lists are well-known on internet forums, choosing to take them does not make you a 'master strategist' or a 'better list builder' - it just means you chose to take the Dakka advice. I know what the good lists are, but i choose not to take them, because i prefer to have a weird army. This doesn't make me a worse general - I have the models to take the uberlist if i so choose, but i prefer playing this way.

(As an aside, I also thinks that all units can be good in the right army. As i said in another thread, I'm sure those Repentia CAN win the game for me, I just have to learn how best to use them. This might take a while, but will be rewarding if it pays off)

I certainly think that people should play to win - that's part of the fun. But playing the game of 40k to win is not the entirety of the hobby. Because you play the game with another person, inevitably a moral situation arises. For (hypothetical) example, I'm playing my friend, who is bringing his Kroot Mercenary army. Not the most competitive army, but he loves them. We certainly have no right to call him a 'soft-target' or imply that he's a bad general, because he likes a particular model range. Now i COULD choose my best, most uber-competitive list (maybe LR spam or Termy spam or something) and (probably) table him. Or i could choose a fluffy, weird army, and have a balanced game. In this case, you DO have a moral choice, and in my opinion you'd be acting wrongly to take your most competitive build, even if it means you're more likely to win.

Of course the exception to this is certain tournaments, in which taking your most competitive builds is the whole point. I'd certainly not have a problem with people taking uber-competitive lists to a tournament. Neither do i have a problem with someone who only wants to play uber-competitive games. As long as they understand that other people may not want to play this way, and therefore may not want to play them. We must remember that tournaments account for a tiny minority of all the 40k games in the world, once you factor in all the kids in basements.

I start to have problems when people imply that playing in an uber-competitive manner is the ONLY right way to play, and that they're disgusted at anyone who doesn't. The OP implies that his advice should always be taken, and anyone playing another way is not as 'englightened' as him. Thanks, but I know how to build a competitive list, and I know which lists are top tier, and i know about the theories of spamming and redundancy. I may choose to use this knowledge, if I consider it appropriate for the game. For most games, I don't. For this reason, I also have a problem with competitive players who imply that anyone not playing like this 'has no balls', is a 'soft target' or not as good a general. These comments are banded around quite often, and are (IMO) the reason why competitive players get such a bad rep.

Lastly, a lot of (possibly new) players post things such as "I don't know why everyone doesn't just use the most competitive builds, that way everyone would be on the same level and generalship would be the only thing that matters". In this situation, my answer is the one you reference - that we would end up playing the same 12 armies again and again.

So yes, there are more competitive builds. Everyone knows what they are, so choosing to use them doesn't make a player any better a general. But you have a moral responsibility to choose how competitive to build your list, depending on the type of game you're playing.


EDIT - Wow, that's incredibly long and rambling, and goes off topic. Apologies!!

Ok, I was just asking if you saw the internet consensus as more powerful or not. Believe it or not, sometimes you see a sort of mealy mouthed argument that goes "WWAC army selection is bad, and anyway the consensus stuff isn't the most powerful anyway." The other place I've seen it, oddly, is in feminist reaction to the modern Seduction Movement (in which I am no way connected, btw). You see writers saying things like "these techniques can't possibly work, but they shouldn't be taught." Well, if they don't work, who cares?

Anyway, I read your ramblings, and I agree with the principle that the right army for the context is a better policy than "strongest army always", but you seem to be operating under a misconception I just can't possibly relate to: that all competitive gamers are these bloodthirsty monsters that mock the weak. Usually, as long as you don't give them a lecture on how their armies are cheesy/boring/whatever, they dont' care how you play.

The best armies do not rely upon spam. They are difficult to play and rarely seen. The metagamer is stupified by this style of play and typically loses due to any lack of real experience.

G

Didn't you play at ardboyz with 14 bloodcrushers?

ArbitorIan - Good post. You should never have to apologize for length I wish everyones' posts were as thoughful.

To all I say again, feel free to "spam" or play any legal list regardless of people calling you cheesy or whatever. I'd rather lose 10 out of 10 games to people who have invested $1,000.00's and bought 5 LR than to have to play a cheater or bad sport, which unfortunalty I have:( The more you lose, the more you learn. I have 5 older brothers who have taught me that again and again, now I can beat them all on Halo!!

No I have been playing BA all along.

Hulk take another hit on your glass piep... must be soem strong stuff ya got in the bowl.

G

Much as I actually agree completely with you ArbitorIan, let's see if we can forge some peace on both sides the Tweed here.

Let's stop thinking of "best" or even "better", and replace that concept with DIFFERENT. Spam, redundancy, taking multiples, whatever, it's a theme of commonality, overlapping or identical units. "Wierd" lists or variant lists or theme lists tend to be discounted as less effective somehow. I would argue that they are differently effective.

Aside from the moral argument, I post this in the hopes of just demonstrating the pros and cons of these approaches as they apply to 40K. However, the argument is a timeless one that goes well beyond 40K; flexibility versus resilience.

The concept of spam lists is to do something enough to overwhelm the counter. LR spam overwhelms a balanced opponent by making all his anti-horde weapons null. A horde list makes anti-vehicle weapons null due to low rate of fire.

Neither are wrong, nor is a balanced list of both wrong. They are just different ideas of how to go about winning, and I think we all have a right to play and build however we see fit. Winning is a byproduct of many factors, calling it dependant on a list alone is narrow, to be charitable.

But back to the academic debate of diversity vs hemogeny in a context of martial force --

Spam is what Musashi would have described as an Earth and Fire approach, a "Go" strategy. The goal of a "Go" strategy, much like kickboxing or juijutsu, is to create an attack plan so formidable that even a knowing opponent is overwhelmed and unable to defend. Seeing it coming doesn't do an enemy any good if the attack is so well executed that escape is impossible. Plenty of times we see this work; the playground bully, income taxes, carpet bombing. They attack along a known vector, but there's just no good way to avoid it. You just deal with it, weather the blows, and hope to give back as good as you got.

The problem Miyamoto Musashi (and plenty of others) see with this strategic philosophy is that NO attack is so powerful as to be above counter, especially in a duel of equally skilled foes.

Musashi believed in a fighting style that embraces Water and Void. When an enemy attacks with force, you react with withdrawl, which leaves him reeling. Seeing his falter, you calculate a strike that will finish him from his exposed flank. Heady stuff, huh?

This is the core of a "soft" fighting style, like Aikido. When the battle starts, the fighter is not forming an attack plan. He is reading and calculating his enemy's attack plan. If the enemy uses a Go strategy, his attack vector is usually plainly written in his stance. Now, as Water would do, the fighter "flows" around the attack, and simply waits for the opportunity to counter-attack.

Musashi developed Aikido specifically to counter popular hard styles, like Juijutsu and Kenjutsu. Everyone can see that a Juijutsu frontal leg strike is a powerful attack, but an Aikido practitioner sees that it is telegraphed and easily turned into a fatal mistake.

As a matter of fact, Japanese tacticians have understood the difference between these Earth and Water approaches for a long time. Any art you hear of with the suffix "-jutsu" indicates a "hard" style; one of indomitable practiced attacks. The prefix "-do" is applied to a "soft" style; one that reacts to an attacker with the design of winning through effective counter. Thus, Juijutsu is comprised of kicks and punches, while Judo is comprised of blocks, throws, and holds, but both are based on the same concepts of body positioning and manipulation. Debates rage to this day as to which is "better".

All that rambling is my way of demonstrating that both styles of 40K list building have validity and a place. You as the player must decide if you wish to design a force around creating one devestating attack vector, or a force able to counter an enemy strategy. Both styles can make use of redundancy, or could eschew it, but a reactive force makes the most benefit of a diverse unit selection, as the enemy will be confused by the lack of a telegraphed attack stance. A "hammer" force, based around creating an unstoppable attack, benefits most from redundancy because while your stance is unmistakable and you know you will take losses on the way to completing your objective, you need to make sure you still have your hammer when you get to the target.

I would venture to say that neither are better or worse. They are different, and all Winning is relative to skill and luck of the player. It is far easier to use a Go strategy. You learn it and it's done. It's far harder to develop a reactive strategy, as it requires a lot of foresight and knowledge and creative use of resources.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Okay send me a PM stating your identity. I see that you do wish to remain anonymous here at Dakka, which confirms my suspicions regarding your character and lack of terpitude.

G

What you want my social?

I am sorry, the information is there if you want to figure out who I am, but you obviously dont, so please drop the subject.

Don't deny it i am not wrong you play bloodcrushers Im just messing with you.


The point isnt to make a list that just spams its just to make a list that has some cohesion and purpose.

I think peoples definitions of spam etc.. are different than that of others so we will leave it at the fact you need to have multiples of things able to accomplish either the same thing or be good at accomplishing multiple things.

As I just finished preparing for two audits I realize I am Captain Cranky and despite my desire to wield Buffy the wonder Banhammer in dsicriminantly, I am going to put out a public warning to all, including Demogerg and GBF.

1. Lets cease and desist the personal stuff. NOW.
2. Lets quit trying to find each other's personal information unless it is freely given. NOW.

Less bickering in the thread, please!

Well Hell, I'll chime in too.

Stop it. Take it to PMs, and keep the thread on-topic.

Mannahnin-style red-letter warning deleted

Lot of sexual tension in this thread.

I like the one on the left.

G

On-Topic, people!!

Less filling!

On topic?

I think that taking good units, even if that means taking multiples of the same or very similar unit, is a good thing that helps me win games. I don't think doing so to win games is immoral, criminal, bad for my health or a sign of sexual dysfunction; communist sympathies, or left handedness.

Taking a bunch of the same unit isn't a guaranteed way to win, but it can often help. The chief disadvantage to doing so is that most top players know how to beat the good units. A surprise mix can be surprisingly effective. Even then, the units used should still be good units.

The difference between a list that is focused and a list that spams a unit seems to be illusory.

And it is ; people need to realize that this fiction of "fairplay" really only extends to you not cheating.


Lance Armstrong doesn't pull his bike over and stop to wait up for the next guy to give a entertaining race. You go to a tournament , you go to play and win that tournament. Sure you may say well I am going for just the pleasure of playing others.That's great do that but don't be upset when a player goes there to win.
It's not a Win at all cost mentality ; its a realistic approach to competition.
I am happiest when I play a strong list against a strong opponent. The only way to be a better player is to play better players and better lists. I am not going to sugar coat my win against a opponent and I hope he is playing and built his units and army to the best of his ability.

If you have a problem against playing these lists or against them in tournaments dont go to tournaments , dont play these lists.


Now back on topic.

Armies basically need to function and support each other as well as on their own.

When choosing a unit you should ask.

How does this affect the other units in my army not just my opponent.

Can this unit effectively represent or replicate an aspect of a specialized unit if that unit is destroyed.

A good example is Space Marine Bikes as troops you have 6 troop slots;

2 8 man Troop units of ten with Meltaguns and an Attack bike

So 16 bikes and 3 attack bikes. as your troops

You are only using 2 troop slots for this

A better and more redundant as well as to a degree troop spam is going to be

3 5 man bikes w/ 2 meltaguns

Placing the Attack bikes in Fast attack.

It's more effective same number of models but you've made units redundant and created a better stronger Troops list. Why because you have created more targets ; more choices ; etc..

If have added 2 KP as well so it does have its disadvantages however its going to be more effective at a specific purpose of tank hunting.

Spam is very strong but it's not the best way to design an army for competitive play in my opinion. Look at nob bikers as a classic example for 5th edition. At one time they were the most feared army now no one will touch them. If you want to design army for a race that you would like to stick with over the course of several years then if a particular rule changes that nerfs your slammed units you are going to have to start over from scratch. On the other hand if you build a well rounded list you only have to make minor changes to account for changes to the rules.

G

OT to GeneralRetreat: Morihei Ueshiba invented Aikido, not Musashi. Three centuries off there, my friend. My sensei had films of O-Sensei in action. They were pretty awesome.

You're also a bit off on the meaning of Do, vs. Jutsu, but their exact meaning is subject to a bit of debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budo

Green Blow Fly wrote:Spam is very strong but it's not the best way to design an army for competitive play in my opinion. Look at nob bikers as a classic example for 5th edition. At one time they were the most feared army now no one will touch them. If you want to design army for a race that you would like to stick with over the course of several years then if a particular rule changes that nerfs your slammed units you are going to have to start over from scratch. On the other hand if you build a well rounded list you only have to make minor changes to account for changes to the rules.

G

Using spam and being well-rounded are not at all mutually exclusive.

That's exactly my point; building your list around those basic principles is what creates a good list.

For Example

2 6 Man Seer Councils on Bikes

2 Fire Dragon Squads w/ Wave Serpent

2 Dire Avenger with Wave Serpent


Yeah that's a spam list to a degree but its a good start for a list.
People who talk about "mechanized" need to realize. Their talking about SPAM.


A mechanized army is something that has multiples of transports and armour to over come the opponent.

That is a spam list with redundancies. This is why Vulcan is good as well as Pedro w/ Sternguard ; Sternguard similar to Obliterators in that they can be equiped to handle or Deal with MULTIPLE types of units.

Antitank ; Antitroop as they serve or can serve both functions they are a good unit to take in multiples.

What makes spam strong also makes it weak. Let's take lash spam for example. The rhinos give up easy kill points and if you have the right weapons then Oblits aer not that hard to kill either unless your opponent decides to hide them. Lash princes are not that great in close combat. So one way to beat them is to shoot their rhinos and Oblits first and force their troops to walk. You will get the charges and that will help a lot versus their troops. The army is predictable and should be exploited as such.

G

Lash = Fail.

Anyway, you all seem to be missing the point, which is that people only need advice for competitiveness' sake. If you're writing a fluff army, why the feth would you need advice?! Unless you're a moron, you can make your own mind up how to make a non-competitive army for fluff's sake - so BEST always refers to MOST COMPETITIVE in Internet discussions, because nothing else matters here.

The best armies have wonderful background. It just takes a lot more to create them. Spam armies are for the masses and that is the greatest part of their appeal to those who feel inclined to play them. They are simple solutions. I'm not knocking them by any means just offering another perspective based upon my experience. Take from it what you will.

G

Flavius Infernus wrote:
But I also agree that it gets kind of depressing when a new Eldar player posts a mech Eldar list on the army list forum and all us Dakka vets come around and say, "You really should have a farseer and an autarch, and then 2 or 3 DAs in serpents, and 2 FDs in serpents and then 3 fire prisms." As if there's only one viable list for Eldar. We could save a lot of time by just sending every newbie on the army list forum around to Steleks blog.

I agree, What I really want to see is people saying "pick the models you like" and then rather than telling people not to use something, just tell them how best to use it, even if it has been nerfed.

Green Blow Fly wrote:The best armies have wonderful background. It just takes a lot more to create them. Spam armies are for the masses and that is the greatest part of their appeal to those who feel inclined to play them. They are simple solutions. I'm not knocking them by any means just offering another perspective based upon my experience. Take from it what you will.

G

"Best" is entirely subjective. This thread is about "powerful" armies, also subjective, but completely unrelated to background.

Redundancy makes for more powerful lists, period. And you can have redundancy in a list without taking more than one of the same unit. Role redundancy is whats important, and there are often a number of units that take on the same role in a list in any given codex. Spamming just accomplishes role redundancy with maximum efficiency.

Kyley wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:
But I also agree that it gets kind of depressing when a new Eldar player posts a mech Eldar list on the army list forum and all us Dakka vets come around and say, "You really should have a farseer and an autarch, and then 2 or 3 DAs in serpents, and 2 FDs in serpents and then 3 fire prisms." As if there's only one viable list for Eldar. We could save a lot of time by just sending every newbie on the army list forum around to Steleks blog.

I agree, What I really want to see is people saying "pick the models you like" and then rather than telling people not to use something, just tell them how best to use it, even if it has been nerfed.

But there are always units that CANNOT be used efficiently, however good the player. GW does this on purpose to sell them in increased quantities next Edition/Codex...maybe if GW weren't constantly trying to be a business this fantasy could come true - until they decide not to bother updating rules for longer, and makes all units playable, then this can't happen.

EDIT: Actually, not gonna get involved lol.

number9dream wrote:EDIT: Actually, not gonna get involved lol.

You should, it's fun. lol

An army should be like a tool box with a wide assortment of tools. You cannot turn a screw with a hammer.

G

There's a finite limit to the type and number of threats you can encounter, that's the principle OTP lists are built on.

Look at eldar. Basically each unit is very specialized. There are some great eldar lists out there that you dont see here that take full advantage of this inherent quality of their codex. The same can be said of SM in general but the basic SM is more well rounded in some aspects. Spam by it's very nature play upon a few gimmicks if you will. Orks tend to be more one dimensional and I think that is why some people tend to see them as non competitive now that more people are tending to field army designed around the fifth edition as opposed to fourth. That is the problem with spam lists in general... A change to one rule can nerf them and this is what happened to NidZilla and tri holo falcon lists. While GW tends to take a stance that they don't develop the game for competitive players I do think they intentionally change the rules to force people to buy new armies.

G

The point is that you need to place redundant units within a army as well as use multiples of the same or similar units in order to provide that.

It's easier to accomplis with the exact same unit but it still can be done.

For instance.

2 Attack Bikes w/ Multimeltas

and

2 Landspeeders w/ Multimeltas


Both serve the purpose of redundancy in antitank or transport but are different units.

The same though could be said of

2 Attack Bikes
2 attack bikes

Where that is just a exact same unit.

Those units are all easy kill points. I'm just saying...

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Those units are all easy kill points. I'm just saying...

G

...that doesnt make any difference in an objective battle.

Also, the ease/difficulty of gaining a kill point from a unit doesnt change the fact that redundancy is still a very logical step in army building.

Wait, I have a question.

Can you make a whimpy unit more effective by simply taking a whole bunch of them? (Warbiker army aside...)

Consider this list

1xDP Lash

10xCSM Icon
10xCSM Icon

rest of the army CHAOS SPAWN.

^^^Redundant spam, must be powerful right?

Terrible units are terrible units regardless of how many you take. More of them simply make it a bit easier for at least one of them to accomplish what you're trying to do....that doesnt mean you'll win a game by doing it. Bring 30 swooping hawks to a battle, and while they might kill some stuff by rubber-hawking, you probably wont see a good return for the points spent on them.

Notice the good armies out there....people "Spam" the good units, oblits, Nob Bikes, WarWalkers, Land raiders.

...Spamming Repentia, Spawn, or Scourges doesnt change the fact that certain units are overpriced, unreliable, or generally badly designed.

I was trying to prove a point, if you tell people "Just take a bunch of the same unit" they may get confused, and try stupid things, but then when they lose they will look back at this thread and go "No, they're right, spam works, I just need more." and then they continue trying to zergling rush their enemy, get tabled every time, and eventually stop playing.

Nobody here has said "Spam anything you want and it will win games for you."

The point is that redundancy works.

Of course one would want any "spam" to be represented by STRONG units.

An Obliterator squad that has a successful game is generally going to be much more destructive than a Swooping hawk unit that has the same successes. Oblits are more capable given their flexibility and resiliancy than the Hawks.

....redundancy simply helps to insure that the mission they were put on the board to do in the first place is accomplished.

How much redundancy do you really need?

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Those units are all easy kill points. I'm just saying...

G

And that's exactly why you spam them. HF/MM Land Speeders are a terrifying unit, capable of dealing with anything on the table.

Two Land Speeders are easily eliminated. They're probably dead before they reach the enemy.

Five Land Speeders is significantly harder to deal with. They can boost to mid table and you don't really care if you lose three; the final two will still be able to do something nasty and it's taken so much firepower to eliminate those 3 vehicles that the rest of your army is largely untouched.

Nine Land Speeders completely saturate your enemy's anti tank weaponry, it's doubtful that he'll neutralize half of them before they get into range to do terrible, terrible things, and your enemy has to largely ignore the other 60% of your army.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could you please post three or four examples of your ultra competitive non-spam lists? I'm curious what you're going to come up with.

Green Blow Fly wrote:How much redundancy do you really need?

G

How bout, "As much as it takes to win the battle"?

Thats a pretty good answer...leaving it up to the player.

Hollismason wrote:And it is ; people need to realize that this fiction of "fairplay" really only extends to you not cheating.


Lance Armstrong doesn't pull his bike over and stop to wait up for the next guy to give a entertaining race.

Actually he's both done it in the Tour de France and had it done for him as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Ullrich#2000_-_2002_Tours

The 2000 Tour de France brought Ullrich, Marco Pantani and Armstrong against each other for the first time. Armstrong proved too strong and won then and again in 2001. Ullrich crashed in 2001 and Armstrong waited for him to return to his bike.

The 2003 Tour de France was the first for many years that Ullrich had not been considered a favorite. Half way into the climb, Armstrong's handlebar got caught in a spectator's yellow baseball cap waving in the mid-air and he fell. Ullrich waited for Armstrong to recover.

I have not seen anyone field nine landspeeders, not even Ravenwing (pure) armies.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:How much redundancy do you really need?

G

If you're into math, you could probably use an economic theory like Returns to Scale to figure out an approximation.

What people are referring to here as "spam" and "redundancy" reminds me of economic theories of economy of scale. There's a constant input of points into the high "value" (unbalanced) units, but you get increasing killyness returns for each unit you purchase. Then at some point you hit diminishing returns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Returns_to_scale#Economies_of_scale

I think that is a great analogy.

G

Deadshane1 wrote:
Terrible units are terrible units regardless of how many you take. More of them simply make it a bit easier for at least one of them to accomplish what you're trying to do....that doesnt mean you'll win a game by doing it. Bring 30 swooping hawks to a battle, and while they might kill some stuff by rubber-hawking, you probably wont see a good return for the points spent on them.

Notice the good armies out there....people "Spam" the good units, oblits, Nob Bikes, WarWalkers, Land raiders.

...Spamming Repentia, Spawn, or Scourges doesnt change the fact that certain units are overpriced, unreliable, or generally badly designed.

QFT.

I can't imagine ever needing as many as 9 Land Speeders, btw. 6 is about as many as I'd consider useful.

I was thinking that Flavius' post about "diminishing returns" was right in line with not needing 9 land speeders.

Green Blow Fly wrote:The best armies have wonderful background. It just takes a lot more to create them. Spam armies are for the masses and that is the greatest part of their appeal to those who feel inclined to play them. They are simple solutions. I'm not knocking them by any means just offering another perspective based upon my experience. Take from it what you will.

G

QFT. It usually goes something like, "The commander realized that these non-standard units were really effective, so he went against the traditional army layouts shown in the back of the codex and took lots of the rare (fluff-wise) units that actually work".

Green Blow Fly wrote:An army should be like a tool box with a wide assortment of tools. You cannot turn a screw with a hammer.

G

Except most armies have a couple "multi-tool" units that do everything well, and are competitively priced. Small wonder they're spammed. Sure, some lists (like Eldar) have some very specialized units, or others (IG) have units that are specialized but so cost effective that they're no-brainers...and they usually get spammed, too.

This thread should have been called, "People who like to pat themselves on the back for not using redundant armies and thus must work harder to pull off the win."

I haven't heard so much whining over nothing since Michael Jackson died.

I'm happy some build armies that are not redundant and I'm sorry that it may put them at a slight disadvantage against someone who builds an army they like to win with.

I don't see the point in trying to complain about someone using their codex and FOC to build an army they like, even though it may not seem fluffy.

If I want to run PMs with Slanneshii HQs, why not do it? It's codex legal.

In a game that already hinders some armies because of unbalanced army lists why should we try to impose even more limits on ourselves by not using what we have available to us. At the same time why do we continue to condemn those that choose to play hard-core lists?

Well Lance Armstrong was a terrible example.

Hollismason wrote:Well Lance Armstrong was a terrible example.

QFT!

In terms of sportsmanship, redundancy is okay, spam is BS. If you're going to get into a competitive arena of 40k, you'd better learn to give up on all sportsmanship if you're serious. I personally think that there should be more restrictions as to what can be taken, because this game should require more thinking and less calculating, IMHO.

crazypsyko666 wrote:In terms of sportsmanship, redundancy is okay, spam is BS. If you're going to get into a competitive arena of 40k, you'd better learn to give up on all sportsmanship if you're serious.

Boo hoo!

That statement will cost you 12 credits off of your CGM card...see the girl at the door.


If its legal, in my army list, and you ding me on sportsmanship....you're the one with the problem.

crazypsyko666 wrote:In terms of sportsmanship, redundancy is okay, spam is BS. If you're going to get into a competitive arena of 40k, you'd better learn to give up on all sportsmanship if you're serious. I personally think that there should be more restrictions as to what can be taken, because this game should require more thinking and less calculating, IMHO.

What kind of thinking? Thinking really hard about how to win with non-redundant units like the ever popular devastator squad with 1 HB, 1 MM, 1 LC, and 1 ML? Not spamming exorcists so you can add some penitent engines to your list so as not to offend the non-tournament crowd?

Honestly, hard core gamers aren't out to prove anythig to casual gamers. It's not like I would enjoy playing a game with a hard tournament list against someone with a bad list and massacre them. That's no fun for myself or my opponent.

So where does this animosity from casual gamers come from toward tournament players?

crazypsyko666 wrote:In terms of sportsmanship, redundancy is okay, spam is BS. If you're going to get into a competitive arena of 40k, you'd better learn to give up on all sportsmanship if you're serious. I personally think that there should be more restrictions as to what can be taken, because this game should require more thinking and less calculating, IMHO.

I think we must have different definitions of the word "sportsmanship". As far as I'm concerned, sportsmanship involves not cheating and following the rules in a good faith effort to play the game (as in, not deliberately stalling to win the game. Not directly addressed in the rules, but still an issue).

I think it would be neat if armies matched more closely to their fluff, too, but sadly they don't, so there's no reason to try unless you want to lose. If there were more of a "Flames of War" style list building, where you picked a unit type and then tweaked it from there (infantry company, mech inf or armor)...well, with 5th edition, the infantry lists would get crushed. Then see how much variety you'd see in army lists!

There's still plenty of activity on the "army list" and "tactics" threads, so the game hasn't devolved to the same 5 lists fighting each other. People are still trying to develop that new killer combo (or unit to spam).

If major league baseball suddenly allowed aluminum bats, but some teams decided to use wooden ones because it was "right" or "traditional", would you look down on the teams that decided to use aluminum bats?

augustus5 wrote:
So where does this animosity from casual gamers come from toward tournament players?

I would say it comes from people who:

1. Don't put in the actual 'thought' and money it takes to build a competetive army, then....

2. Get angry at the repeated thrashings they receive from people who do.


If they really didnt care about "who wins" everyone would be happy. Competetive player won, casual player played a game, whats to complain about?

If the casual player wants to WIN....do the groundwork, and spend the money....or shut up.

Hollismason wrote:Well Lance Armstrong was a terrible example.

Isn't it kinda interesting that a guy who trains obsessively all year long (furiously banging his "'taint" against the seat of his bicycle day after day, yeow-tch!) and who has hundreds of thousands of marketing dollars at stake can apparently muster up more sportsmanship, decency and respect for an opponent than can a bunch of pimply, angst-y nerds playing war with toy soldiers?

...Just sayin'.

Grimaldi wrote:

crazypsyko666 wrote:In terms of sportsmanship, redundancy is okay, spam is BS. If you're going to get into a competitive arena of 40k, you'd better learn to give up on all sportsmanship if you're serious. I personally think that there should be more restrictions as to what can be taken, because this game should require more thinking and less calculating, IMHO.

I think we must have different definitions of the word "sportsmanship". As far as I'm concerned, sportsmanship involves not cheating and following the rules in a good faith effort to play the game (as in, not deliberately stalling to win the game. Not directly addressed in the rules, but still an issue).

I think it would be neat if armies matched more closely to their fluff, too, but sadly they don't, so there's no reason to try unless you want to lose. If there were more of a "Flames of War" style list building, where you picked a unit type and then tweaked it from there (infantry company, mech inf or armor)...well, with 5th edition, the infantry lists would get crushed. Then see how much variety you'd see in army lists!

There's still plenty of activity on the "army list" and "tactics" threads, so the game hasn't devolved to the same 5 lists fighting each other. People are still trying to develop that new killer combo (or unit to spam).

If major league baseball suddenly allowed aluminum bats, but some teams decided to use wooden ones because it was "right" or "traditional", would you look down on the teams that decided to use aluminum bats?

My definition of sportsmanship means not being a jackass.

On the other points, I completely agree with you. It just destroys variety, which makes me kind of sad.

It's not so much interesting as completely expected. There's something about competitions that require real dedication and training, something that makes one respectful of one's fellow competitors.

Deadshane1 wrote:

augustus5 wrote:
So where does this animosity from casual gamers come from toward tournament players?

I would say it comes from people who:

1. Don't put in the actual 'thought' and money it takes to build a competetive army, then....

2. Get angry at the repeated thrashings they receive from people who do.


If they really didnt care about "who wins" everyone would be happy. Competetive player won, casual player played a game, whats to complain about?

If the casual player wants to WIN....do the groundwork, and spend the money....or shut up.

I think THIS is the sort of point that angers casual gamers. This is what causes the animosity. I consider myself a casual gamer. As i've said already, I have no problem with tournament players. I have no problem with uber-competitiveness in tournaments. I have no problem with tournament players playing uber-competitive games outisde tournaments. Maybe this is what floats your boat in your LGS.

The problem arises when tournament gamers

- expect EVERYONE to play in an uber-compeitive way
- lambast casual gamers for 'not playing hard enough', 'not being a good enough general', whining just because you got beat'
- assuming that every casual gamer will immediately get tabled unless they take the most popular list
- telling me that my favourite unit is useless and that I'm stupid to use them (even if I really like using them)
- boiling down the rich variety of the codex to one uber list that everyone should always take
- assuming that playing tournament is the 'best', 'highest' or 'most tactical' way of playing the game, and that if you play tournaments you're somehow a better gamer, or a better general.

Now I'm not saying that Deadshane has said ALL of this, he merely seems to make the points that

- any casual gamer will be thrashed by any tournament gamer, which, as a casual gamer, annoys me.
- casual gamers don't spend time or money on their armies, which is obviously untrue. My all-oop arbites, which i chose to collect because of theme rather than competitiveness, cost a lot more and took a lot more time to track down than buying the most popular units from any GW store.

ArbitorIan wrote:

- expect EVERYONE to play in an uber-compeitive way

Tourney gamers, I would think, would HOPE that other players WOULDNT play Uber-Competitive, you see, that would give them a better chance of winning said tournament. So I dont see this point as true

- lambast casual gamers for 'not playing hard enough', 'not being a good enough general', whining just because you got beat'

I've never seen a casual gamer get chided for 'not playing hard enough...not unless they complained about losing first.

- assuming that every casual gamer will immediately get tabled unless they take the most popular list

Something that would bite the "competetive" player in the behind if it turns out to be untrue...again I fail to see a problem here. Competetive player loses due to underestimating opponent? Where's the problem?

- telling me that my favourite unit is useless and that I'm stupid to use them (even if I really like using them)

This is indeed a problem, and I dont agree when people do it. By the same token, its wrong to tell someone that a favorite "tactic" like spam for example, is cheesy and one is stupid for using it....happens AT LEAST as often.

- boiling down the rich variety of the codex to one uber list that everyone should always take

if winning games is a factor...then this sort of behavior shouldnt bother you.

- assuming that playing tournament is the 'best', 'highest' or 'most tactical' way of playing the game, and that if you play tournaments you're somehow a better gamer, or a better general.

and what of the casual gamer that assumes that "friendly" play is the 'best', 'highest', or 'most fun' way of playing the game, and that if you play casual onlyl you're somehow a better gamer IN general. This happens with MUCH more regularity than what YOU just stated.

Now I'm not saying that Deadshane has said ALL of this, he merely seems to make the point that any casual gamer will be thrashed by any tournament gamer, which, as a casual gamer, annoys me.

....and he will...if the two players are of equal skill. Who's going to win? The player with a tight list who takes advantage during army building? Or the guy who brings selections based on FLUFFY reasons or based on models he likes.

Who's going to win when those two are of equal skill. If you get offended when I say the tournament gamer, you shouldnt get so offended...its reality.

There is nothing wrong at all with spam armies and the good thing is it helps average players be more competitive.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:There is nothing wrong at all with spam armies and the good thing is it helps average players be more competitive.

G

...and sometimes it can help great players beat other great players.

Spam isnt just something that lesser players do to "measure up", its a valid army building tactic sometimes.

Green Blow Fly wrote:There is nothing wrong at all with spam armies and the good thing is it helps average players be more competitive.

G

In an attempt to rip players who spam good units you only make yourself look bad. You failed to mention that it also helps great players make more competitive lists. Heck, spamming great units makes all players have more competitive lists.

Ok, sorry, this is likely to be a long post....

- expect EVERYONE to play in an uber-compeitive way

Tourney gamers, I would think, would HOPE that other players WOULDNT play Uber-Competitive, you see, that would give them a better chance of winning said tournament. So I dont see this point as true

The sort of quote most often seen on here runs along the lines of "I, a tournament gamer, expect everyone facing me ONLY to play competitive lists, otherwise I win too easily and don't have any fun. Everyone should only bring competitive lists all the time, because i always insist on taking them"

- lambast casual gamers for 'not playing hard enough', 'not being a good enough general', whining just because you got beat'

I've never seen a casual gamer get chided for 'not playing hard enough...not unless they complained about losing first.

It's true - usually the posts go.

- Casual games cries 'cheese' because his opponent brought his uber-competitive list to a friendly game, or used contentious RAW, and he got tabled.
- Everyone else tells him to 'man up', 'play better' or 'quit whining'

The problems arise when people bring uber-competitive lists to friendly games. I've never seen someone say "I went to ArdBoyz and my opponent had Nob Bikers. Cheese!"

- assuming that every casual gamer will immediately get tabled unless they take the most popular list

Something that would bite the "competetive" player in the behind if it turns out to be untrue...again I fail to see a problem here. Competetive player loses due to underestimating opponent? Where's the problem?

But you haven't played me, or my weird army. You likely haven't played an army like mine, since it's not a standard build. It's not the results of such a game I'm disputing, it's the ASSUMPTION that anything other than the established 'top tier' list will immediately lose, without any evidence.

- telling me that my favourite unit is useless and that I'm stupid to use them (even if I really like using them)

This is indeed a problem, and I dont agree when people do it. By the same token, its wrong to tell someone that a favorite "tactic" like spam for example, is cheesy and one is stupid for using it....happens AT LEAST as often.

Again, the difference here is that no-one has a problem with spam lists in the right setting. They're not criticised for player stupidity - they willl often help you win. They are criticised when they're used by surprise in friendlies, or criticised for being unimaginitive.

- boiling down the rich variety of the codex to one uber list that everyone should always take

if winning games is a factor...then this sort of behavior shouldnt bother you.

I don't want to play the same Dual Lash/PM/Oblits list every time I play a CSM army. It's boring, especially given the breadth of possible builds. This is why it bothers me, not becuase it's easier/harder to win against.

- assuming that playing tournament is the 'best', 'highest' or 'most tactical' way of playing the game, and that if you play tournaments you're somehow a better gamer, or a better general.

and what of the casual gamer that assumes that "friendly" play is the 'best', 'highest', or 'most fun' way of playing the game, and that if you play casual onlyl you're somehow a better gamer IN general. This happens with MUCH more regularity than what YOU just stated.

I agree, it does happen a lot. But i think the problem is one if misunderstanding. Again, people don't tend to have a problem with competitive play in a competitive setting - only with players who refuse to play any other way. If you want to play a competitive game, say so. But don't turn up to a casual game with a tournament list.

This of course works the other way too, but i would expect casual players don't often turn up to tournaments with theur casual list. After all, they're casual players, by definition they don't play tournaments anyway.

Now I'm not saying that Deadshane has said ALL of this, he merely seems to make the point that any casual gamer will be thrashed by any tournament gamer, which, as a casual gamer, annoys me.

....and he will...if the two players are of equal skill. Who's going to win? The player with a tight list who takes advantage during army building? Or the guy who brings selections based on FLUFFY reasons or based on models he likes. Who's going to win when those two are of equal skill. If you get offended when I say the tournament gamer, you shouldnt get so offended...its reality.

As above, it's speculation. You can't tell unless you try it against every weird and wonderful casual list out there. It's one thing to say "I doubt this army will do well as it lacks in X and X categories, I would recommend taking X and X" It's quite another to say "Every casual player will lose against every tournament player, all the time, as rarely-tried lists are automatically bad".

Commissar Molotov wrote:

Hollismason wrote:And it is ; people need to realize that this fiction of "fairplay" really only extends to you not cheating.


Lance Armstrong doesn't pull his bike over and stop to wait up for the next guy to give a entertaining race.

Actually he's both done it in the Tour de France and had it done for him as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Ullrich#2000_-_2002_Tours

The 2000 Tour de France brought Ullrich, Marco Pantani and Armstrong against each other for the first time. Armstrong proved too strong and won then and again in 2001. Ullrich crashed in 2001 and Armstrong waited for him to return to his bike.

The 2003 Tour de France was the first for many years that Ullrich had not been considered a favorite. Half way into the climb, Armstrong's handlebar got caught in a spectator's yellow baseball cap waving in the mid-air and he fell. Ullrich waited for Armstrong to recover.

And that, my friends, is what I call OWNAGE.

@Arbitorian

This is where your arguements really make no sense to me:

Competetive gamers really dont complain about casual gamers, what are we to complain about? "you lose too many games to us!"?

It's also no crime to say that competetive gamers, on the whole, are probably better at winning games than casual gamers. Competetive gamers by their very definition are first concerned (if not obsessed) with winning games, casual gamers are not. How would it be surprising therefore that competetive gamers are generally better at winning games?

Perhaps you're a really good casual gamer. Thats fine, but dont take offense when someone says that competetive gamers are better. They're making a general statement. They're not stating a hard fact.

Competetive gamers really only get offended at Casual gamers when they complain that "we're playing the game wrong with all our cheesyness". Thats where all the "play harder" comments come out. If you're a casual gamer, be a casual gamer and dont get offended when someone who tries harder than you do to actually win at the game comes out on top. There's no shame in not playing this game with winning being your ultimate destination....casual gamers, despite all their rhetoric, are the ones that seem to have a problem with that. Competetive gamers simply play to win, that's their hobby, and they only get offended at the "casuals" when they try to chastise us for participating in the hobby in the manner we enjoy.

@ augustus5 - I never said good players dont play spam lists, you just assumed that is what l meant.


G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Spam is for the weak of brain.

G

You just called them stupid. There is a subtle difference.

The question to ask is what if someone brings a spam list of your weakness? A 5 land raider/ 21 Terminator list might die horribly to someone stuck in 4th edition with lots of las/plas. A guard player with 9 leman russes might die horribly to a drop-pod assault list with lots of meltas/multi-meltas. etc. etc.

Everything has a counter but you play the odds really. Do you expect to see that anti you army and do you have a counter to it.

Demogerg wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Spam is for the weak of brain.

G

You just called them stupid. There is a subtle difference.

I am never subtle. You say you know me. You should know that.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:There is nothing wrong at all with spam armies and the good thing is it helps average players be more competitive.

G

plus

Green Blow Fly wrote:Spam is for the weak of brain.

G

equals

I said I don't play spam bird brain. I have friends that do. Oh well I am past the point of serious contention, just stating what seems obvious to me.

G

I take pride in my apparently unique ability to switch on an off my ability to be competitive, 95% of my games are friendly and I have a fluffy list with a lot of effort put into the backstory and I also have, for that other 10%, a competitive list, with almost the exact same models, but angry-er. I am able to both say "yea, its alright, you can finish your movement phase, that happens to me all the time" and "It's ON!" I really dislike pepole who wish nothing but to crush and grind you beneath his/her bootheel. It usually takes me about one turn of ruleslayering and one glance at their list to find these pepole and to turn around and claw my way back to a comeback, but I still don't like the guy. I mean, I enjoy the thrill of victory as much as the next guy, but really, c'mon man, try to have some fun every once in a while.

I am having fun.

G

I think we have run this horse into the ground ; dug it up ground it up then made a paper mache of that horse and run it into the ground.

Competitive wise you should spam and make a list that is redundant if you either count spamming a specific weapon such as assault cannon or spam a specific unit type such as Obliterators.

The key is to really take a army that has multiples of a unit that can serve as a Jack of all trades multi tool to a degree or take multiples of a specialist group will make your list stronger.

Hollismason wrote:I think we have run this horse into the ground ; dug it up ground it up then made a paper mache of that horse and run it into the ground.

Competitive wise you should spam and make a list that is redundant if you either count spamming a specific weapon such as assault cannon or spam a specific unit type such as Obliterators.

The key is to really take a army that has multiples of a unit that can serve as a Jack of all trades multi tool to a degree or take multiples of a specialist group will make your list stronger.

Or you could sometimes run things people hate in multiples to draw fire from the other stuff hehe... it works for me in fun lists!

It has definitely been run into the ground.

G

I think that redundant lists are better than just take-all-comers lists, but I think there is a difference between redundancy and spam, the former being insurance, the second being a high-risk high-reward, if unimaginative, strategy.

For example:
2 land raiders full of assault termies - redundancy.
3 land raiders full of assault termies and 2 land raiders full of terminator HQ + honor guard - spam. (also extremely expensive)

2 squads of oblits - redundancy.
3 squads of oblits - spam

2 warbosses and 20 nobs in 2 battlewagons - redundancy
2 warbosses, 20 troops nobs, 10 elite nobs, 5 battlewagons - spam.

etc. etc. etc.

I think redundancy is a good tactic, as it doubles the chance of your good units doing their job. I think spam lists are the mark of someone who just sees something that does well in most games and decides to make a list entirely out of that. I'm not going to call them stupid, because they're not, I am going to call them unimaginite, because they are.

Note: This is not to say 5 land raider, or nob-heavy lists are bad. This is to say 5 LRCs and Lists with nothing but nobs and battlewagons are bad.

Now I finally understand.

G

And knowing is half the battle GI JOE.

Anyway can we actually talk about redundancy and spam?

Green Blow Fly you continually claim your list is not spam what list do you run?

Also, I think we should critique units in Army List forum.

I am also drunk.

Here is my current 1850 BA list:

Dante
9x VAS/3x power fist, 2x meltagun

Corbulo
5x DC
LRC

2x 10x tactical Marine/power fist, lascannon & meltagun - rhino
10x assault Marine/power fist - rhino

I run a squad of Grey Knights as an allied troop choice for my 2500 point list and as soon as they are painted I intend to run them in place of one tactical squad. It's a great way to get a cheap psychic hood into the army. I will probably have to make a few other tweaks to the 1850 point list so that they'll have a transport. They also have a psycannon and an incinerator as well. I think they are a solid troop choice (allied) for any SM army once you have decided what you want to run for your two mandatory troops.

G

...spamming Power fists?

Excuse me, fist redundancy.

3 Power fists is hardly spam. That's like claiming he's spamming space marines, or bolt weapons. I can see it now:

"You have HOW MANY bolters!?"
"Umm, about 40, and 10 Bolt pistols..."
"SPAMMER! WAAC! AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME!"
"wtf...?"

I always field as many power fists as possible. I don't have access to combat tactics... Yet.

g

Would you say though that your list is redundant IE it has units that accomplish the same goal.


Also something that is not discussed and although not a indication of spam to a degrree or redundancy but I view it in the Killpoint enviroment of tournaments that heavy hitting units that are difficult to get rid of are better than multiple units.

Then again I am drunk.

I suupose if you play an army where each is taken from a different codex then possibly that would not count as spam? It's actually possible to do for the most part but then again it looks like your definition of spam covers just about everything under the sun.

G

sniperjolly wrote:I take pride in my apparently unique ability to switch on an off my ability to be competitive, 95% of my games are friendly and I have a fluffy list with a lot of effort put into the backstory and I also have, for that other 10%, a competitive list, with almost the exact same models, but angry-er. I am able to both say "yea, its alright, you can finish your movement phase, that happens to me all the time" and "It's ON!" I really dislike pepole who wish nothing but to crush and grind you beneath his/her bootheel. It usually takes me about one turn of ruleslayering and one glance at their list to find these pepole and to turn around and claw my way back to a comeback, but I still don't like the guy. I mean, I enjoy the thrill of victory as much as the next guy, but really, c'mon man, try to have some fun every once in a while.

IU may be drunk, but I at least can add 95% and 10%, and I don't get 100%.

All this discussion over the right and wrong of spamming, and no Tactica discussion over which units are good to spam for which army, when, and how much?

Have you all forgotten the point here?

Should, should not, like, or like as not matters not a whit here. I want to hear some discussion about HOW.

How many meltaguns is enough these days?

When is armor saturation considered enough to overwhelm the typical enemy's anti-vehicular output?

These are just my two little questions of how to spam, not whether to spam. Whether to spam is a question to be settled amongst people who will actually play each other, look each other in the eye, and (hopefully) remain on civil terms afterwards. Obviously, in a tournament setting, the last is immaterial.

Let's discuss the mechanics of spam and redundancy in this here Tactica thread.

We've already concluded that it's usefulness is undeniable, and that it can be accomplished in many ways.

Can anyone answer my two questions above, or present other questions on the intracacies of this list building tactic, should a player choose to employ it?

(@ previous : Yes, sorry for the name confusion there. I get Musashi and Ueushiba mixed up too often, and I apologize. The comments about the elements were taken from Miyamoto Musashi, the author of the Go Rin No Sho, and the fighting style analogy (hard vs soft) from Morhei Ueushiba, the creator of Aikido. My apologies again if the spelling is incorrect. My description of -Do and -Jutsu are correct as they were taught to me by my sensei. He obviously learned them in correlation to Aikido in the first place, and I may have picked them up with a slant. The core principles of all my above points remain the same however.)

^What? No Munenori fans here?



Here is a list that I fight against constantly. It is a Sm build that can sit back and out shoot my Tau if I let it(Which I don't)


SM Captain

Sm Chapter Master

5 man tac squad w rhino

5 man tac squad w rhino

5 man tac squad w rhino

3 Land Speeders with assault/Multi

3 Land Speeders with assault/Multi

3 Land Speeders with assault/Multi

Predator w/Sponson lascannon

Predator w/Sponson lascannon


So, what kind of list is this? Redundant or spam?


Edit to correct error on land speeders, it was late

Well this may have been posted as all i read was pages 1 and 7/ But what about things like Nidzilla 6 fex's 2 tyrants i know my friends call it power lists.
But its what works for Nids I mean warrior cost too much and they only have 4+ saves with extended Carapace, Ravenors like glass, gar's cost to much hormagaunts cost to much. Lictors ok but cost too much again Zoans and biovores don;t do enough to warrent repacing a carnifex. I don't make my list to try to table every person, however of course i don't want to lose.

Elessar wrote:

Kyley wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:
But I also agree that it gets kind of depressing when a new Eldar player posts a mech Eldar list on the army list forum and all us Dakka vets come around and say, "You really should have a farseer and an autarch, and then 2 or 3 DAs in serpents, and 2 FDs in serpents and then 3 fire prisms." As if there's only one viable list for Eldar. We could save a lot of time by just sending every newbie on the army list forum around to Steleks blog.

I agree, What I really want to see is people saying "pick the models you like" and then rather than telling people not to use something, just tell them how best to use it, even if it has been nerfed.

But there are always units that CANNOT be used efficiently, however good the player. GW does this on purpose to sell them in increased quantities next Edition/Codex...maybe if GW weren't constantly trying to be a business this fantasy could come true - until they decide not to bother updating rules for longer, and makes all units playable, then this can't happen.

There is ALWAYS a best way to use a unit, even if it's not great compared to other uber-units, It'd just be great to get everyone into the mindset of general over list. If they like a unit, that should be the important thing, not how effective it is, if you're gonna give advice don't be a git and say, no you can't use this, just tell them how best to use them, even if it's not terribly effective, just to give them a chance, because otherwise two things are going to happen;

1)we have a generation of noobs who are running around using repentias to soak up bullets and are going to get demolished, demoralised and disallusioned.
2)we have a generation of noobs who are running the exact same list, it's bad enough as it is, everyone's marines and nidzilla, without every noob on the site being told to do the exact same thing.

Just, if you're going to give advise don't let it be "scrap you army and buy this list that everyone has" encourage people to use units because they love them, and to discover innovative ways to use them.

-Kyley

P.S. I really resent the subject of this thread, the idea that because a person does not run a redundant spam list they are impotent and that everyone should run the most powerful list sickens me, and the fact that you want to ENCOURAGE people to run these list because otherwise they cannot play 40k properly is fething I hope I never meet you in person, you sound like the worst kind of gamer I can imagine, if I had thep power I would ban you in an instant, luckily for you I haven't got such power so, just sort your fething priorities out.
And on an unrelated grammar note, you "will cure your impotence IN 40k" not "AT 40k", feth-wit

ArbitorIan wrote:

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?

If you compete in tournaments you will become a better general. The person with the greatest potential in the world may not like tournaments and as such will never realise their potential. Competition makes you stronger!

As an asside, ones understanding of a 'good general' is relative to other generals you know. Go to big events. Meet more players and step into a larger world.

Mechanized units / army are just another type of spam / redundancy it's what makes them so much more powerful than other armies as you hope to be able to have to much mechanized so that it overwhelms your opponent.


@ Focused fire : Thats just a standard Space Marine Mechanized list. This is why I "spam" XV88s as cheap as possible with Missile pods to deal with light armour.


@ Kyley : Don't get your panties in a bunch buddie; no one is encouraging anyone to play the most powerful list in friendly games. We are all talking about in a competitive tournament enviroment.

Also, this thread has cured at least 3 members of impotence.


First to starting a actual discussion : When creating a army you need to select units according to what your goal is there are multiple types of units and or strategies with armies.

Currently the strongest builds incorporate a lot of armour ; troop transports ; tanks etc.. You need to look at the list and say how fast is this unit can it do with a transport.


@ How much melta is enough melta?
That's a hard question generally to much is going to leave you gimped to deal with large numbers ; I generally take enough to get at least 4 shots a turn on 4 vehicles. For instance 2 2x LS w/ Multimeltas or 2 x2 Multimelta Attack Bikes.

Generally you want enough to deal with at least 4 heavy armour vehicles a turn and enough Light Armour fire power to deal with that.

Kyley, you need to take a chill pill. Try not to overdose on them. Or choke.

We're talking about competitive play, if you don't like everyone having a chance to win then you're the worst kind of player I can imagine, a WAAC jerk, who is more interested in stomping face than having a challenge. Maybe you've noticed, the whole point of giving advice is to make people better - and there ARE best units and lists, it doesn't fething matter if you like it or not, no-one forces you to play Tournaments, or the game at all.

I know a guy who only plays 2nd Edition, because he hasn't liked anything since - so it's entirely possible to do whatever the hell you want, and STFU when we're trying to discuss list-building here.

I don't know what it's like at your local store, obviously, but if everyone plays NidZilla, then you need to buck up your ideas and get into 5th Edition - NidZilla is a crap army list.

We ALREADY have a generation of Noobs running around using things like Repentias - which is EXACTLY WHAT YOU ADVOCATE! Repentias are crap, we're trying to stop people playing crap, and quitting the game because they get tabled every week. That's not fun for them, and it shouldn't be for anyone else either.

If you're so set upon there being a best way to use a unit, please, prove your point by telling me the best way to use Swooping Hawks. Seriously, let's hear it.


@Focusedfire:

I hope those Land Speeders have Assault Cannon???

I am pretty sure they are.

It's the Best of SM list...

* snickers *

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:It's the Best of SM list...

* snickers *

G

lol.

I didn't think that much of it either.

Deadshane1 wrote:
Terrible units are terrible units regardless of how many you take. More of them simply make it a bit easier for at least one of them to accomplish what you're trying to do....that doesnt mean you'll win a game by doing it. Bring 30 swooping hawks to a battle, and while they might kill some stuff by rubber-hawking, you probably wont see a good return for the points spent on them

Isn't the concept of 'good return for points value' a holdover from 4th ed? If your rubber-band swooping hawks come down on turn 6 and contest/capture 3 objectives winning the game for eldar, did they not earn their points right there?

Spamming does not necessarily mean killer units, it means units that win the game.

labmouse42 wrote:
Isn't the concept of 'good return for points value' a holdover from 4th ed?

It's still just as valid today. If units have differing "usability" and they all cost different amounts of points...the concept will be with us

If your rubber-band swooping hawks come down on turn 6 and contest/capture 3 objectives winning the game for eldar, did they not earn their points right there?

Perhaps they did, and a single Arcoflagellent may take out an entire 10 man unit of Thunderhammer Terminators...getting WELL over its points back. However, like the Swooping Hawk instance...I wouldnt count on something like that to happen. There are other units in the Codex that have a BETTER CHANCE of getting their points back over the course of a battle.

I'm with labmouse in that I think "getting points back" has evolved, since most games don't depend on victory points anymore.

For example, a squadron of hydras at 225 points that kills a rhino (35 points) has already gotten its points back in terms of KPs in an annihilation scenario. But in an objective-grabbing scenario, how do you know when it's gotten its points back? Maybe killing that rhino prevented the opponent from claiming an objective because the riders had to footslog it after that? But the hydra squadron would be unlikely to be able to kill, for example, a whole unit of space marines walking across the board in 6 turns, so does that mean it can't make its points back?

It seems to me that's a separate discussion, though, about units that do one thing very well and units that do many things (or two things) and the metagame and the whole question of "getting points back" is more situational now.

i'm gonna point out a unit in 40k that i've never seen anyone but myself use...

vespids.

There ya go. How can these overpriced models ever be used best?

I've played a full unit of them vs noobs... but man they are a handicap!

There are some units in the game that inherently are not good in a competitive enviroment.

Flavius Infernus wrote:I'm with labmouse in that I think "getting points back" has evolved, since most games don't depend on victory points anymore.

For example, a squadron of hydras at 225 points that kills a rhino (35 points) has already gotten its points back in terms of KPs in an annihilation scenario. But in an objective-grabbing scenario, how do you know when it's gotten its points back? Maybe killing that rhino prevented the opponent from claiming an objective because the riders had to footslog it after that? But the hydra squadron would be unlikely to be able to kill, for example, a whole unit of space marines walking across the board in 6 turns, so does that mean it can't make its points back?

It seems to me that's a separate discussion, though, about units that do one thing very well and units that do many things (or two things) and the metagame and the whole question of "getting points back" is more situational now.

Nothing has evolved, you're looking too deep into something that is terribly simple.

Objectives and kill points aside. If you spend X amount of points on a unit who's purpose is to destroy elements of the enemy army, and it destroys LESS than X points of the enemy army, it failed to get it's points back.

It failed to counter an equal amount of enemy troops.


If a single marine, say a naked techmarine, kills 29 'ard boyz out of a mob of 30 in a kill point mission before the Nob finally crushes him with a claw, would you say he failed to get his "points back" since he produced a kill point for the enemy while getting none for the marine army?

Sounds a bit ridiculous to me.

Victory Points don't matter this is why I favor either Small Elite Units such as Termicides or Large Units.

They're all worth a equal value in Killpoints.

It's another reason on why obliterators are so effective.

It's 3 models yes ,but it is only worth 1 KP and it usually can get its 1 KP by definitely destroying a vehicle or squad.


You want to make your army as redundant as possible this may be inclusion of spamming specific units such as Attack Bikes or by Spamming multiple Melta weapons or Vehicles.


All of this leads to a army that ultimately does not lose a key intergal part when a unit dies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let's look at Vespid Stingwings

A ten man model Squad w/ Strain Leader is 166 points.

There is no other match for them in the army ; they don't have antitank , they are not good in assault ; they have BS and WS 3.

They don't gel with anything else in the army so its difficult to not only have them be a back up to another unit but also they take up a very valuable FOC slot in Fast Attack that can go to a Marker Light or a more point Efficient Gun Drone or Pirahna squad.


Spamming 3 Squads of 10 Vespids may get you somewhere but it wont be far with a 5+ save.

You need to get drunk again. You post better with inequibrated.

G

I woke up on the floor this morning. So no.

Elessar wrote:
@Focusedfire:

I hope those Land Speeders have Assault Cannon???

Yeah, it was late. They are assault cannons. Thanks for pointing that out. Will correct now

Green Blow Fly wrote:It's the Best of SM list...

* snickers *

G

Good one, but don't start with me. In the hands of a competent general this list can be a problem for any build.

Elessar wrote:
lol.

I didn't think that much of it either.

Explain, instead of attempting to sound superior. I posted one of the winning lists in my area in response to general retreats request of discussing the tactics of why and when to spam or be redundant. It is a list that is very strong against the Tau and yet I don't lose to it. So, it leaves me asking, "What is the benefit of Spamming?". I believe that it is the in-game decisions of the player that have the largest impact upon the battle(Note- I said largest, not denying build effect ).

Any melta heavy army will have a field day with that 'best of' list. The scoring units are simply atrocious.

G

You say this, but how. You first have to get to the rhinos and there is a screen of fast movers that will take out your melta units before they get into range.

Saying something will simply do such and actually doing such are two different things.

You shouldn't under estimate 36 range24" BS4 S6 AP 4 Rending shots per turn plus with the option of 9 BS4 Multi melta shots a turn. This on a fast vehicle that can deep strike.

This is a case where the player makes the difference. I've watched too many people say, "Easy just do this.", against this player and then they end up eating crow.

Deadshane1 wrote:Objectives and kill points aside. If you spend X amount of points on a unit who's purpose is to destroy elements of the enemy army, and it destroys LESS than X points of the enemy army, it failed to get it's points back.

It failed to counter an equal amount of enemy troops.

That's a naive and narrow view of the effectiveness of a unit. It's understandable, because it's easily measured, but you're ignoring the very real tactical advantages of certain units beyond what they kill. A DAVU Falcon might not kill a single unit/model in an entire game, and yet be the factor that gives an Eldar player the win... does that mean it was a waste of points because it didn't "get them back"? What about a squad of Dark Reapers drawing a line on the board past which a marine player is reluctant to move his troops (ignoring, for now, certain other issues with Reapers)? WHat about that same reaper squad putting 3 wounds apiece on two different 'Fexes that are later killed by other squads? What about that waveserpent full of Scorpions that full-out's all over the place, tank-shocking and just staying alive long enough to remove a marine squad (or other scoring unit) from an objective at the end of the game. None of these units or situations are likely to "make their points back", but all are extremely valid uses of points, and can be the difference between a win and a loss.

Lets please not turn this into another of those assinine and useless tactics articles...

"Yea but if you do that, all I have to do is THIS and I win!"-Player 1

"No, because I'm going to flank you with this unit and then you'll lose."-Player 2

"When are these idiots going to start discussing real tactics instead of trying to 1up each other?"-Player 3


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ravariel96 wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:Objectives and kill points aside. If you spend X amount of points on a unit who's purpose is to destroy elements of the enemy army, and it destroys LESS than X points of the enemy army, it failed to get it's points back.

It failed to counter an equal amount of enemy troops.

That's a naive and narrow view of the effectiveness of a unit. It's understandable, because it's easily measured, but you're ignoring the very real tactical advantages of certain units beyond what they kill. A DAVU Falcon might not kill a single unit/model in an entire game, and yet be the factor that gives an Eldar player the win... does that mean it was a waste of points because it didn't "get them back"? What about a squad of Dark Reapers drawing a line on the board past which a marine player is reluctant to move his troops (ignoring, for now, certain other issues with Reapers)? WHat about that same reaper squad putting 3 wounds apiece on two different 'Fexes that are later killed by other squads? What about that waveserpent full of Scorpions that full-out's all over the place, tank-shocking and just staying alive long enough to remove a marine squad (or other scoring unit) from an objective at the end of the game. None of these units or situations are likely to "make their points back", but all are extremely valid uses of points, and can be the difference between a win and a loss.

Please reread.

Yes I agree it's a waste of time to play point/counterpoint in regards to the 'best of SM' army list. I've beaten that list everytime I played against it. It has no close combat element whatsoever. It gets to shoot a couple of turns max then is destroyed in close combat. Even a drop pod army can beat it.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote: I've beaten that list everytime I played against it. It has no close combat element whatsoever. It gets to shoot a couple of turns max then is destroyed in close combat. Even a drop pod army can beat it.

G

Then maybe it is time to stop playing the 13 year olds and to move up to more experienced players. Baaazzziiinng. Just joking

Seriously, Wasn't trying to be drawn int GBF's point counter point. Was offering this as a common list that can be competitive as an example for the subjects:

1) Is this is a spam list?

2)Which units are the best time to spam? If so, what do you look for in other units to synergize with the spammed unit?

3)Does spamming a unit have a multiplier effect as was earlier suggested?

4)When or even if it is ever a good time to spam units?


This list has strengths and weaknesses that are easy to see for the purposes of this discussion. It wasn't posted to impress but rather to open up the discussion. Not about do this and win but about when to spam and whether doing so is good or bad from a tactical standpoint. The attempt to casually dismiss the list by "not being impressed", ignores this basic point and even comes across as an attempt to dodge the subject "What if any benefit is there to spamming?". Is the game about you beating the other list or about beating your opponent?

Deadshane1 wrote:Please reread.

Fair point, but I still think it's a shortsighted way of looking at it. Sometimes an army just doesn't have an option that is point-for-point equal to what you need it to kill. Also, if you choose a unit for the sole purpose of removing enemy models, then you're not taking advantage of the flexibility, and redundancy of a good unit, which is what this thread is all about. Sure, I could take a squad of banshees in a serpent and maybe kill their points in opposing guys, but if they die, too, then what advantage have I gained? You need to gain ground, not just stay even, and that falls squarely in the area of those factors that you can't compute. Sometimes the removal of a squad is more important than the points would indicate... and often you need to dedicate more points to the removal of said squad than that squad is worth. This does not make that function inefficient or somehow tactically poor planning. What is poor planning is taking a squad for the sole purpose of removing enemy models, because there is likely something else you can take that will do just that, but also do other things of import.

Okay let's break down the Best of SM list so I can point I why I think it's seriously fubared:


SM Captain
Chapter Master

I don't see any wargear so I'll assume these two HQ choices are fielded completely naked. One can drop ordnance one turn. Neither really have much to offer in close combat since they have no real weapons. Why two? You need one HQ but two? It's a waste of points. I would drop one and use some of the points to buff up the other. Why not take Khan so your troops can outflank? That would add some value to your troops. Best overall at the Big Waaagh did so experience tells me it can work.

5 man tac squad w rhino
5 man tac squad w rhino
5 man tac squad w rhino

These units are basically place holders. At least give the sergeants a combi melta. It's not that hard to kill the rhinos and five Marines per squad are very easy to kill in close combat. Again I think these units are a waste of points. They exist solely to take objectives but can't hold them once they get there. They are also easy KPs. I assume one would run with the chapter master and another with the captain. Again because the HQ have no power weapons they will bounce in close combat and all it takes is a power fist to get rid of them quickly.

3 Land Speeders with assault/Multi
3 Land Speeders with assault/Multi
3 Land Speeders with assault/Multi

These three units are the main strength of the army but they have tin foil for armor and if one gets immoblized you'll have to dump it to maintain mobility for the other two (per unit). Why three units? I think 2x2 is all you need. Get back some points to put in units sorely lacking from this list.

Predator w/Sponson lascannon
Predator w/Sponson lascannon

I'm not knocking these two units, it's the combination of them with the army that bothers me.

It's a spam list without any value added redundancy. The spedders have an effective range of 36" and are good at both dropping armor and shooting troops. The predators are good for shooting at armor and have some resiliency. I can see the value of taking two since mech Is popular. The troops and HQ are what really ding this list in a big way plus the number of speeders should be cut back to make room for other much needed units, such as terminators.

G

Are you talking about Steleks best of List?

Cause that isnt it.

Never said it was but certainly they have their share of commonality. This list has potential but needs a complete rehaul.

G

Mechanized armies are pretty much a different type of spam.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Okay let's break down the Best of SM list so I can point I why I think it's seriously fubared:


SM Captain
Chapter Master

I don't see any wargear so I'll assume these two HQ choices are fielded completely naked. One can drop ordnance one turn. Neither really have much to offer in close combat since they have no real weapons. Why two? You need one HQ but two? It's a waste of points. I would drop one and use some of the points to buff up the other. Why not take Khan so your troops can outflank? That would add some value to your troops. Best overall at the Big Waaagh did so experience tells me it can work.

Not a fan of the Khan, so much, but agreed in general - one HQ is more than enough here, cheap as possible, without sacrificing utility. Vulkan is, obviously, my favourite.

5 man tac squad w rhino
5 man tac squad w rhino
5 man tac squad w rhino

These units are basically place holders. At least give the sergeants a combi melta. It's not that hard to kill the rhinos and five Marines per squad are very easy to kill in close combat. Again I think these units are a waste of points. They exist solely to take objectives but can't hold them once they get there. They are also easy KPs. I assume one would run with the chapter master and another with the captain. Again because the HQ have no power weapons they will bounce in close combat and all it takes is a power fist to get rid of them quickly.

The main weak point of the list. Again, GBF is pretty much spot on here - the units are literally just moving Obj grabbers, not holders. If you can realistically be killed by a non-Bladestorming Dire Avenger Squad in one round, and cost over 70 points, you're not worth taking. 2x 10-man squads would probably be better than this horribleness, although I would never recommend running min Troops above 1500.

3 Land Speeders with assault/Multi
3 Land Speeders with assault/Multi
3 Land Speeders with assault/Multi

These three units are the main strength of the army but they have tin foil for armor and if one gets immoblized you'll have to dump it to maintain mobility for the other two (per unit). Why three units? I think 2x2 is all you need. Get back some points to put in units sorely lacking from this list.

Shocked you didn't point out how the Assault Cannon is crap, this list has no Cover Denial, get some in. A HF is far superior a-i fire than an AC, especially point for point (although what are you talking about, dumping it to retain mobility?!? It's in a Squadron, dumping it isn't an option, because it's now a Wreck.) Heavy Flamers ofc would synergise with Vulkan, if using him. 6 Speeders is sufficient here, 9 is overkill.

Predator w/Sponson lascannon
Predator w/Sponson lascannon

I'm not knocking these two units, it's the combination of them with the army that bothers me.

It's a spam list without any value added redundancy. The spedders have an effective range of 36" and are good at both dropping armor and shooting troops. The predators are good for shooting at armor and have some resiliency. I can see the value of taking two since mech Is popular. The troops and HQ are what really ding this list in a big way plus the number of speeders should be cut back to make room for other much needed units, such as terminators.

G

I literally see NO reason for these Predators. You have, at present, 9 MMs in the list. WTF are the gakky-ass Lascannons there to kill? Anything that's a problem for the Melta, isn't going to be scared of a freaking Las. Better to take DakkaPreds for additional ranged anti-infantry (saving a gakload of points) or DakkaDreads if not using Vulkan in particular. (Thinking about it, this list is surely 1500, so Vulkan probably not viable here.) Also, Tri-Las Preds are HORRIBLY inefficient for their points.

As a matter of fact, I recently posted a 1700 point Marine list on Mind War FTW for a fellow Dakkaite, which contained this:

Me, on Mind War FTW wrote:
"Master of the Forge:
Conversion Beamer - 120

2x Dreadnought:
[COUNT AS HEAVY SUPPORT] Multi-Melta, Stormbolter, DCCW. - (2x105) 210

3x Dreadnought:
2xTwin-Linked Autocannons. - (3x125) 375

2x Tactical Squad:
Flamer, Multi-Melta, Rhino. - (2x205) 410

5 Scouts
Sniper Rifles, Camo Cloaks, Missile Launcher, Sgt. Telion. - 150

2x Land Speeder:
Heavy Flamer, Multi-Melta. - 140

2x Land Speeder:
Heavy Flamer, Multi-Melta. - 140

3x Land Speeder:
Heavy Flamer, Multi-Melta. - 210

[At this point, 180 points remain. So near, and yet so far from including Vulkan. It’d be entirely feasible, however, to drop a lone weapon for a Speeder to generate the required points. Instead, I’ve plumped for the following…]

Dreadnought:
Multi-Melta, Heavy Flamer, Extra Armour. - 130

+Extra Armour on MM Dreads - 30

+ Heavy Flamers on MM Dreads - 20

TOTAL: 1700."

LINK TO SAID POST

In order to make a 1500 list from that, lose the last 180 points, lose a Speeder, and take filler Scouts to make up missing points. Far more balanced.

I meant that the immobilized speeder would have to be left behind as a wreck... I probably should have been clear.

G

It was very ambiguous. Someone unfamiliar with 5th, or just the squadron rules, could have been mightily confuddled.

Now how much does that list change if it is being run by BT with PoMS on everything?

My list?

I'm afraid I'm not au fait enough with BTs to (fairly) comment as to points effectiveness of the list then.

That said, Predators are significantly awesomer with PotMS.

Surely 'your' list isn't BTs, because they don't get Tacticals (?) or those Characters...

Not much honestly. The scoring units still are mightily fubared. I see no major improvements to be completely honest. There's no synergy between units either that I can see smurfy.

G

I'm making an attempt to show what works for one army may not work for another and vise versa.

I've seen this list run as SM, BT, and DA. The strongest version was the BT, IMO. The PoMS does help but not as much as you think. BT PoMS is still BS2. Works well with the predator and to some extent the Speeders. Replace the HQs with emperors champ and a Marshal and you have a loose version of the BT list

The strong points of such a list is that it remains tactically flexible, is very fast, presents so many vehicle units that it is hard to muster the firepower to counter them, 14-ish vehicles can be a lot to try to stop.Especially when the front row pops smoke. You end up needing the equivolent firepower to take out 28 vehicles with an experience player running this list.

Weak points are the minimized troops, lack of HtH depth, light armor, and KP issues. You don't need to take out all of the vehicles, just the transports(If you can get LoS to them). Once you you crack the transports it is a matter of mopping up(Once again depending on LoS).


Now the troops can be both a strong and weak point. They have no real strength(Easily destrotyed in assault) but can be hard to root out from the Rhino wreckage(Small squads are easier to hide) in shooting.

You can apply basic principles of mechanized to multiple army lists.

A good example of this is

Tau Firewarriors x6 w/ Devilfish w/ stuff

or

Eldar Guardians x 10 or Dire Avenger x 5 w/ Wave Serpent

or

Space Marine Tactical x 5 w/ Razorback


etc..


It all has the same basic principle you are purchasing a Vehicle that is scoring and taking a smaller unit to conserve points.

Granted of course some armies are much better than others at this minimizing of Troops and taking Transports that have a offensive ability.

Hollismason wrote:You can apply basic principles of mechanized to multiple army lists.

Apply this to 'crons and 'nids

I dare you.

I never said which army lists.

So somebody has paper and you have a rock. I dare somebody to place paper around my rock. After that I will then throw my rock and watch as the paper shreds itself on the ground as my rock tumbles.

You take units in groups to replace other areas of your army that are lacking. I want this unit X but I am lacking in this area of Y, thus I need to take a few units of X to make up for what I am taking Y.

What I see is that we take things in groups for the over all effect. Groups equal more dice of that area that you might need. Why take one melta gun in a vet squad? If your going to do something, do it all the way. Three melta guns have a better chance at doing what task you had set for this unit, than one. 3x3 units of oblits fills the missing role your army was lacking.

focusedfire wrote:I'm making an attempt to show what works for one army may not work for another and vise versa.

I've seen this list run as SM, BT, and DA. The strongest version was the BT, IMO. The PoMS does help but not as much as you think. BT PoMS is still BS2. Works well with the predator and to some extent the Speeders. Replace the HQs with emperors champ and a Marshal and you have a loose version of the BT list

The strong points of such a list is that it remains tactically flexible, is very fast, presents so many vehicle units that it is hard to muster the firepower to counter them, 14-ish vehicles can be a lot to try to stop.Especially when the front row pops smoke. You end up needing the equivolent firepower to take out 28 vehicles with an experience player running this list.

Weak points are the minimized troops, lack of HtH depth, light armor, and KP issues. You don't need to take out all of the vehicles, just the transports(If you can get LoS to them). Once you you crack the transports it is a matter of mopping up(Once again depending on LoS).


Now the troops can be both a strong and weak point. They have no real strength(Easily destrotyed in assault) but can be hard to root out from the Rhino wreckage(Small squads are easier to hide) in shooting.

No offence, but that's stupid. They're different Codexes...just because they have Space Marine in the name means nothing. It's like trying to run an equivalent Ork list and compare. Hell, DA should be the best at the list, with a few slight alterations, because they can have Meltaguns in a 5-man unit, where you can't in SM. BTs can ofc have MM and Flamer, but that is a touch pricey.

Can we get this back on topic?

G

Hollismason wrote:I never said which army lists.

And I never said the dare was impossible. The principle of mech is to hide your units behind (and in) some armored vehicles that all present valid targets. I think the application for tyranids, is actually nidzilla (in which tactic you place your troops behind 8 MC s).

Edit: Heh, I like the 'rock paper' analogy, but sadly paper beats rock. That's what I was looking for, I wanted someone to rise to the challenge and shoot me down with an actual build...

or failing that, personal insults, this thread got full of them fast anyways.

I am a dissatisfied Dakkaite.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Can we get this back on topic?

G

What was the topic again?

Elessar wrote:No offence, but that's stupid. They're different Codexes...just because they have Space Marine in the name means nothing. It's like trying to run an equivalent Ork list and compare. Hell, DA should be the best at the list, with a few slight alterations, because they can have Meltaguns in a 5-man unit, where you can't in SM. BTs can ofc have MM and Flamer, but that is a touch pricey.

Duh...They are different codices? I guess the first line in my post means that I think they are all the same army. Might I suggest that you read more and knee jerk less.

As for the stupid comment, no offense taken. It actually amused me. You and GBF are so focused on the list that you can't see the topic, it is like not seeing the forest because the trees are in the way. I will try to explain, the topic is about redundant spamming, the difference between redundancy and spamming, and when to apply such to any army list. There is now a fairly genric list presented as an example. You and GBF can only see and discuss what you percieve is wrong with individual parts of the list rather than the topic embodied within the list. The list has redundacy and could easily be tweeked to the point of spamming. When applying the basic layout to a different but almost identical army there is an improvement through synergy but you are unable to see the topic of when to spam being addressed within then example.

Now your reply does get to the point but not in any way you expected. Your comment about the DA's gets to the basic question of the Topic, redundant spamming. Examining this statement brings up the question, "Why would you want 5man teams of meltas when the Speeders have that covered?"
With the speeder teams and predators do you really need more anti-tank?

Could this be a case of the spamming mentality? Could this be falling into mindset that asks,"If something is good then isn't more better?"
Or to put it another way, "Can you have too much of a good thing?"

IMO, I think this build works/synergizes better with BTs due to PoTMS and that their Commanders can turn even a 5 man squad into an effective HtH unit.
Please to note that when I offer something up as possibly being better, it is with the disqualifier, IMO. I'm not so arrogant or narrow minded to believe that a certain type of build will apply to just one army or that what I percieve being the best is necessarily so.

It pretty simple really your purchasing minimum troops to maximize the number of special weapons in the case of some armies or purchasing them soley for their vehicle.

I have to totally agree with Elassar.

G

I have to completely agree with focusedfire.

I guess you could just say a good tournament army ensures that it always functions towards a specific goal and or purpose.

Elassar has pointed out the fallacies of running different chapters for this fubared list. None of them seriously boost the list.

DA - everything is more expensive. Sure the troops can bring a meltagun but in the flip side just give the sergeant a combi melta. Five man tactical squads are a waste of points in a rhino. The better alternative would be to field them in a razorback and take a plasmagun for DA or BA.

G

I have to totally agree with GBF.

I have to totally agree with Hollisman.


I've tried Hollis.

Your last post seems to get at the current thought process of creating tourny lists. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that it seems to be the way of things. People build overly specialized lists in order to exploit a percieved advantage.

Your previous post hit the nail on the head as to what the thought process is behind such a list. I see "competitive" players use this thought process no matter what the army.

People can start off with a basic build core that includes reduncies. This usually sacrifices a strength in one area in order to get the desired redundancy in another. The choices they make from this core determine whether it is a redundant or a spam list. But not all lists respond to the basic formula as well as others due to syngeries available from slight, or not so slight, variations in options that each army has.

That's pretty much it is coming up with just some simple questions you can ask your self when designing and building a army from concept to tabletop.

It's why I very rarely take 1 of anything other than maybe HQ because of the force multiplier when you have two of the same types.

It's a proven principle of common military strategy that 2 of something is not twice as effective but in fact 4 times as effective.


There is a cut off where what you purchase becomes to redundant to the point of hampering for instance taking to much antitank.


Also I would like to point out the following:

Space Marine x 5 with combi Meltagun w/ Assaut Cannon Razorback 175


Chaos Marine Squad x5 w/ 1 Meltagun w/ Rhino w/ Havoc Launcher 145


Tau Fire Warrior x 6 w/ Devilfish 170 to 185

6 Man Dire Avenger w/ Wave Serpent 170 to 185


10 man IG squad w/ Meltagun w/ chimera 110 to 150 ish

Black Templars x 5 etc...

Dark Angels x 5 etc...

The only exceptions to the mimimizing of squads for transports is probalby Tyranids and Necrons.

I think its interesting though that with the exception of a few armies the average price for minimized troops plus transport is all in the 150 to 170 ish range.

5 Avengers in a BL/SCan Serp is common, and is (overpriced at) a 'mere' 205 points.

That said, I don't rate that Marine squad you suggested. Combi-Melta is best on foot, which encourages aggressive use, which is bad, because there are only 5 of them. Assault Cannons are also hugely overpriced, and not even that good, IMO.

I disagree with the assault cannon being overpriced on the Razorback; 35 points is not overpriced at all in my opinion.

It was just a example though if you want base rate of 40 go ahead I guess.


It was just an example that most armies to a degree have the ability to mechanize troop choices and use a Transport to use as their firepower.


Also,

Base cost of a 5 man DireAvenger squad is 60.

Base cost of a serpent is 100.

Base of a Serpent is 90, mon ami.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have the Codex less than a foot away, not that I need it.

The cheapest you can get one is 100 points Ie with Twinlinked shuricats should have made clearer.

lol.

You're right, but it's still overcosted, IMO.

It makes spamming not only harder, but also the most viable option, as otherwise you cannot afford enough to have any realistic redundancy - and you won't have points for all that other nice stuff either.