When discussing the new army am building with my brother, he always goes for the "s" word when I show him my list.
He generally plays Marines and Eldar, who have fairly survivable units, while I go for horde armies like Orks, Dark Eldar, soon, Guard.
Because the units that I use are not very survivable, I think that I must use multiple units with the same purpose, just to remain competitive.

Dakkaites, how far is too far, before redundancy becomes spam?

Orks - never.
DE - never.
IG - Don't you dare take two of the same things~!

If your playing regular games then yes it becomes annoying facing 36 DL or 5 KFF/BW every game. But mixing up points and scenariors should prevent this - hell even terrain can prevent this.

But if he's (your older brother ) and complaining about your lists then maybe he isn't taking a T1 build all the time, packing some warp-bests might be fun... but if his list is geard properly then their just going to be shot to piesces turn one/two and never assault... if he wants to play a one sided game.....

Tell him to wipe away his tears, people whining about spam need to get a life...

I'm sorry i like to make army lists that can take losses of units without folding like a wet paper towel ... It's called good list making.

Dear god he's annoyed at Spam?

Oh wait he plays SM. To them having 3 troops borders on Spam.

Look with Horde armies the point is that you're spamming units/models. Its like a man armed with revolver accusing someone with a M240 of cheating because he passed on the six-shooter for more bullet spraying. Not everyone who plays 40k has to be an elitist prick... some people just want see the sea turn red, the sky burn and land... GREEEEEEEEEEN!!!

Your brother is an idiot if he thinks IG/Orks spamming is a bad thing. I'll complain about spamming in MEQ armies but not in IG/DE/Ork/Tyranids, because not every faction can be cheezed up the wazoo with elite soldiers, in fact its better that they aren't, as it is I play too many self-opinionated powered armoured pricks so remind him that in the metagame owning SM makes a you cheap pawn to be spammed as part of a greater tide of MEQ arseholes in the 40k community....

Personally I believe there's a difference between redundancy and spam. A simply way of putting is that spam is simply copying/pasting the same build/army throughout due to a lack of imagination, whereas redundancy is taking multiples of one unit/tank for tactical sakes. For example:

Spam=
- 10x Assault Marine - 2x Melta, Powerfist - 235pts
- 10x Assault Marine - 2x Melta, Powerfist - 235pts
- 10x Assault Marine - 2x Melta, Powerfist - 235pts
- 10x Assault Marine - 2x Melta, Powerfist - 235pts
(I've seen this or similar in many BA lists, they may 'mix it up' a bit and even swap out one squad for flamers!!)

Redundancy=
- 3x MM/HF Land Speeder
(which I use), having light armour etc. Redundancy is vital.


Personally, I think all armies can avoid spam through a bit of imagination and variation.
A green tide army can have (masses of) shootas/sluggas with varying heavy/special weapons. Taking a lot of boyz is inevitable, how you equip and use them is different.

I disagree with Spam myself, I think it simply lacks imagination in a game of 1" high plastic men. However, redundancy is a tactical use that doesn't go overboard.

Orks SHOULD be spamming, that's how their army works. Guard SHOULD be spamming, that's how THEIR army works. Tyranids SHOULD be spamming, same as the last two. Space Marines SHOULD have every tactical squad be tactically adaptable and able to handle whatever comes their way (that's their entire purpose), and if this means three, four, or more tactical squads each with power weapon, meltagun, and missile launcher, so be it. Lots of Battle Sisters is really the most fluffy way to build a Sisters of Battle list, and standardization fits that army as well. Tau and Necrons don't hav that much of a choice to begin with. And so on and so forth. "Spam" fits the fluff.

People that whine about "spam" every goddamned chance they can are just that-- whiners. Ignore them and play the list you want to play. What they have to say shouldn't and doesn't matter, as they openly defy both the fluff AND tactical sense.

People often say I go to far when I field 5-6 squads of veterans with triple melta in Chimeras ( Mech to counter a place with all mech armies).
I always tell them "At least you you don't have to face 2 to 4 full platoons worth of troops, every squad having las cannons, the command squads having las cannons and 5 heavy weapon squads a platoon with las cannons." Because that would scare off any one who doesn't pack anti horde and only anti tanks.

Even though my Ork army is only 1100 points, I still get complaints that I spam too many Boyz.

Yes, that's how Orks work.

Well done figuring that out.

Then I proceed to stomp them into the ground with a tidal wave of Boyz.

They usually shut up after that.

According to my scientific researches in my subterranean secret laboratory somewhere in South America, I've reached to the conclussion that for most whinners the terminology changes based on this variants:

- It's on my list: spam
- It's on his list: redundancy

Study provided by T.K.Gue, branch of the Darkian Empire

Fine line. People have different views dependant on how they play the game.

Easy to cross that fine line, though if they just want to try redundancy... (six minimum grey hunter squads in razorbacks later...)

I personally spam the hell out of certain units if they're effective enough, on the other hand I also take duplicates of certain units, while not wanting to spam them.

Dark wrote:subterranean secret laboratory somewhere in South America

It's in Argentina, everyone!

Whoops, was I not supposed to tell?

Dark wrote:According to my scientific researches in my subterranean secret laboratory somewhere in South America, I've reached to the conclussion that for most whinners the terminology changes based on this variants:

- It's on my list: spam
- It's on his list: redundancy

Study provided by T.K.Gue, branch of the Darkian Empire

This is what I came here to say. I am glad someone else finds this to be true as well.

Wait wait wait, so this army wouldn't be classed as spam, merely redundancy? (for example):

- Farseer - Fortune, Runes
- Farseer - Fortune, Runes

- 6x Fire Dragon - Waveserpent w/ TL Shuriken Cannon and Shuriken Cannon
- 6x Fire Dragon - Waveserpent w/ TL Shuriken Cannon and Shuriken Cannon
- 6x Fire Dragon - Waveserpent w/ TL Shuriken Cannon and Shuriken Cannon

- 10x Dire Avenger - Exarch w/ Bladestorm and 2xAvenger Catapults - Waveserpent w/ TL Shuriken Cannon and Shuriken Cannon
- 10x Dire Avenger - Exarch w/ Bladestorm and 2xAvenger Catapults - Waveserpent w/ TL Shuriken Cannon and Shuriken Cannon
- 10x Dire Avenger - Exarch w/ Bladestorm and 2xAvenger Catapults - Waveserpent w/ TL Shuriken Cannon and Shuriken Cannon
- 10x Dire Avenger - Exarch w/ Bladestorm and 2xAvenger Catapults - Waveserpent w/ TL Shuriken Cannon and Shuriken Cannon
- 10x Dire Avenger - Exarch w/ Bladestorm and 2xAvenger Catapults - Waveserpent w/ TL Shuriken Cannon and Shuriken Cannon
- 10x Dire Avenger - Exarch w/ Bladestorm and 2xAvenger Catapults - Waveserpent w/ TL Shuriken Cannon and Shuriken Cannon

- Fire Prism
- Fire Prism
- Fire Prism

I don't see a problem with that list at all.

Just Dave wrote:Wait wait wait, so this army wouldn't be classed as spam, merely redundancy?

Dark wrote:- It's on my list: spam
- It's on his list: redundancy

If you have enough units left to do the job they were supposed to after you take casualties, that is redundancy.

If you have too many models for them to do the job that they were supposed to, and they must now do other jobs, then you have spam.

For example- If you bring 5 battlewagons, and are left with one after crushing 3 of your opponent's landraiders- you have redundancy. If you bring 9, and are left with 4 after crushing your opponent's 3 landraiders- you have spammed.

Neither of those is spam.

SaintHazard wrote:

Dark wrote:subterranean secret laboratory somewhere in South America

It's in Argentina, everyone!

Whoops, was I not supposed to tell?

Oi! Guys, we've been discovered, pack all and go, destroy what's not salvageable!

D:

Excessive redundancy is nothing more than a failsafe. You bring nine battlewagons because what if you have four after crushing three LRs but then three more get blown up by Land Speeders?

Therefore, excessive redundancy isn't excessive - it's playing it safe.

Are multiple redundant failsafe mechanisms on a submarine's ballast tanks spam?

Ask a few drowning sailors what they think.

Despite that fact that it showed no tactical acumen, only the the ability to copy and paste?

To me, running 2 vindicators alongside a LRC is redundancy as any of them reaching the line would cause serious pain and therefore casualties can be afforded.

However, to me, simply copying the same unit - by the letter - is 'spam' and unimaginative. Eldar shouldn't even rely on redundancy or spam according to the fluff, they should specialise. Whilst - according to you - ' "Spam" fits the fluff.'

SaintHazard wrote:

Are multiple redundant failsafe mechanisms on a submarine's ballast tanks spam?

Ask a few drowning sailors what they think.

True, but it doesn't give the ocean a very sporting chance. I suppose my point was that the difference between spam and redundancy is situational and almost impossible to achieve in a general list because you must be prepared to defeat the enemy's redundancy.

The difference between spam and redundancy is whether or not one player whines about it.

Nothing more than that.

I have always used the rule of two, unless it is some sort of theme list (or there just plain is not an option for something else). Hence my Guard army has no more than two of the same unit in it. My Eldar Jetbike Army has six identical Jetbike troop choices, but thats themed and no one is going to complain about that.

Sometimes, however, a book or its slot options suck so massively that a little spamming is the order of the day. I think Nids and Kan Wall Orks have a free pass at spamming, as do Necrons or Inquisition lists (no real choice). I don't think Guard has any excuse to spam because they have so much variety of competitive units in their list, even in the Troops section, but thats just me.

Spam- 9 obliterators
Redundancy- Double lightning claws on 10 terminators

Obliterators are great, which is why people spam them, but 9 is too many. It's basically just annoying at that point. Well, actually....It's only 675 points, but still...That's your entire HS choice right there...

Double lightning claws can serve a unique position in your army, and in this case, more is better. Not to mention that I'd rather get no shots at all than a couple, so having a complete unit is the way to go

Just Dave wrote:Despite that fact that it showed no tactical acumen, only the the ability to copy and paste?

To me, running 2 vindicators alongside a LRC is redundancy as any of them reaching the line would cause serious pain and therefore casualties can be afforded.

However, to me, simply copying the same unit - by the letter - is 'spam' and unimaginative. Eldar shouldn't even rely on redundancy or spam according to the fluff, they should specialise. Whilst - according to you - ' "Spam" fits the fluff.'

Well, in some situations (not all, but some) spam does fit the fluff. We hear plenty of stories of a few Marines getting overrun by an ocean of Gaunts. We hear about Tau fending off wave after wave of Orks. What's to say the "non-horde" type armies can't get in on the action? Waves of Dire Avengers. Waves of Tactical Marines. Waves of Necron Warriors. My point is, it's not necessarily a bad thing, and the distinction you're making is very subjective.

You argue that taking six of the same unit doesn't show tactical acumen. I argue that if that list is successful on the battlefield, how can it not be a tactically sound list? To you, tactical acumen seems to be ability to contextually specialize. To me, it's the ability to win a battle. I guess both definitions have merit, and either can be argued as right or wrong, but I don't see that anyone should be - to use a bit of a strong word here - condemned for employing tactics that you would define as the result of a "lack of creativity."

Gitzbitah wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:

Are multiple redundant failsafe mechanisms on a submarine's ballast tanks spam?

Ask a few drowning sailors what they think.

True, but it doesn't give the ocean a very sporting chance. I suppose my point was that the difference between spam and redundancy is situational and almost impossible to achieve in a general list because you must be prepared to defeat the enemy's redundancy.

This is true, and in a friendly match I would say the ocean should have a sporting chance of drowning those sailors. But I don't think we're arguing sportsmanship here. We're arguing tactical effectiveness. That's a very different thing.

Melissia wrote:The difference between spam and redundancy is whether or not one player whines about it.

Nothing more than that.

In my opinion, the difference between redundancy and spam is tactical acumen and intentions.

I'd say spamming is a hard one to call. Redundancy is completely logical, but since more than one unit can fulfil a role in thelist, taking multiple of the same thing pushes it towards spam in my opinion.

For example Devastators and Land Speeders can both be used as anti-tank, but Devastators are also good against MC's, and Speeders with an additional flamer are good against entrenched units. To me that's redundancy, whereas taking 3 Devastator squads is more like spam.

That said, spam isn't always bad, frankly I'd expect to see some degree of Termagant/Hormagaunt spam in a Tyranid swarm since, well, that's how they work!

SaintHazard wrote:

Just Dave wrote:Despite that fact that it showed no tactical acumen, only the the ability to copy and paste?

To me, running 2 vindicators alongside a LRC is redundancy as any of them reaching the line would cause serious pain and therefore casualties can be afforded.

However, to me, simply copying the same unit - by the letter - is 'spam' and unimaginative. Eldar shouldn't even rely on redundancy or spam according to the fluff, they should specialise. Whilst - according to you - ' "Spam" fits the fluff.'

Well, in some situations (not all, but some) spam does fit the fluff. We hear plenty of stories of a few Marines getting overrun by an ocean of Gaunts. We hear about Tau fending off wave after wave of Orks. What's to say the "non-horde" type armies can't get in on the action? Waves of Dire Avengers. Waves of Tactical Marines. Waves of Necron Warriors. My point is, it's not necessarily a bad thing, and the distinction you're making is very subjective.

You argue that taking six of the same unit doesn't show tactical acumen. I argue that if that list is successful on the battlefield, how can it not be a tactically sound list? To you, tactical acumen seems to be ability to contextually specialize. To me, it's the ability to win a battle. I guess both definitions have merit, and either can be argued as right or wrong, but I don't see that anyone should be - to use a bit of a strong word here - condemned for employing tactics that you would define as the result of a "lack of creativity."

Well thank you for pointing out that it's our/your opinion rather than fact. And yes, I do believe it to be subjective and I agree that certain armies can 'spam', as in the examples you have mentioned. I also agree, that someone shouldn't be 'condemned for it', I wouldn't approve of 'spamming' such as that which I described, but I wouldn't particularly criticise or even condemn them, simply not approve. IMHO.

My argument is that unnecessarily taking 6 of the same unit, without the thought that 'I may lose one, may want back up' but instead thinking along the lines of 'that unit's good, where's the copy/paste option' is 'spam'. I understand Ork hordes, the intention is to take waves and waves of the buggers (although you could mix them up a bit for variety sakes, eg. Shoota instead of Rockets), but in my Eldar, for example, I believe that if there in no tactical or almost imaginative intention then yes, I think I would class it as spamming.

Are 4 dreadnoughts spam?
I hope not...

Just Dave wrote:In my opinion, the difference between redundancy and spam is tactical acumen and intentions.

And would you try and claim a person with high "tactical acumen" cannot see the use of a list with six identical troops choices?

The concept of "spam" is an illusion created by crappy players. People whine that a Space Marine list with three tactical squads is "spam". People whine that an Ork list with more than three mobs of boyz is "spam". People whine that a Sisters list with more than two squads of Battle Sisters is "spam". People whine that ALL Necron lists are "spam". People whine that using more than one fragon squad is "spam". People whine that having an infantry platoon with more than three squads is "spam". People whine that having more than one Imperial Guard Veteran Squad is "spam". People whine that filling up an artillery battery is "spam".

The common thread in all of this is that people whine.

There is no such thing as spam, people who whine about spam are either just fluff bunnies, and people who cant afford to max their lists out.

Do i need to get you all a box of tissues? mabye some johnson and johnsons no more tears?

Just Dave wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:

Just Dave wrote:Despite that fact that it showed no tactical acumen, only the the ability to copy and paste?

To me, running 2 vindicators alongside a LRC is redundancy as any of them reaching the line would cause serious pain and therefore casualties can be afforded.

However, to me, simply copying the same unit - by the letter - is 'spam' and unimaginative. Eldar shouldn't even rely on redundancy or spam according to the fluff, they should specialise. Whilst - according to you - ' "Spam" fits the fluff.'

Well, in some situations (not all, but some) spam does fit the fluff. We hear plenty of stories of a few Marines getting overrun by an ocean of Gaunts. We hear about Tau fending off wave after wave of Orks. What's to say the "non-horde" type armies can't get in on the action? Waves of Dire Avengers. Waves of Tactical Marines. Waves of Necron Warriors. My point is, it's not necessarily a bad thing, and the distinction you're making is very subjective.

You argue that taking six of the same unit doesn't show tactical acumen. I argue that if that list is successful on the battlefield, how can it not be a tactically sound list? To you, tactical acumen seems to be ability to contextually specialize. To me, it's the ability to win a battle. I guess both definitions have merit, and either can be argued as right or wrong, but I don't see that anyone should be - to use a bit of a strong word here - condemned for employing tactics that you would define as the result of a "lack of creativity."

Well thank you for pointing out that it's our/your opinion rather than fact. And yes, I do believe it to be subjective and I agree that certain armies can 'spam', as in the examples you have mentioned. I also agree, that someone shouldn't be 'condemned for it', I wouldn't approve of 'spamming' such as that which I described, but I wouldn't particularly criticise or even condemn them, simply not approve. IMHO.

My argument is that unnecessarily taking 6 of the same unit, without the thought that 'I may lose one, may want back up' but instead thinking along the lines of 'that unit's good, where's the copy/paste option' is 'spam'. I understand Ork hordes, the intention is to take waves and waves of the buggers (although you could mix them up a bit for variety sakes, eg. Shoota instead of Rockets), but in my Eldar, for example, I believe that if there in no tactical or almost imaginative intention then yes, I think I would class it as spamming.

Don't get me wrong, I agree to a point - if you simply say, "Yeah, I like that unit, they do okay," and copy and paste six times, that shows a lack of creativity. On the other hand, if you say, "That unit did a spectacular job last time I fielded them, and this other one just sort of sat around with its thumb up its ass, I think I'll take more of the former and see if they perform twice as well with twice as many units on the field," that shows tactical acumen. Hell, I've done that (replacing sniper scouts with another Tac squad, replacing Kroot with more Fire Warriors) It's a fine line, but the line is there, and taking lots of one unit does not, in my opinion, automatically constitute spam.

And yes, as said before, it's very subjective.

JSK-Fox wrote:Are 4 dreadnoughts spam?
I hope not...

How in the hell do you take 4 dreadnoughts? Is there actually a legit way to do this?

kill dem stunties wrote:There is no such thing as spam, people who whine about spam are either just fluff bunnies, and people who cant afford to max their lists out.

Do i need to get you all a box of tissues? mabye some johnson and johnsons no more tears?

I try to play in as many tournaments as I can, and I bring hard lists.

I SPAM troop choices, and heavy support, and fast attack.

I actually SPAM them since they're the most effective, I don't take more for redundancy, I SPAM them.

Is redundancy just for fluff bunnies who can't win, who call their spamming redundancy?

Master of the Forge allows you to take dreads as heavy support.

Melissia wrote:Master of the Forge allows you to take dreads as heavy support.

Holy hell, I've been playing Space Marines since I started and I didn't realize that.

I wonder what other bits of awesome I can find if I dig through Codex: SM again.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:

kill dem stunties wrote:There is no such thing as spam, people who whine about spam are either just fluff bunnies, and people who cant afford to max their lists out.

Do i need to get you all a box of tissues? mabye some johnson and johnsons no more tears?

I try to play in as many tournaments as I can, and I bring hard lists.

I SPAM troop choices, and heavy support, and fast attack.

I actually SPAM them since they're the most effective, I don't take more for redundancy, I SPAM them.

Is redundancy just for fluff bunnies who can't win, who call their spamming redundancy?

Youre either being sarcastic or have a fundamental lack of understanding at the subject at hand

If you spam your units, you are making use of the principle of redundancy. But spam is not negative, its just another word for redundancy in this context.

Melissia wrote:

Just Dave wrote:In my opinion, the difference between redundancy and spam is tactical acumen and intentions.

And would you try and claim a person with high "tactical acumen" cannot see the use of a list with six identical troops choices?

The concept of "spam" is an illusion created by crappy players. People whine that a Space Marine list with three tactical squads is "spam". People whine that an Ork list with more than three mobs of boyz is "spam". People whine that a Sisters list with more than two squads of Battle Sisters is "spam". People whine that ALL Necron lists are "spam". People whine that using more than one fragon squad is "spam". People whine that having an infantry platoon with more than three squads is "spam". People whine that having more than one Imperial Guard Veteran Squad is "spam". People whine that filling up an artillery battery is "spam".

The common thread in all of this is that people whine.

A common thread with all life (particularly England) is whining. A common thread with this is that people refuse to believe that spam might exist.

You are very stern on your opinion and appear to be thinking that I'll claim spam to any multiplication of a unit (and that I'm a crappy player - thanks )

I agree, someone with high tactical acumen could see the benefit of a list with six identical troop choices, however - as I said - this also seems to scream a lack of imagination and that this person with tactical acumen may also see that six identical troops may not be necessary and that it's not redundancy but unnecessary.

So say someone chose to field 6 troop choices, all occupied by Fenrisian Wolves and would someone claim that this is redundancy? Particularly if they themselves had tactical acumen? or if these wolves (and Canis) were the only things in the army?

I wouldn't agree with people that think that: "The concept of "spam" is an illusion created by crappy players. People whine that a Space Marine list with three tactical squads is "spam". People whine that an Ork list with more than three mobs of boyz is "spam". People whine that a Sisters list with more than two squads of Battle Sisters is "spam". People whine that ALL Necron lists are "spam". People whine that using more than one fragon squad is "spam". People whine that having an infantry platoon with more than three squads is "spam". People whine that having more than one Imperial Guard Veteran Squad is "spam". People whine that filling up an artillery battery is "spam"." however you've gone for very specific examples. As I've said also, I believe that 'spamming' is acceptable in some - horde for example - armies.

I would quite likely believe that someone who had 6 tactical squads all with a lascannon, flamer and rhino is spam, however 3 of the same (or more) is understandable in many cases, IMHO.

"People whine" that killing is wrong, also.

>.<

Nope. She meant heavy support.

SaintHazard wrote:

Just Dave wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:

Just Dave wrote:Despite that fact that it showed no tactical acumen, only the the ability to copy and paste?

To me, running 2 vindicators alongside a LRC is redundancy as any of them reaching the line would cause serious pain and therefore casualties can be afforded.

However, to me, simply copying the same unit - by the letter - is 'spam' and unimaginative. Eldar shouldn't even rely on redundancy or spam according to the fluff, they should specialise. Whilst - according to you - ' "Spam" fits the fluff.'

Well, in some situations (not all, but some) spam does fit the fluff. We hear plenty of stories of a few Marines getting overrun by an ocean of Gaunts. We hear about Tau fending off wave after wave of Orks. What's to say the "non-horde" type armies can't get in on the action? Waves of Dire Avengers. Waves of Tactical Marines. Waves of Necron Warriors. My point is, it's not necessarily a bad thing, and the distinction you're making is very subjective.

You argue that taking six of the same unit doesn't show tactical acumen. I argue that if that list is successful on the battlefield, how can it not be a tactically sound list? To you, tactical acumen seems to be ability to contextually specialize. To me, it's the ability to win a battle. I guess both definitions have merit, and either can be argued as right or wrong, but I don't see that anyone should be - to use a bit of a strong word here - condemned for employing tactics that you would define as the result of a "lack of creativity."

Well thank you for pointing out that it's our/your opinion rather than fact. And yes, I do believe it to be subjective and I agree that certain armies can 'spam', as in the examples you have mentioned. I also agree, that someone shouldn't be 'condemned for it', I wouldn't approve of 'spamming' such as that which I described, but I wouldn't particularly criticise or even condemn them, simply not approve. IMHO.

My argument is that unnecessarily taking 6 of the same unit, without the thought that 'I may lose one, may want back up' but instead thinking along the lines of 'that unit's good, where's the copy/paste option' is 'spam'. I understand Ork hordes, the intention is to take waves and waves of the buggers (although you could mix them up a bit for variety sakes, eg. Shoota instead of Rockets), but in my Eldar, for example, I believe that if there in no tactical or almost imaginative intention then yes, I think I would class it as spamming.

Don't get me wrong, I agree to a point - if you simply say, "Yeah, I like that unit, they do okay," and copy and paste six times, that shows a lack of creativity. On the other hand, if you say, "That unit did a spectacular job last time I fielded them, and this other one just sort of sat around with its thumb up its ass, I think I'll take more of the former and see if they perform twice as well with twice as many units on the field," that shows tactical acumen. Hell, I've done that (replacing sniper scouts with another Tac squad, replacing Kroot with more Fire Warriors) It's a fine line, but the line is there, and taking lots of one unit does not, in my opinion, automatically constitute spam.

And yes, as said before, it's very subjective.

I agree. It's completely understandable to take more than one of a unit, particularly if they did well and you came up with some good examples. However, if say, Fire Warriors performed badly and the person decided that it would be best to have 5 squads of as many Kroot as they can, it COULD constitute spam.

As you said "It's a fine line, but the line is there, and taking lots of one unit does not, in my opinion, automatically constitute spam.And yes, as said before, it's very subjective", I don't believe something would automatically constitute spam and yes it is subjective, but this does mean that spam could exist, rather than 'redundancy=spam'...

kill dem stunties wrote:But spam is not negative, its just another word for redundancy in this context.

That's a good way to put it.

kill dem stunties wrote:

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:

kill dem stunties wrote:There is no such thing as spam, people who whine about spam are either just fluff bunnies, and people who cant afford to max their lists out.

Do i need to get you all a box of tissues? mabye some johnson and johnsons no more tears?

I try to play in as many tournaments as I can, and I bring hard lists.

I SPAM troop choices, and heavy support, and fast attack.

I actually SPAM them since they're the most effective, I don't take more for redundancy, I SPAM them.

Is redundancy just for fluff bunnies who can't win, who call their spamming redundancy?

Youre either being sarcastic or have a fundamental lack of understanding at the subject at hand

If you spam your units, you are making use of the principle of redundancy. But spam is not negative, its just another word for redundancy in this context.

I don't take alot of it so it can get its job done.

I take alot of them because they are the best in that category for my army list.

I take as many as possible. With no regards to if it will get the job done, since I am sure that one would be enough.

Just Dave wrote:You are very stern on your opinion and appear to be thinking that I'll claim spam to any multiplication of a unit (and that I'm a crappy player - thanks )

I'm actually holding back. The very idea that people want to insult a player's army list by calling it "spam" infuriates me. Opinions like these are worth less than nothing. Elitism is one of the worst things to ever happen to this hobby, regardless of what form it takes.

Melissia wrote:

Just Dave wrote:You are very stern on your opinion and appear to be thinking that I'll claim spam to any multiplication of a unit (and that I'm a crappy player - thanks )

I'm actually holding back. The very idea that people want to insult a player's army list by calling it "spam" infuriates me. Opinions like these are worth less than nothing. Elitism is one of the worst things to ever happen to this hobby, regardless of what form it takes.

I think I can smell Irony...

Despite me disliking Ultramarines, you don't see me deride players for playing them. I might make a joke occasionally, but that's merely humor. I dislike twin-lash lists, but I understand why they take them and don't discourage it. I dislike biker nob lists, but hey, whatever floats your boat. I dislike joke armies and "hello kitty marines", which are disturbingly popular on the internet... but they're your models, do whatever you want with them. I dislike the opinions of those who deride lists as spam, and plenty of other opinions.

This isn't elitism. Elitism is saying that somehow one group of players is inherently better than another group is. I don't hold myself as better-- I have held opinions in the past that I would now find reprehensible, so I would not make such a claim.



edit: So yes. Back on topic...

Spam doesn't really exist. Whether it's for the tactical purpose of redundancy, for fluff purposes, or just because you think it'd look nice all painted up, it's not "spam". It's just another way of doing your army list-- focusing on numbers and generalization instead of uniqueness and specialization.

Just Dave wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:

Just Dave wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:

Just Dave wrote:Despite that fact that it showed no tactical acumen, only the the ability to copy and paste?

To me, running 2 vindicators alongside a LRC is redundancy as any of them reaching the line would cause serious pain and therefore casualties can be afforded.

However, to me, simply copying the same unit - by the letter - is 'spam' and unimaginative. Eldar shouldn't even rely on redundancy or spam according to the fluff, they should specialise. Whilst - according to you - ' "Spam" fits the fluff.'

Well, in some situations (not all, but some) spam does fit the fluff. We hear plenty of stories of a few Marines getting overrun by an ocean of Gaunts. We hear about Tau fending off wave after wave of Orks. What's to say the "non-horde" type armies can't get in on the action? Waves of Dire Avengers. Waves of Tactical Marines. Waves of Necron Warriors. My point is, it's not necessarily a bad thing, and the distinction you're making is very subjective.

You argue that taking six of the same unit doesn't show tactical acumen. I argue that if that list is successful on the battlefield, how can it not be a tactically sound list? To you, tactical acumen seems to be ability to contextually specialize. To me, it's the ability to win a battle. I guess both definitions have merit, and either can be argued as right or wrong, but I don't see that anyone should be - to use a bit of a strong word here - condemned for employing tactics that you would define as the result of a "lack of creativity."

Well thank you for pointing out that it's our/your opinion rather than fact. And yes, I do believe it to be subjective and I agree that certain armies can 'spam', as in the examples you have mentioned. I also agree, that someone shouldn't be 'condemned for it', I wouldn't approve of 'spamming' such as that which I described, but I wouldn't particularly criticise or even condemn them, simply not approve. IMHO.

My argument is that unnecessarily taking 6 of the same unit, without the thought that 'I may lose one, may want back up' but instead thinking along the lines of 'that unit's good, where's the copy/paste option' is 'spam'. I understand Ork hordes, the intention is to take waves and waves of the buggers (although you could mix them up a bit for variety sakes, eg. Shoota instead of Rockets), but in my Eldar, for example, I believe that if there in no tactical or almost imaginative intention then yes, I think I would class it as spamming.

Don't get me wrong, I agree to a point - if you simply say, "Yeah, I like that unit, they do okay," and copy and paste six times, that shows a lack of creativity. On the other hand, if you say, "That unit did a spectacular job last time I fielded them, and this other one just sort of sat around with its thumb up its ass, I think I'll take more of the former and see if they perform twice as well with twice as many units on the field," that shows tactical acumen. Hell, I've done that (replacing sniper scouts with another Tac squad, replacing Kroot with more Fire Warriors) It's a fine line, but the line is there, and taking lots of one unit does not, in my opinion, automatically constitute spam.

And yes, as said before, it's very subjective.

I agree. It's completely understandable to take more than one of a unit, particularly if they did well and you came up with some good examples. However, if say, Fire Warriors performed badly and the person decided that it would be best to have 5 squads of as many Kroot as they can, it COULD constitute spam.

As you said "It's a fine line, but the line is there, and taking lots of one unit does not, in my opinion, automatically constitute spam.And yes, as said before, it's very subjective", I don't believe something would automatically constitute spam and yes it is subjective, but this does mean that spam could exist, rather than 'redundancy=spam'...

I think we started on opposite sides of this debate but ended up saying very similar things.

I think we did this whole "debate" thing wrong.

I'd argue that Elitism is that, and the belief that you must be right and that those who oppose this belief are either ignorant and or/wrong or ("worth less than nothing")

To me, that is Elitism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SaintHazard wrote:

Just Dave wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:

Just Dave wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:

Just Dave wrote:Despite that fact that it showed no tactical acumen, only the the ability to copy and paste?

To me, running 2 vindicators alongside a LRC is redundancy as any of them reaching the line would cause serious pain and therefore casualties can be afforded.

However, to me, simply copying the same unit - by the letter - is 'spam' and unimaginative. Eldar shouldn't even rely on redundancy or spam according to the fluff, they should specialise. Whilst - according to you - ' "Spam" fits the fluff.'

Well, in some situations (not all, but some) spam does fit the fluff. We hear plenty of stories of a few Marines getting overrun by an ocean of Gaunts. We hear about Tau fending off wave after wave of Orks. What's to say the "non-horde" type armies can't get in on the action? Waves of Dire Avengers. Waves of Tactical Marines. Waves of Necron Warriors. My point is, it's not necessarily a bad thing, and the distinction you're making is very subjective.

You argue that taking six of the same unit doesn't show tactical acumen. I argue that if that list is successful on the battlefield, how can it not be a tactically sound list? To you, tactical acumen seems to be ability to contextually specialize. To me, it's the ability to win a battle. I guess both definitions have merit, and either can be argued as right or wrong, but I don't see that anyone should be - to use a bit of a strong word here - condemned for employing tactics that you would define as the result of a "lack of creativity."

Well thank you for pointing out that it's our/your opinion rather than fact. And yes, I do believe it to be subjective and I agree that certain armies can 'spam', as in the examples you have mentioned. I also agree, that someone shouldn't be 'condemned for it', I wouldn't approve of 'spamming' such as that which I described, but I wouldn't particularly criticise or even condemn them, simply not approve. IMHO.

My argument is that unnecessarily taking 6 of the same unit, without the thought that 'I may lose one, may want back up' but instead thinking along the lines of 'that unit's good, where's the copy/paste option' is 'spam'. I understand Ork hordes, the intention is to take waves and waves of the buggers (although you could mix them up a bit for variety sakes, eg. Shoota instead of Rockets), but in my Eldar, for example, I believe that if there in no tactical or almost imaginative intention then yes, I think I would class it as spamming.

Don't get me wrong, I agree to a point - if you simply say, "Yeah, I like that unit, they do okay," and copy and paste six times, that shows a lack of creativity. On the other hand, if you say, "That unit did a spectacular job last time I fielded them, and this other one just sort of sat around with its thumb up its ass, I think I'll take more of the former and see if they perform twice as well with twice as many units on the field," that shows tactical acumen. Hell, I've done that (replacing sniper scouts with another Tac squad, replacing Kroot with more Fire Warriors) It's a fine line, but the line is there, and taking lots of one unit does not, in my opinion, automatically constitute spam.

And yes, as said before, it's very subjective.

I agree. It's completely understandable to take more than one of a unit, particularly if they did well and you came up with some good examples. However, if say, Fire Warriors performed badly and the person decided that it would be best to have 5 squads of as many Kroot as they can, it COULD constitute spam.

As you said "It's a fine line, but the line is there, and taking lots of one unit does not, in my opinion, automatically constitute spam.And yes, as said before, it's very subjective", I don't believe something would automatically constitute spam and yes it is subjective, but this does mean that spam could exist, rather than 'redundancy=spam'...

I think we started on opposite sides of this debate but ended up saying very similar things.

I think we did this whole "debate" thing wrong.

haha! Yes, I was just thinking that as I posted my response. Actually, we did the whole debate thing right. Very right IMHO. We did the whole internet thing wrong!

Merriam-Webster wrote:
Main Entry: re·dun·dan·cy
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈdən-dən(t)-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural re·dun·dan·cies
Date: circa 1602
1 a : the quality or state of being redundant : superfluity b : the use of redundant components; also : such components c chiefly British : dismissal from a job especially by layoff
2 : profusion, abundance
3 a : superfluous repetition : prolixity b : an act or instance of needless repetition
4 : the part of a message that can be eliminated without loss of essential information

Notice the bolded parts, and think about spamming.

So in reagards to 40K:

Redundancy- Taking multiple units that serve the same primary purpose.

Spamming- Taking the same unit multiple times.

There's not a whole lot of difference. You can be redundant and not spam, but if you do spam, it's redundant. One is not more or less tactically sound then the other (though I'd argue being redundant with different units is more creative), and therefore require the same amount of tactical acumen to create and use.

darkdm wrote:

Merriam-Webster wrote:
Main Entry: re·dun·dan·cy
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈdən-dən(t)-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural re·dun·dan·cies
Date: circa 1602
1 a : the quality or state of being redundant : superfluity b : the use of redundant components; also : such components c chiefly British : dismissal from a job especially by layoff
2 : profusion, abundance
3 a : superfluous repetition : prolixity b : an act or instance of needless repetition
4 : the part of a message that can be eliminated without loss of essential information

Notice the bolded parts, and think about spamming.

So in reagards to 40K:

Redundancy- Taking multiple units that serve the same primary purpose.

Spamming- Taking the same unit multiple times.

There's not a whole lot of difference. You can be redundant and not spam, but if you do spam, it's redundant. One is not more or less tactically sound then the other (though I'd argue being redundant with different units is more creative), and therefore require the same amount of tactical acumen to create and use.

Well, now we're just playing with semantics.

We defined the two terms in the context of army lists early on in the thread. Throw Merriam-Webster out the window, please. We don't need'em.

Not everyone agrees with your definition.

I don't even agree that "spam" is an appropriate word to describe an army list at all in the first place.

Melissia wrote:Not everyone agrees with your definition.

I don't even agree that "spam" is an appropriate word to describe an army list at all in the first place.

I'm not sure who you're replying to, but if it was to me, you just inadvertantly made my point for me.

I don't agree with Merriam-Webster's definition in context. Neither does half this thread, apparently.

I never said anyone had to. Just that bringing more definitions onto the table isn't going to help anyone.

I was replying to both of you

Melissia wrote:I was replying to both of you

Fair 'nough.

Maybe in future we should define terms clearly before beginning a debate.

We can make up words so as not to step on anyone's toes regarding definitions.

"Vlork" and "windywoo" might work well.

I don't think windywoo means what you think it does.

And I don't think it is a term that is quite appropriate for this forum

I'm fairly certain it doesn't mean anything at all. It was a nonsense word that popped into my head. Am I wrong?

SaintHazard wrote:
Well, now we're just playing with semantics.

We defined the two terms in the context of army lists early on in the thread. Throw Merriam-Webster out the window, please. We don't need'em.

How is what I said any different from what others have been saying? And how is what the dictionary said any different than that? I didn't give a specific example, but I did mention redundancy and spamming in relation to 40K. I was merely providing backing for my argument. It may be an argument for symantics, but how is it any different then from:

Dark wrote:
- It's on my list: spam
- It's on his list: redundancy

The OP asked here the line is between redundancy and spamming lies, and I offered up my opinion with support, as worthless as it may be. Whether you agree with it is up to you, but ask (on the internet) and you will receive (untold amounts of unless opinions and facts).

Just Dave wrote:Wait wait wait, so this army wouldn't be classed as spam, merely redundancy? (for example):

The biggest problem I have with this list is the Farseers. If it was me, I'd at least set aside 20-40 points to add some variation between the two. They're independent characters, after all, not the products of an assembly line.

SaintHazard wrote:I'm fairly certain it doesn't mean anything at all. It was a nonsense word that popped into my head. Am I wrong?

Dude

Melissia wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:I'm fairly certain it doesn't mean anything at all. It was a nonsense word that popped into my head. Am I wrong?

Dude

I knew that.

Just making sure you were paying attention is all.

Obviously.

Yes, yes, becuase the complainer is always wrong.

I will admit, the difference between redundancy and spam has little to do with strategy and has more to do with sportsmanship, but it's annoying to see someone drop three Manticores on the field. It's even worse when it's a melta spam list, and you know that if you came back with a horde army, they'd have a disadvantage because they didn't invest in anything that could handle large groups on infantry.

Unless, of course, their anti-horde is their large blasts from their artillery/tanks.

Spam = redundancy.
Redundancy = efficient
efficient = good.

Melissia wrote:Unless, of course, their anti-horde is their large blasts from their artillery/tanks.

Ya, well, that's just another reason why I hate Guard with every fiber of my being.

kill dem stunties wrote:Spam = redundancy.
Redundancy = efficient
efficient = good.

That's an interesting conclusion. Tell me, how did you go from redundancy to efficiency?

I would argue the opposite. Redundancy is a failsafe. It does not automatically equal efficiency - in fact, often quite the opposite.

Redundancy sacrifices versatility. In certain situations, lack of versatility robs you of efficiency - you end up having to bash your way through the problem using your redundant forces.

See what I did there?

40k tabletop is a game of chance.

You cannot have true 100% efficiency.

Therefor, you maximize your efficiency by giving yourself more chances to succeed. One way to do this is by choosing the stronger, more powerful unit-- deathstar armies, herohammer armies (ugh), etc., which focus on a few hard-hitting units that always do a lot of damage. Another way to do this is by having a lot of cheaper unit-- redundancy, rolling a lot of dice and therefor tending towards an average that allows you to do damage.

Fail-safes are actually one of the most important parts of an efficient setup. If an attempt can fail, a failsafe reduces the harm the failure does. Because almost everything has a chance of failure for some reason or other, having no failsafe is inefficient.

But as has been said, should the redundancy you seek come in the form of multiple copy pasted units, such as 3x maxed out Las cannon Devastators, or one set of Devastators, a Predator and a Land Speeder?

Those both broadly fill the same roles in different ways, but one is more flexible overall, at least in my opinion.

A redundant or spammed list is easier to control and harder to counter as it is usually more uniform in composition and can provide a uniform level of threat. The former preventing your opponent from countering your positioning in a way that threatens you and the latter preventing your opponent from countering your positioning in a way that reduces your ability to kill them.

This is taken further in that having multiple units of certain types greatly helping your survivability.

A list that contains many different units can be effective and usually increases the odds of having a unit that is an effective counter to your opponents list. Unfortunately this also increases the chances of having an ineffective counter unit.

This could also be applied to spammed lists but generally the units chosen to be spammed (such as Vindicators) are effective against most of the major unit types (GEQ MEQ TEQ MC light/heavy tanks), other units (such as Melta Vets) are extremely effective at their role (especially roles such as anti tank that are so needed) and can be covered by other units that are very or extremely effective at the roles not covered by these units. (such as Guard artillery)

The non spammed lists can also suffer from the reverse of the advantages listed in the first paragraph, more difficult to control, easier to counter through positioning (offensively and defensively) and a lack of survivability in the units you need to counter your opponent.

This is not necessarily always true, non spammed lists can definitely be effective but in general it appears to me that a spammed list gains quite a few advantages.

Also just for future reference, how hard it was to make your list has little bearing in discussions about how good a list is, so the appearance of simply copy pasting doesn't mean much. What it does have bearing on is how much effort your opponent appeared to put into their list, but the reason we generally care about that is because we want to face an effective list/opponent, if the list is strong it doesn't matter if they copy pasted.

@GMR
Whenever these redundancy vs spam arguments pop up I usually see an argument very similar to the one you put up,

...should the redundancy you seek come in the form of multiple copy pasted units, such as 3x maxed out Las cannon Devastators, or one set of Devastators, a Predator and a Land Speeder?

As such I thought I would put up a more specific counter argument to it.

3x Las Cannon Devastators have less overall mobility and thus rely on fields of fire more than the alternative you posted but are much more survivable and provide a similar level of killing power. A major reason units are spammed is to overload an opponents ability to deal with what they need to eliminate. 3x Devastators means that the only effective fire at first is long range, anti MEQ fire that needs to get through ablative wounds before reducing firepower. With Devastators a Predator and a Land Speeder the above firepower has a target and the opponents anti light armor guns along with anti heavy armor guns get targets as well. The effects of having a few different types of guns are further addressed in paragraph 3. It is useful to have different guns but it is not always a positive.

If your doing it its redundancy.
If they're doing it it's spam

@H3ct0r

I do understand the ideas behind what everyone's calling 'spam', I know why it's done and I don't necessarily disagreee.

I suppose the question really is whether it's fun to fight this sort of thing, it tends to promote a sort of arms race of multi-unit one-upmanship, at least in my experience.

For instance I was playing against a list of Space Wolves with 3 long fang units, and on the first game my Tyranids got slaughtered by them, no real surprise though. I was fighting the same guy again and I took multible units of Ymgarl genestealers and beat him, next game he made a point of taking enough small groups to occupy all the buldings that the Ymgarls would be most dangerous from, he won that game, next time I took multiple drop podding termagants instead and won that, etc, etc.

I mean this isn't going to happen all the time, but its just an example where this kind of gameplay can take you.

Again I don't really know where I stand on this issue, like I said I understand it, it even makes sense from certain tactical perspectives, the real question is how much enjoyment will you and you're opponent get from it?

GMR wrote:But as has been said, should the redundancy you seek come in the form of multiple copy pasted units, such as 3x maxed out Las cannon Devastators, or one set of Devastators, a Predator and a Land Speeder?

Those both broadly fill the same roles in different ways, but one is more flexible overall, at least in my opinion.

That depends on the army, but overall I would say that quite frequently the copy-pasted units are better.

Consider, for example, a Sisters list: Your heavy support choices are Penitent Engines (expensive open topped 11/11/10 walkers with Rage), Retributors (expensive heavy weapons squad with HBs and/or MMs), or Exorcists (the single long-ranged anti-tank and best armor in the codex). The army does not need heavy bolters as much as it needs Exorcists. So most of the best lists take the full three. Even if you do not consider that they are often the primary targets of enemy anti-tank, Exorcists fire D6 shots, and therefor the more you have the more reliably you can deal damage. And there's not really any upgrades you can give them that benefit them.

Orks suffer from something similar. What if you want a footslogging Orks list? Well, that means you're more likely than not going for four to six identical squads as you have no options. Same with Tyranids. Even Marines, why would you risk only having two missile launchers and two meltaguns? There's only a 2/3rds chance of each one to hit, and then they have to penetrate and do damage afterwards.

There are a lot of valid opinions and interpretations and I would like to add something that people might be missing or confusing spam/redundancy with WAAC gamers and min maxers. A lot of people can safely say they've played less than enjoyable game against a WAAC player with a min maxed list such as hose guard or lash template spam (and before any *tactical genius* mentions the obvious, yes there is always a way to win against these lists)

I will also go through some definitions as I interpret things. Having Redundancy in a list is good merit as you want multiple units to fulfil a purpose in order to eliminate the scenario where a player’s sole anti tank unit is destroyed. Redundancy is often achieved via players equipping multiple units to achieve that role such as equipping all tac marines with a missile launcher and having dreds, preds, devastators etc so multiple units can fulfil an anti tank role

Spamming is another form of redundancy used, often seen in a green tide or tyranid swarm scenario. This often involves the use of multiple copies of the same unit in order to overpower or overwhelm the opponent. In this strategy, spamming a unit makes it harder for an opponent to eliminate a threat unit, allowing the player a greater chance of using on or more of using these units in their optimal role. In the case of orks and tyranids which are designed to play with a weight in numbers/bucket of dice strategy by GW, a player will generally try to have as many bodies in their armies due to their troops being fragile. This essentially gives an opponent too many units to deal with, allowing the ork/tyranid player to move them into CC and hopefully defeat the opponent. This is generally seen as a valid strategy by most players.

In some cases, spamming such as this can be seen as unimaginative, such as a Blood Angels player running an entire army of melta, fist jump pack troops. While running a BA army such as this is a valid strategy, along with its inherent strengths and weaknesses that may be apparent, it is viewed as being boring by some players.

Spamming can also be seen as being unsportsmanlike by some players when multiple copies of a powerful unit or combo are used. An example of this can be seen in a CSM army, where a player has 2 LOS HQs and as many heavy damage template units (such as Oblits, Defilers, Vindicators) that he can fit in. Often a spamming of this type can only be countered by either exploiting a key weakness (such as heavy psychic defence in the CSM example) or having a large amount of redundancy (such as having a large amount of anti tank capable units when facing mech spam guard). It can be noted that spamming key units can be seen as a valid strategy amongst some players and is possibly only an issue when a WAAC player is involved.

Anyway thanks for reading this wall of text. I would like to point out that these are just definitions and interpretations. Personally I have no problem with armies like green tide, tyranid swarm or jump pack spam BA. I however do think there is some merit to the spam argument when facing a WAAC player or a douche (but this is to be expected in a tournament scenario). I will also say that not every player that uses spam is a WAAC player or a douche. A WAAC player, TFG or a douche can only be classified through real life interactions with the player and not preliminary judgements on their 40k army list.

Just Dave wrote:I'd argue that Elitism is that, and the belief that you must be right and that those who oppose this belief are either ignorant and or/wrong or ("worth less than nothing")

To me, that is Elitism.

I never said anyone is worth less than nothing-- do not put words in my post that are not there. I have said that only about their opinions on that particular subject. Similar to if I said "your opinion that the sky is made of pancakes is without merit".

If you do not believe that opinions can be wrong, then I shall hold the opinion that the sky is made of pancakes. And I must be right, after all opinions cannot be wrong! Mmmm. Delicious, tasty pancakes. That is the real reason people want to fly. To visit the pancake farms. So let us go visit the great pancake in the sky. Or rather, the pancake we CALL the sky. Mmmmmmm, pancakes.

Yes.


edit: So, back on topic we go (for the second time?). When an Ork player uses six identical troops choices, people cry (in more ways than one) "spam" immediately. Even though this is actually quite fluffy and the intent of the codex even. If one is to define spam this way, then I would say there is nothing wrong with spam (though I disagree that it exists at all still).

Melissia has this one right I believe. So called "spam" can indeed be quite fluffy. Someone mentioned earlier that spam in an Eldar list would not be fluffy. Well a true fluffy Ulthwe force would be almost all guardians and a seer council with maybe a couple of supporting units. Spam? Fluff? Pancakes?

This topic was covered a while back in a thread started by Deadshane1. Hollisman Arbitorian and a few others make good headway into describing the difference between spamming and redundancy. It also does a good job of discussing why you usually look for redundancy but not spam in an all-comers list. This is because you are looking for a variety of tools to use against a variety of lists and taking more than what you need to get a particular job done means points wasted that could be used to make your list stronger in other areas.

Here is the thread:http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/253157.page


Hope this helps,

later

@Melissia

I have to concede that point, certain armies can't really be described as "spamming", since they only have a limited pool of viable units. Necrons for example, and as you say SoB.

And pancake sky? I wish you'd been in charge when the Earth was being built, we'd all be a lot happier. Or just fat.

Back on topic though, in older codices, certain choices were 0-1 selections, some still are, why would that have been done except to stop people using multiples of that type? Also, the whole force organisation chart is geared towards forcing you into taking a more varied list, since you can't just take whatever you like.

The best I can say on this argument is that it comes down to personal opinion and playstyle. I think more relaxed, casual gamers are going to define any repetition of units as spam, whereas for a more dedicated tournament player, no list can be inherently spammy because it has a better chance of winning and is therefore more logical.

Melissia wrote: do not put words in my post that are not there.

Once again, I'm smelling irony...

but yes, back on topic.


To me, there is a thin line between spam and redundancy and this thin line is - IMHO - contextual/subjective. To me it is how or why someone multiplies a unit that makes it spam or redundancy.
Eg. Multiplying for efficiency/fail safe. OR Multiplying because surely it's GR8888 and therefore should be taken loadsa times. I'm looking at you 30 TH/SS termies.

Whether he intended to or not, GMR just brought up an interesting point - force organization charts.

How can anyone say that spam is unfluffy when the force organization chart makes it so?

Is it unusual for a Space Marine strike force to have six squads of Tactical marines, two squads of Devastators, and two squads of Assault marines? Some people would say a force like that is spamming Tac marines... maybe even spamming Assault marines, but that part is debatable.

I say it's what an actual in-universe Space Marine strike force would look like. Sixty Tactical marines, ten Devastators, and twenty Assaults. Sounds fluffy to me.

I would rather face the most powerful list my opponent could field, just because someones list is hard doesn't make them TFG.

I don't like seeing weird lists when i play, then i have to rework mine, or play a different army so the game is fun. Not sayin the games arent fun, i just wanna play the best they have.

kill dem stunties wrote:I would rather face the most powerful list my opponent could field, just because someones list is hard doesn't make them TFG.

I don't like seeing weird lists when i play, then i have to rework mine, or play a different army so the game is fun. Not sayin the games arent fun, i just wanna play the best they have.

If playing a diverse or mixed army throws you off and forces you to rework your own army list in an attempt to counter mine, I'd say that's the very definition of playing the most powerful list I could field.

If playing a "spam" list is something you're used to me (the other player) doing and is something you're good at countering, then the spam list becomes the less powerful one.

SaintHazard wrote:I say it's what an actual in-universe Space Marine strike force would look like. Sixty Tactical marines, ten Devastators, and twenty Assaults. Sounds fluffy to me.

Make it twenty Devastators and I'd agree. That's pretty much the most fluffy Space Marine army you can have, straight out of the Codex Astartes.

Its not an attempt to counter yours, its an attempt to give you a sporting chance ... lol if you take horde orks you arent going to like facing my ig ... that kind of thing.

kill dem stunties wrote:Its not an attempt to counter yours, its an attempt to give you a sporting chance ... lol if you take horde orks you arent going to like facing my ig ... that kind of thing.

So... what you're saying is that no matter what the army list looks like, if it's not the most powerful, WAAC-driven army conceivable, you'll beat it easily?

Okay, we'll go with that then.

Whether you think spam is good, bad, or neutral, the term is applied to lists with copies of exactly or nearly identical units. Redundancy is more usually used as the term for having multiple ways to deal with threats. Thus, spamming is a form of redundancy.

Spamming is a pretty natural consequence of 5th edition. Before, armies generally min/maxed: taking the least amount of bad stuff (troops) and the most amount of good stuff (non-troops). 5th edition has opened that up in a lot of ways. Modern codexes have more and better troops choices, troops are a crucial part of scoring strategy, and most modern codexes have spread good units into more FOC slots, for things like Baals and Vendettas being Fast Attack, etc.

Couple those factors with the need in any non-xenos list for melta guns (as nearly the only top notch anti-tank), and spamming is a pretty inevitable result.

Not all great lists rely on spamming, if you look at the leaf blower list there isn't much repetition. There is a high amount of redundancy, however.

I take 2 manticores and a lrbt as heavys in most of my ig lists ...vendettas and mass chimera spam can handle everything that 2d3 str10 ap4 large blast cover ignoring shots a turn, alongside a str8 large blast cant .... you can take 180 boyz and theyll all be dead turn 2-3 depending on how the d3s go ... With emperors tarot from inq i have a better chance of going first than you, if you dont deploy you come in piecemeal from officer of the fleet, either way you die a messy crater filled death.

To avoid that ill run tyranids or something and not make a new list, but go and just pick a random one of the like 200 variations of tyranid lists i have saved on army builder rosters so we both have fun.... i dont list tailor, thats for lamers.

manticores don't ignore cover. In the IG book, only template (flamer) weapons, the eradictor, and the colossus ignore cover saves.

personally I think that unless a list is being played at a tournament, or in preparation for a tournament, that people should play w40k for what it is- a game.

not even drawing a line between redundancy and spam, if you take six minimum squads in razor backs because you love razor backs, the concept of razor backs, and everything about them, then thats fine and dandy.

If you take 6 min max razor back squads so you can beat peoples faces into the dirt and punish them for using a "fun list" which isn't geared for super competitive play... thats generally not being sporting.

not everybody is going to want to play in the shadow of a tournament all the time. Yes it is fun to send your best list against somebody elses and see what happens, but some times its fun to take the old swooping hawks out of the foam and let them fly around dropping grenade packs because its fun.

I think state of mind is important more than anything in these situations. Maybe you shouldn't take a top tier min maxed army to play against somebodies fluffy Iyanden wraithost, or somebody who has converted beautiful models that may not be ultra competitive but uses them because of the converting opportunity they posed.

On the flip side, I could see myself being irked if I built a fluffy or fun list based on models and sculpts I liked and I was staring down the barrel of a top tier min maxed redundant tournament army licking its teeth before it smugly tears me apart. I might slip up and do something silly like call it spam

While I agree with that, I'm not sure it's relevant. I think making the assertion "people should tailor list power to their situation" is roughly as bold a moral assertion as "apartheid was wrong."

On the other hand, tossing out words like "fluffy" and "fun" show that the theory has some missing peices. Is a green tide unfluffy or unfun? Fun for who? What fluff?

Iyanden Wraithhosts can and do win tournaments, see reecius's foot eldar list. It's definitely not weak, and I'm not sure it's amazingly fun to play against.

well. think about this.

squads in our wars have the same equipment, same training. the only thing that changes is their numbers and battalions.

what are you complaining about? theres nothing wrong with spam.

Polonius wrote:While I agree with that, I'm not sure it's relevant. I think making the assertion "people should tailor list power to their situation" is roughly as bold a moral assertion as "apartheid was wrong."

On the other hand, tossing out words like "fluffy" and "fun" show that the theory has some missing peices. Is a green tide unfluffy or unfun? Fun for who? What fluff?

Iyanden Wraithhosts can and do win tournaments, see reecius's foot eldar list. It's definitely not weak, and I'm not sure it's amazingly fun to play against.

You are correct in that. In my defense, I was making a broad assertion that generally something that is fluffy is not going to be super competitive, due to an added impulse to take certain units that may not be optimal. A gross overstatement to be sure.

I think however, that we can agree that even while there are thin lines in the examples that I provided- there are still competitive lists, and non competitive lists. Yes a non competitive list can win a tournament, especially local tournaments where a stellar player can do alot with a non optimal list (but he and his list likely won't win GT or something). Player ability is a big part of 40K, and nobody will ever deny that.

I merely assert that its not fair to place non competitive lists built for fun against competitive lists. Especially if the player with the competive player is fielding the list with the intention to see how quickly he can whipe the other players face across the floor. Yes it will be very vindicating if the under dog wins, but thats only because we like watching underdogs win, and doesn't change the sportsmanship of the match at all.

At the end of the day I think intentions are where the line should be drawn. If both players want to set thier finest efforts against eachother than WAAC is obviously the only way, and that will almost certainly mean unit redundancy (aka spam). once again though, its the intent of both players to play that. I really think this whole debate boils down to sportsmanship. I imagine that somebody claiming spam instead of redundancy is implying that thier opponent is not being sporting- yes they may often be mistaken, yes they may often be whining, but that doesn't mean they are always wrong. If the other party's intent is to punch a kick-around list in the nuts with a tournament class one... that is rather un sporting don't you think.

I agree on the competitive/non-competitive argument. What I find fault in is linking competitiveness in any way to fluff. Theme can sometimes be a stronger indicator of weakness, but even then we tend to only call weak lists with a strong theme "themed."

Don't be afraid of calling a beautifully painted, incredibly fluffy and well themed list very powerful. Look at horde orks!

Keep the concepts separate.

The problem some people have with "spam" lists (including myself) is thus: When two balanced, redundant, yet diverse lists face off, it is a game of chess. When one of the lists is spammy, it becomes a game of checkers or rock/paper/scissors where matchups and dice matter more than manuevering and target priority.

Examples:
If a Nid Tervispam Horde list squares off against an 18 Missle Launcher Long Wang Razor Spam space wolf list, no amount of clever manuevering is going to affect the outcome of that game. Only the dice rolls and the fact that the nids are at a serious disadvantage, matchup wise, have any real impact.

If you take two evenly matched spam lists, like Leaf Blower and Nob Biker (or Ghazwagon), then its entirely down to dice (particularly the roll to go first).

This is why I don't like playing spammy lists, as you inevitably placing yourself at the mercy of your dice and what matchups you draw. If I bring my Mech Guard list that has a little redundancy (everything in pairs), then there is some manuevering and generalship thrown in the mix. I am not saying building a powerful spammy list denotes a weak general (quite the opposite, since list building is one of the most important aspects of generalship), but a lot of times when you run that sort of list you are pretty much playing off of a flow chart once the armies are on the table and generalship matters far less than most other factors at that point.

As for what defines spam, like I said earlier, the rule of two is where I draw the line, unless the army list is limited or themed in the troops department. Specifically, Green Tide I would consider themed (2 mobs of Slugga and 2 of shoota, maybe one Hard Boyz) as is Eldar Jetbike lists. Not exactly a lot you can do with those armies, in terms of variation. On the other hand, 4 Tervigons and 2-3 10 man gaunt units is pure spam, as is 18 Long Fang ML and 8 Razorbacks.

Cambak wrote:People often say I go to far when I field 5-6 squads of veterans with triple melta in Chimeras ( Mech to counter a place with all mech armies).

I've never seen these lists do particularly well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phazael wrote:If you take two evenly matched spam lists, like Leaf Blower...

Every time someone refers to mechanized IG as "Leaf Blower", God rapes a kitten.

And Darkwynn's list wasn't spammy at all. Mediocre? Sure. Spammy? Not at all.

Phazael wrote:Long Wang Razor Spam space wolf list

Wait... uh... what?

Polonius wrote:Don't be afraid of calling a beautifully painted, incredibly fluffy and well themed list very powerful. Look at horde orks!

I would call my Sisters lists fluffy, and they're competitive...

And I would call an Ulthwe fluffy army uncompetetive. It's all down to whether the fluff actually lets you use good units

The manticore is ordinance barrage you draw cover for ord barrage from the center hole of the template, in effect this ignores most terrain, and almost all unit given cover.

In adddition the callidus assasin i ally in's a word in your ear pulls kff meks 6" aaway froma s large a groupa s i can to deny kff saves.

This also doesnt mention the fact every chimera has hull heavy flamer with1 pcs n 1ccs 4x flamer squads. And grenade launchers ... Its not hard to tabl;e horde orks by turn 3, unless they all reserve and have abd luck coming in ... then it might take to 5-6 lol.

Melissia wrote:

Phazael wrote:Long Wang Razor Spam space wolf list

Wait... uh... what?

Well, you know, it get's longer as they grow older xD

Dark wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Phazael wrote:Long Wang Razor Spam space wolf list

Wait... uh... what?

Well, you know, it get's longer as they grow older xD

I thought that mostly applied to their balls?

Now you know where the "Are you happy to see me or you got a Lascannon?" came from xD

Wow, this is the longest discussion of any topic I've ever started. Awesome! Usually I get a couple of posts and that's it. Well, I guess I found a hot button this time! I guess that the line is highly subjective, but in any case I have my opinion and he has his. I'll do what I must but try not to go overboard with it. Though I do like the Eldar List posted by Just Dave. That would be bad-ass! in a tourney environment.

Madness! wrote:I guess that the line is highly subjective, but in any case I have my opinion and he has his.

I completely agree and that this should be the perspective taken when it comes to redundancy/vs. Spam.
Also, thanks for the mention! I thought that myself when I posted it.

Anyways, you've now also managed to get your longest ever thread locked for Necromancy also! Congrats! (probably)