Howdy all,


So I just don't get why spam pisses off the masses. Sure spamming an OP unit like wave serpants or something can be a bit much, but what about the concept of spamming decent units... Like say... Venoms. They're not OP by any standards, sure they're good but why is taking 5 of them a crime? No one bitches about 5 drop pods... Or say 5 chimeras etc etc. Just looking for your thoughts community.

I think it depends on what army you are playing against. For example, if I played tau and faced a eldar wraithknight spam I wouldn't be too concerned due to the high strength/ignore cover weapons the tau have. On the other hand, if I played orks who don't have that much high strength/low AP weaponry I'd find it boring as hell as you are going to have a tough time killing one, nevermind 3.

Scouse-cat wrote:
I think it depends on what army you are playing against. For example, if I played tau and faced a eldar wraithknight spam I wouldn't be too concerned due to the high strength/ignore cover weapons the tau have. On the other hand, if I played orks who don't have that much high strength/low AP weaponry I'd find it boring as hell as you are going to have a tough time killing one, nevermind 3.

I see this philosophy, but honestly man, I've just been told from different venues, players with different armies etc that 5 venoms is cheese. I try reminding them that it's a 2 Hull Point AV10 transport with T3 5+ guys inside but no one listens...

I run 9 venoms, 3 ravagers and a beastpack at 1850.

I've never really heard anyone complain about it at tournaments these days.

Of course I don't play this list in casual games.....

What about spamming units that aren't that good? I like to have 4-5 dreadnaughts in my SM army sometimes. Each one is armed differently and they're hardly frightening.

But yes, spamming is generally not cool. It's boring and usually done to win and not for fun.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:

Scouse-cat wrote:
I think it depends on what army you are playing against. For example, if I played tau and faced a eldar wraithknight spam I wouldn't be too concerned due to the high strength/ignore cover weapons the tau have. On the other hand, if I played orks who don't have that much high strength/low AP weaponry I'd find it boring as hell as you are going to have a tough time killing one, nevermind 3.

I see this philosophy, but honestly man, I've just been told from different venues, players with different armies etc that 5 venoms is cheese. I try reminding them that it's a 2 Hull Point AV10 transport with T3 5+ guys inside but no one listens...

You really under rate the venom, it is a solid choice with a very high damage output. Especially against infantry, moreso armies that rely on toughness for durability. Sure spam itself isn't OP, you could spam pyrovores or Rhinos and largely no one would care. But when you spam good units like the venom...outside of competitive gaming it can lead to some very unfun games (Nids against Venom spam, or Daemons against Venom Spam largely are bad games for those players).

Yeah I don't get the hate, especially if you have a themed list.

Hey man, you're spamming bikers!

Um, yeah... I play Ravenwing.

Dude you're spamming rangers!

Yeah.... it's called Alatioc

Breng77 wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:

Scouse-cat wrote:
I think it depends on what army you are playing against. For example, if I played tau and faced a eldar wraithknight spam I wouldn't be too concerned due to the high strength/ignore cover weapons the tau have. On the other hand, if I played orks who don't have that much high strength/low AP weaponry I'd find it boring as hell as you are going to have a tough time killing one, nevermind 3.

I see this philosophy, but honestly man, I've just been told from different venues, players with different armies etc that 5 venoms is cheese. I try reminding them that it's a 2 Hull Point AV10 transport with T3 5+ guys inside but no one listens...

You really under rate the venom, it is a solid choice with a very high damage output. Especially against infantry, moreso armies that rely on toughness for durability. Sure spam itself isn't OP, you could spam pyrovores or Rhinos and largely no one would care. But when you spam good units like the venom...outside of competitive gaming it can lead to some very unfun games (Nids against Venom spam, or Daemons against Venom Spam largely are bad games for those players).

I think the venom's great, but it doesn't have the staying power other transports have. Also, the venom was an example. I just think often playing alot of one unit is often looked at unjustifiably as bad.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:



I think the venom's great, but it doesn't have the staying power other transports have. Also, the venom was an example. I just think often playing alot of one unit is often looked at unjustifiably as bad.

A venom's staying power comes from "Night Shields" and its ability to remove threats when used "en-masse". I used to use a mix of venoms and raiders but in the current environment, raiders are next to useless on the top tables.

Of course spam isn't OP, it's just a term of reference.

The reason spam exists, in the negative sense, once again leads back to rules imbalance, spam is a symptom of internal imbalance within a codex making one particular selection objectively and demonstrably better than anything else in that slot.

If the rules and effectiveness for units in a book were more even, spam itself would then become far less prevalent. It is a symptom, not the disease.

Sure, there are crossovers where spam and theme blur a little, but often I suspect a list is "spammy" if its good and "themed" if it isn't as effective, but again, better rules and this distinction goes away.

I got accused of spamming with my white scars list.

Spamming is really just taking the most cost-effective/best-performing unit and running with it.
<edit> Rightly said, spam done with the above intent is what gets people shouting out SPAM! in condemnation.

I think you would also be putting 3 "trueborn" with their big guns to make a gunship possibly the "night shields" as well so it also depends what you add to it for min/max of effectiveness.

If the load-out for these do not vary for different purposes it IS Spam! Embrace the Spam!

If you cannot find a footslogger army player with a sufficiently developed amount of masochism to play you, try out the Steel Legion guy and it might be close enough for you both to enjoy the game.

You cannot browbeat your opponent into believing what you are playing is not your go-to beatstick so it is up to you to decide if throttling back will give you a challenge and your opponent a chance at a win.

azreal13 wrote:The reason spam exists, in the negative sense, once again leads back to rules imbalance, spam is a symptom of internal imbalance within a codex making one particular selection objectively and demonstrably better than anything else in that slot.

Woah, woah. That's A reason spam armies exist. And it's only a reason for WAAC players.

And that's what people are complaining about when they complain about spam. They're complaining about WAAC players, but instead of having the courage or clarity to blame the player, they choose to blame one of the attributes of the list they brought. If you don't play WAAC, then instantly all problems with spam seem to vanish. No one will complain about a guard player who spams ogryn or a CSM player that spams mutilators or an eldar list that spams striking scorpions.

It's just people whining about other people who brought more powerful lists than they did. Instead of bringing a stronger list themselves, or playing people with a different attitude to the game, it's much more people trying to defer the fact that they're losing games away from anything that could look like personal responsibility.

With one exception.

There is a small number of people I've come across who genuinely think spam lists are unfluffy, which I've always found very strange. Eldar may show up with a variety of aspect warriors, but an imperial guard army that's nothing but a giant wave of infantry platoons doesn't.

But on the other side, of course, there's people like me. The reason spam armies exist for me is because I like spam armies. I like the aesthetic of a bunch of goobers doing one thing in one way, and the regimented formality of a cohesive, uniform fighting force. One-of-everything armies strike me as silly and unrealistic. In any case, it has nothing to do with codex imbalance and powergaming, as anyone who has seen my stormtrooper spam or exterminator spam armies can easily attest.

I think you'll find I addressed what I felt constitutes the difference between "spam" and "themed" in the rest of my post?

Basically, it still all boils down to the same thing, the rules as is allow WAAC to be a playstyle rather than an attitude.

Spam being the result of WAAC, though, is only true in the world of WAAC.

You said that there might be the idea of a "themed" list, but really, it's just spam, and it's because of bad rules.

Sounds more like an excuse to hate on 40k than anything else. Because I can tell you for a certainty that the reason I take lots of copies of similar units has nothing to do with how bad I think the 40k rules are.

 azreal13 wrote:
I think you'll find I addressed what I felt constitutes the difference between "spam" and "themed" in the rest of my post?
Basically, it still all boils down to the same thing, the rules as is allow WAAC to be a playstyle rather than an attitude.

The rules are not a proper competitive format.
If you min/max, it all boils down to army list/selection for a (usually) rock-paper-scissors result.
It is typically suggested that the use of scenarios or some "fluff bunny" armies can create a closer game outcome.

The only way you can balance two army lists is to select them like you will roll-off on who gets to play them.

Nobody wants to bring a knife to a gun fight.

 Talizvar wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
I think you'll find I addressed what I felt constitutes the difference between "spam" and "themed" in the rest of my post?
Basically, it still all boils down to the same thing, the rules as is allow WAAC to be a playstyle rather than an attitude.

The rules are not a proper competitive format.
If you min/max, it all boils down to army list/selection for a (usually) rock-paper-scissors result.
It is typically suggested that the use of scenarios or some "fluff bunny" armies can create a closer game outcome.

The only way you can balance two army lists is to select them like you will roll-off on who gets to play them.

Nobody wants to bring a knife to a gun fight.

Khorne does...

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Nobody wants to bring a knife to a gun fight.

Khorne does...

Because he does not care from where the blood flows...
<edit> Am I to assume you share his viewpoint that being a sacrifice in the field of battle is fine with you?

 Talizvar wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Nobody wants to bring a knife to a gun fight.

Khorne does...

Because he does not care from where the blood flows...
<edit> Am I to assume you share his viewpoint that being a sacrifice in the field of battle is fine with you?

Also, Khorne would totally bring a gun to a gun fight. He will make sure his is the biggest with explosive rounds, to make sure the general vicinity is a nice shade of crimson by the end of the fight.

Talizvar wrote:

Dalymiddleboro wrote:

Talizvar wrote:Nobody wants to bring a knife to a gun fight.

Khorne does...

Because he does not care from where the blood flows...
<edit> Am I to assume you share his viewpoint that being a sacrifice in the field of battle is fine with you?

Khorne cares very much where blood flows from. It's why there are flesh hounds. Khorne is the god of victory and triumph, not the god of slaughtering weaklings and innocents.

Anyways, something else I'd pitch in here is that if there is genuinely a difference between a spam army and a themed army, then what's the difference between a wave serpent spam army and a wave serpent themed army? What's the difference between a riptide spam army and a riptide themed army? What's the difference between a deathwing spam army and a deathwing themed army?

I would argue that there isn't one, and the distinction is a false one perpetrated by people who don't like losing.

 Ailaros wrote:
Spam being the result of WAAC, though, is only true in the world of WAAC.

You said that there might be the idea of a "themed" list, but really, it's just spam, and it's because of bad rules.

Sounds more like an excuse to hate on 40k than anything else. Because I can tell you for a certainty that the reason I take lots of copies of similar units has nothing to do with how bad I think the 40k rules are.

Stop using the H word. It isn't appropriate, nor is it accurate in this context.

The fact that "spam" has negative connotations is ONLY a result of rules imbalance. Otherwise it would just be a term to describe a list that relies on multiples of the same unit. Like I say, WAAC should be an attitude, but not a playstyle.

In this case, spam only has meaning because player decision does. As you say, if there were no stronger or weaker units, then the fact that you brought more or fewer of them wouldn't matter. No one complains that you spam pawns in chess.

But 40k isn't chess. It's a game where player decisions before the game has meaning. For combinations to have meaning, you need to have stronger and weaker combinations.

As such, spam is only a problem in a game where which pieces you bring to the table doesn't matter - like choosing which color in Sorry or which piece in Monopoly.

But that's not 40k. Nor should it be.

Therefore, by your definition of the word, 40k needs spam as much as spam needs 40k.

 Ailaros wrote:
In this case, spam only has meaning because player decision does. As you say, if there were no stronger or weaker units, then the fact that you brought more or fewer of them wouldn't matter. No one complains that you spam pawns in chess.

But 40k isn't chess. It's a game where player decisions before the game has meaning. For combinations to have meaning, you need to have stronger and weaker combinations.

As such, spam is only a problem in a game where which pieces you bring to the table doesn't matter - like choosing which color in Sorry or which piece in Monopoly.

But that's not 40k. Nor should it be.

Therefore, by your definition of the word, 40k needs spam as much as spam needs 40k.

Exalted

Spam on its own isn't OP. Mostly because that makes no sense.
Spamming a strong unit can make a list powerful (Maybe overpowered?)
Spamming a weak unit, no one really cares.
Most people dislike spam because it is usually featured on tourney lists where winning is all that matters. It's also usually not that fun to play.
Now there's nothing wrong with a highly competitive list but it has its place.

I personally like my lists to be cohesive and when I build a list I set out to achieve a goal.

In my aggressive Tyranid list I run 3 Mawlocs and 4 fliers, and some barebones troops. I used to run a combination of Flyrants, Zoanthropes, Tyrgon, Doom, and Devilgants in a pod. But with most of that inexplicably removed in this edition, it leaves me very low on options for a play style I did quite enjoy. Is this cheese? Doubtful. Plus, who is to say where the line is drawn. If I change a Mawloc to a Trygon its now just "T6 spam". If I wiggle my entire list around to have a fully varied team of aggressive units, then I got told my "deepstrike" spam is cheese. I've learned to basically just ignore what other people dub as cheese and play lists how I will enjoy them.




And to the guy insinuating that anything spammed is indeed cheese just because 40k does not have the balance issues of chess, that is beyond ridiculous. Part of playing 40k is list building. If you want a game where decisions made before the game do not affect the opening deployment, play chess. If you want a game where you can deliberate over unit choices for your plan of attack that you can deploy strategically, then play 40k.

Heh how long till this one goes?

I predict much trolling in your immediate future.

(I'm assuming Daly isn't trolling, but I'm well aware I could be wrong.)

Daly,
I think you need to re-read the previous threads. Just about everything that needs to be said was already said there. I really think you would benefit from understanding what the more rational people were trying to say.

Back on topic:

Venoms:
By some standards the Venom is, in fact, OP. Most people wouldn't place it very high on a list of broken units, but certain army builds that focus on them are clearly OP with regard to casual play.
Those builds aren't as bad as Serpent Spam, but a kick in the shin isn't fine just because it's not as bad as a kick to the head.
An individual Venom isn't usually much of a problem, but it can create a concentrated firepower issue when enough of them are used.
For a sample non-competative army, lets consider a basic Codex Marine army. Something like 2xTac squads, 1xDev, 1xAssault, and a vehicle or transport. Every time you face it, first round you poison the devs and lance the transport. Game over already, basically, as you can keep them from putting any meaninful hurt on Venoms once those are dead. Why is that fun from the SM player? Obviously, it's not.

Some players simply want to play those style armies (my SM armies almost always have that core), as games where they match up similar 'non-spamy' armies tend to have a lot of twists and turns. Those players will always be shut down by things like your Venom-Spam list. Once again, you're playing a different game than they are.

Other players want to adapt and succeed. Some of these simply aren't very good at it. If these are the type of players you play against, and your win record is as absurd as you seem to claim, then you either need to find a better challenge to make games interesting, or you need to change up your list to make games interesting. Perhaps throw in a beastpack or some Haemunculi.

Continually stomping players you know you can beat who aren't looking for competitive games is just the 40k version of pubstomping, and is ugly.

If you are pubstomping because your opponents can't adapt to your list, then the problem is you're too big a fish for that pond. If you're pubstomping because you're playing a different game than your opponent, then you're just being mean.

(Oh, and some people do bitch about 5 drop pods, because just like spamming Venoms, spamming Pods takes a lot out of the game)

 Ailaros wrote:
In this case, spam only has meaning because player decision does. As you say, if there were no stronger or weaker units, then the fact that you brought more or fewer of them wouldn't matter. No one complains that you spam pawns in chess.

But 40k isn't chess. It's a game where player decisions before the game has meaning. For combinations to have meaning, you need to have stronger and weaker combinations.

As such, spam is only a problem in a game where which pieces you bring to the table doesn't matter - like choosing which color in Sorry or which piece in Monopoly.

But that's not 40k. Nor should it be.

Therefore, by your definition of the word, 40k needs spam as much as spam needs 40k.

I think we're largely talking past one another here and suspect we're actually closer to agreeing than not. I would perhaps take issue with the fact that you say 40K needs spam. I would argue that 40K needs spam to be just another thing, along with not spam, which is neither a stronger or weaker way of approaching the game, rather than a result of someone going all out to win and taking advantage of an objectively better choice.

I think we perhaps need another term to describe lists which repeat units for non-WAAC purposes. This should be a term that isn't mutually exclusive with spam, as both are possible (if one were to genuinely wish to run a WS heavy Eldar list for reasons other than it is an extremely good choice for winning games for instance, doesn't mean it still isn't a spammy WAAC style list) but allows a delineation between the negative connoted, rules exploiting "spam" and the more narrative, love of the game and background related "other term"

Maybe bacon?

 azreal13 wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
In this case, spam only has meaning because player decision does. As you say, if there were no stronger or weaker units, then the fact that you brought more or fewer of them wouldn't matter. No one complains that you spam pawns in chess.

But 40k isn't chess. It's a game where player decisions before the game has meaning. For combinations to have meaning, you need to have stronger and weaker combinations.

As such, spam is only a problem in a game where which pieces you bring to the table doesn't matter - like choosing which color in Sorry or which piece in Monopoly.

But that's not 40k. Nor should it be.

Therefore, by your definition of the word, 40k needs spam as much as spam needs 40k.

I think we're largely talking past one another here and suspect we're actually closer to agreeing than not. I would perhaps take issue with the fact that you say 40K needs spam. I would argue that 40K needs spam to be just another thing, along with not spam, which is neither a stronger or weaker way of approaching the game, rather than a result of someone going all out to win and taking advantage of an objectively better choice.

I think we perhaps need another term to describe lists which repeat units for non-WAAC purposes. This should be a term that isn't mutually exclusive with spam, as both are possible (if one were to genuinely wish to run a WS heavy Eldar list for reasons other than it is an extremely good choice for winning games for instance, doesn't mean it still isn't a spammy WAAC style list) but allows a delineation between the negative connoted, rules exploiting "spam" and the more narrative, love of the game and background related "other term"

Maybe bacon?

I do approve of bacon. Not so much spam though. I have a friend who loves it. When we go out for breakfast he always orders the Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Baked Beans, Spam, Spam, Spam and Spam. I would get the Eggs, Bacon and Spam (it doesn't have much Spam in it) but I don't want any Spam.

Would you guys complain about fighting a SM Battle Company?

Sure its themed, a standard Space Marine fighting formation that almost every chapter runs multiples of.

Sure its got copies: 6 Tac, 2 Des, and 2 ASM squads, with a captain.

Is it powerful, MAYBE (if you run RG, where you can outflank 50 marines, and the other 50 have stealth).

Considering the above, would you consider a Battle Company SPAM?

Because I often enjoy opening my e-mail and finding stuff I want to read in there. But noooooo, every time I open my e-mail I find at least 1-2 things from Facebook in there asking if I know these 5-6 people it thinks I know for some damned reason.

If I didn't add any of the people I DO know, why would I want to add people whose names don't even seem familiar!?

(And if you're wondering why I have a Facebook account at all, it's because sometimes I like to pop in and see the stuff on GW's Facebook pages, but of course browsing Facebook requires an account...

 azreal13 wrote:
The reason spam exists, in the negative sense, once again leads back to rules imbalance, spam is a symptom of internal imbalance within a codex making one particular selection objectively and demonstrably better than anything else in that slot.

I agree. Obviously spam exists one way or another, that's not a question, but the reason it has a negative connotation is because of the way the rules work and because the rules are unbalanced.

No one cares if you spam a sucky unit, the only time they might care is if they don't understand the rules and perceive it to be a powerful unit.

Also, one reason people don't like spam is the inherent rock-paper-scissors of it. A lot of people prefer the idea that if you build a good list it's a good list regardless of who you play against. But whether we like it or not, 40k is a rock paper scissors game, and spamming a certain unit almost always increases the rock paper scissors-ness of it. Of course, one of the spammiest things in 40k is the fact GW gave Space Marines and MEQs a 3+ save.

Also, just by comparing to other vehicles, I don't get how the Venom looks cheesy.

The Heldrake is probably still the best overall non-super heavy vehicle in the core game, the Wave Serpent competes with it (arguably is better) and is, undoubtedly, the best transport in the game. The Razorback has more transport capacity than a Venom, better armor, more hull points, also has smoke launchers and searchlights, similar ability to damage infantry, better ability to damage mech, and costs the same.

Admittedly people call Razorback spam cheesy too.

The Chimera also has better armor, searchlights and smoke launchers, more anti infantry shooting, better anti-mech shooting, more hull points, a lower BS, and a higher transport capacity. It also costs the same as a Venom.

I'm comparing these things to the Venom before it pays for the 2nd s.cannon too - so really you're paying more for the Venom. 10 points to get 6 poison 4+ shots at AP 5 I think 10 points is pretty reasonable for that as an upgrade, especially since our vehicles are as expensive as far more durable and multi-purpose options that other armies get. Compared to other base line transports the Venom is hardly mind blowingly better. Heck, with the way the new rules work I'd probably prefer being able to put my Blaster Warrior builds into Razorbacks or Chimera - it would be more powerful and would cost less.

I'd offer to take Razorbacks or Chimera for some of your squads instead of Venoms. Then let them see if they still think Venoms are overpowered.

One of the reasons this creates wonkiness as well is that if derision of spam is nothing more than people complaining that they lost to powerful units, then part of the problem is agreeing on those powerful units that are spam, because they made you lose a couple of games.

The above post is a good example. Helldrakes are a niche weapon whose role is duplicated by almost the entire rest of the CSM codex, rather than the best unit in the game, while venom/raider spam armies is capable of comprehensively shutting down their opponents with little more than a few scratches unless their opponents play a gunline.

With disagreement on what constitutes higher and lower power units (and the entire 40k tactics board is a testament to the fact that there's rampant disagreement), then spam can't be defined as taking lots of good units, because there is no common agreement on what a good unit is.

Therefore, a person can only be upset with spam subjectively. Because THEY lost games to THOSE units which were taken in duplicate. Which is another reason that whining about spam is just that - whining.

brings up a good point though- what is cheese? Is it redundancy and smart list building, which our lists need to be in order to compete against all comers, or is that considered spam? Is it seriously game-balance shifting codwardexes that get broken further by devious minded uni-dimensional players? Or is it all good cheddar?

I consider "cheese" the spirit in which you build and manner in which you play your army; spinning skimmers for extra movement, taking obvious power units solely for their internet potential, and generally arguing to do things specifically because quote "the rules don't say I can't,

4 or 5 warrior squads in venoms are "cheese"? but I look at as providing redundancy and enough troops to compete with marines; just 2 tac squads are 4 troop choices in combat squads and 5/6 games require objectives. Is that cheese?

The fastest race in the galaxy has fliers that can't deepstrike, can't out maneuver flying mon-keigh tanks and can't out shoot interstellar undead, That's cheese!

 Talizvar wrote:

Nobody wants to bring a knife to a gun fight.

What if you're standing within 10 feet of each other? (As mythbusters and others have noted within a certain range the knife wielder wins)

On topic:

Spam wouldn't be a concern if the game was balanced, its not, and so some spam is op

I remember as a brand new player. First game ever. I was super excited to bring my new painted Grey Knights to the table.

Got tabled quickly by venom spam. It was pretty demoralizing.

Avinash_Tyagi wrote:Spam wouldn't be a concern if the game was balanced, its not, and so some spam is op

What about the 99% of spam armies that aren't overpowered? For every wave serpent spam list there is a dozen ways of spamming low-powered units that make UNDER-powered lists, not overpowered ones.

 Ailaros wrote:

Avinash_Tyagi wrote:Spam wouldn't be a concern if the game was balanced, its not, and so some spam is op

What about the 99% of spam armies that aren't overpowered? For every wave serpent spam list there is a dozen ways of spamming low-powered units that make UNDER-powered lists, not overpowered ones.

Note where I said "some spam is op"


And good rules and balance would sole the "underpowered" issue as well

Unit spamming usually shows a lack of creativity in list building. "oh, this unit is good? how many can I jam into my army?"

viewfinder wrote:
Unit spamming usually shows a lack of creativity in list building. "oh, this unit is good? how many can I jam into my army?"

Only if you define "creativity" as "making things more complicated just for the sake of making them complicated".

viewfinder wrote:
Unit spamming usually shows a lack of creativity in list building. "oh, this unit is good? how many can I jam into my army?"

Or sometimes cheap.
Oh? Imperial dreadnaughts are $20 on Ebay? Dread Spam! LOL! (That's actually how I started my Imperial Fist army. I've since expanded.)

 Peregrine wrote:

viewfinder wrote:
Unit spamming usually shows a lack of creativity in list building. "oh, this unit is good? how many can I jam into my army?"

Only if you define "creativity" as "making things more complicated just for the sake of making them complicated".

if GW had wanted only one build for any codex, they wouldn't have included all those stupid other units, now would they?

 Ailaros wrote:


But 40k isn't chess. It's a game where player decisions before the game has meaning. For combinations to have meaning, you need to have stronger and weaker combinations.

Because the thousands of hours and books devoted to chess opening theory are totally meaningless.

Pre-Game decisions of variations to play are pivotal. Vladimir Kramnik, a previous world champion is noted for the extreme depth of his preparation.

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:


But 40k isn't chess. It's a game where player decisions before the game has meaning. For combinations to have meaning, you need to have stronger and weaker combinations.

Because the thousands of hours and books devoted to chess opening theory are totally meaningless.

Pre-Game decisions of variations to play are pivotal. Vladimir Kramnik, a previous world champion is noted for the extreme depth of his preparation.

Oh, are we still pretending that 'game balance' = 'sameness?' Because it doesn't. Stop using the chess analogy. It's not at all what is meant by game balance.
Units will be different. Fast units that hit hard but little armor vs slow units that are tough...or whatever. The thing is, each should be a viable choice, it would just depend on what tactics you use. Maybe that fast weak one is really good against infantry, but crap vs tanks. This would also end spamming because if you spammed the fast weak guy and run up against a tank heavy army, you'd be hosed. Instead you'd want a good balanced mixed...I can't believe I actually have to explain this. So, maybe one army is slow and tough but within that style, there are CC units, long range AT units, etc. So, each army would play different with own strengths and weaknesses and style of play. =/= sameness.

Stop equating balance to chess, unless you play chess where white had twice as many pawns but black pawns could only be taken by two or more white pawns and the rooks can also...

I think it has a lot to do with the context of play. If you are playing friendly games some might find it too competitive or too "OP". I have IG and play with platoons and Chimeras, but I never take it against my brother because he does not have enough AP to take it on.

I however do not think spamming small infantry like Guants, Boyz, and IG to be OP when alone, any blast template will have a hayday. My rule is unless I know the guy I dont not take my 7 Chimeras, some of the AP options of the game cost so money that new player may not have yet.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:


But 40k isn't chess. It's a game where player decisions before the game has meaning. For combinations to have meaning, you need to have stronger and weaker combinations.

Because the thousands of hours and books devoted to chess opening theory are totally meaningless.

Pre-Game decisions of variations to play are pivotal. Vladimir Kramnik, a previous world champion is noted for the extreme depth of his preparation.

Oh, are we still pretending that 'game balance' = 'sameness?' Because it doesn't. Stop using the chess analogy. It's not at all what is meant by game balance.
Units will be different. Fast units that hit hard but little armor vs slow units that are tough...or whatever. The thing is, each should be a viable choice, it would just depend on what tactics you use. Maybe that fast weak one is really good against infantry, but crap vs tanks. This would also end spamming because if you spammed the fast weak guy and run up against a tank heavy army, you'd be hosed. Instead you'd want a good balanced mixed...I can't believe I actually have to explain this. So, maybe one army is slow and tough but within that style, there are CC units, long range AT units, etc. So, each army would play different with own strengths and weaknesses and style of play. =/= sameness.

Stop equating balance to chess, unless you play chess where white had twice as many pawns but black pawns could only be taken by two or more white pawns and the rooks can also...

The problem with 40k is that not all armies have access to the same options, for example nids lack good long range anti tank and will suffer against venom spam no matter what they do.
And there is also a lot of crappy units.

 Tyran wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:


But 40k isn't chess. It's a game where player decisions before the game has meaning. For combinations to have meaning, you need to have stronger and weaker combinations.

Because the thousands of hours and books devoted to chess opening theory are totally meaningless.

Pre-Game decisions of variations to play are pivotal. Vladimir Kramnik, a previous world champion is noted for the extreme depth of his preparation.

Oh, are we still pretending that 'game balance' = 'sameness?' Because it doesn't. Stop using the chess analogy. It's not at all what is meant by game balance.
Units will be different. Fast units that hit hard but little armor vs slow units that are tough...or whatever. The thing is, each should be a viable choice, it would just depend on what tactics you use. Maybe that fast weak one is really good against infantry, but crap vs tanks. This would also end spamming because if you spammed the fast weak guy and run up against a tank heavy army, you'd be hosed. Instead you'd want a good balanced mixed...I can't believe I actually have to explain this. So, maybe one army is slow and tough but within that style, there are CC units, long range AT units, etc. So, each army would play different with own strengths and weaknesses and style of play. =/= sameness.

Stop equating balance to chess, unless you play chess where white had twice as many pawns but black pawns could only be taken by two or more white pawns and the rooks can also...

The problem with 40k is that not all armies have access to the same options, for example nids lack good long range anti tank and will suffer against venom spam no matter what they do.
And there is also a lot of crappy units.

Granted, i don't think i've played against venom.... but they really don't look that horrible. They are AV 10 vehicules. My devgaunts can hurt them! So everthing in my army aside from hormagaunts can. It's the 11+ AV vehicules that start hurting nids, if the enemie have multiple of them. Specialy landraiders. Of course, i could prepare by bringing 9 zoan and 3 rupture tyranofexes, but in most normal nid armies, it's easy to target the 2-3 things that can even hurt strong vehicules. =/

 Happyjew wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
In this case, spam only has meaning because player decision does. As you say, if there were no stronger or weaker units, then the fact that you brought more or fewer of them wouldn't matter. No one complains that you spam pawns in chess.

But 40k isn't chess. It's a game where player decisions before the game has meaning. For combinations to have meaning, you need to have stronger and weaker combinations.

As such, spam is only a problem in a game where which pieces you bring to the table doesn't matter - like choosing which color in Sorry or which piece in Monopoly.

But that's not 40k. Nor should it be.

Therefore, by your definition of the word, 40k needs spam as much as spam needs 40k.

I think we're largely talking past one another here and suspect we're actually closer to agreeing than not. I would perhaps take issue with the fact that you say 40K needs spam. I would argue that 40K needs spam to be just another thing, along with not spam, which is neither a stronger or weaker way of approaching the game, rather than a result of someone going all out to win and taking advantage of an objectively better choice.

I think we perhaps need another term to describe lists which repeat units for non-WAAC purposes. This should be a term that isn't mutually exclusive with spam, as both are possible (if one were to genuinely wish to run a WS heavy Eldar list for reasons other than it is an extremely good choice for winning games for instance, doesn't mean it still isn't a spammy WAAC style list) but allows a delineation between the negative connoted, rules exploiting "spam" and the more narrative, love of the game and background related "other term"

Maybe bacon?

I do approve of bacon. Not so much spam though. I have a friend who loves it. When we go out for breakfast he always orders the Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Baked Beans, Spam, Spam, Spam and Spam. I would get the Eggs, Bacon and Spam (it doesn't have much Spam in it) but I don't want any Spam.

Exalted for Monty Python reference

Repetition works.

I like spam.
It gives armies a distinctive theme and simplifies the game.

Since the game lacks balance, spamming a powerful unit breaks the game. But this is a problem caused by the game lacking balance. Not a problem caused by spam. Few people complain if you spam, say, Khorne Berserkers with Rhinos.

Loved the MP reference too.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
The Razorback has more transport capacity than a Venom, better armor, more hull points, also has smoke launchers and searchlights, similar ability to damage infantry, better ability to damage mech, and costs the same.

Admittedly people call Razorback spam cheesy too.

Well... i think this is a real bad comparison.

The RB has 1 more AV at front and side, but thats just a small advantage most of the times cause weapons designed to hurt vehicles really dont care whether it is AV 10 or 11. Sure a Venom can be glanced to death by bolters, but therefore it gets a lot of other advantages:

First of all its a fast scimmer. It can move 12 and shoot its weapons at full BS. I wont go into detail about the advantages of speed.

Smoke launchers are one use only and you just get a cover save of 5+. Not too good with all those cover ignoring weapons out there. If you use it, you cant fire youre weapons. Flickerfield gives you a 5+ invulnerable, which also works in CC and you can still fire your weapons. In Addition you can get a 4+ coversave while turboboosting.

Searchlights... well you loose the advantages of nightfighting if you use them. DE dont care about nightfight due to night vision. So a venom can shoot everything without loosing the advantages of night fighting.

A venom is open topped, so everbody in it can shoot. A squad in a Razorback cant fire a single shot.

Units disembarking from a venom can assault in the same turn, while Marines are still busy getting out of their Metal BAWKSES.

So... yes the venom is less durable as a razorback but has a lot of other benefits which make it the better choice.


The venom is a real good unit and absolutely worth its points. I dont think just spamming venoms alone isnt the real problem with them. It depends on which unit you put into them. 3 Trueborn with 2 splintercannons doubles its firepower. Add in some nightshields and youve got a highly mobile unit with 24 poisoned shots at 36" which reduces enemy fire by 6" for 130 points. This is when spamming them starts to smell like cheese.

Think nobody would care about 4-5 venoms filled with suicide wyches, cause they have to get close to deliver their cargo, so they are easy to destroy. But if they can stay in the backfield and dish out their nasty Anti Infantry/MC fire... thats another story.

I don't have a problem with spamming from a tactical viewpoint. 'If one is good, more is better' is frequently a pretty sound philosophy, especially in wargames. Not absolute, but still pretty effective. I especially use it myself whenever I want to see how good/bad a unit is.

I tend to hold in low regard the practice of doing it habitually. If EVERY list you build spams multiples of the units YOU consider good, then you're a spammer. It isn't that it's unfair, it's that it represents a fundamental lack of originality in thought. If you want to play a wargame where, like in WoW, there is only one right build, and only one right way to play, then you should just go play Axis and Allies. It'd be cheaper, you'd be among peers, and you wouldn't have to listen to anyone whine about your spam anymore.

And while you may not agree, Daly, the community consensus is that Venoms are one of the best things to happen to the Dark Eldar since the invention of pvc pants. In its optimal configuration, It's got twelve poisoned shots, a cover save, an invulnerable save, AND a transport capacity, all for under a hundred points. It synergizes with certain lists well (the Duke can let it Deep Strike for free) and can perform in multiple roles. All for under eighty points. It's sex on a flight stick, and that's a fact.

I find that more varied lists produce more interesting games. Different units require different strategies to defeat, and it just makes the tactics much more involved .

I suppose there is a difference between spam and spam spam spam spam spam on spam with spam on the sides.

There will be a point where your need to spam affects your list, and that is when you have begun to over spam. Heldrakes are cool, but when you need to shave points off your troops, elite, heavy support and HQ in order to fit your 7th one in, maybe you have gone a little bit too far with it.

Is spamming wraiths wrong?
Anyways, even though I play crons, so naturally wraithspam is a clear choice if ya wanna win. But I think I'm going to avoid the game and stick to variety.

The problem seems rather obvious to me. As other posters have pointed out, when people are complaining about duplication, they are complaining about the duplication of overpowered units, not the duplication of units in general.

There are certain units in this game, that when taken, provide the player with a distinct gameplay advantage independent of the consideration of any particular set of tactics or opponents. The game is full of such units, and we can probably all agree that the usual suspects, wave serpents, heldrakes, riptides, vendettas, night scythes, etc. provide the player with a clear gameplay advantage well out of proportion to their points cost or competing FOC options. If a single one of these units can provide someone with a clear gameplay advantage, then the logical extension of this principle is that three of said units will provide three times said advantage.

This advantage is further compounded by another quirk of 40k, which is that homogeneous army builds tend to be far more resilient than rainbow builds, as a TAC build can make use of all its units effectively against the latter while only a fraction of its units/weapons are useful against the former. For example, a parking lot army will render all small arms and anti-infantry guns useless, and a TAC army will be required to defeat a parking lot army solely through the strength of its anti-armor units. So while taking out a single Wave Serpent might be trivial, neutralizing 6 wave serpents can be downright impossible. Also, some sets of units making natural pairings when taxing a particular kind of firepower, such as venoms and ravagers.

When taken together, these two separate advantages can lead to a geometric scaling of army power by duplicating the correct units. Having to go against 3 copies of a particular unit can be daunting, but many armies can replicate strong choices well beyond force org limits. Some of the strongest units in the game, namely Wave Serpents and Night Scythes, are dedicated transports that can be duplicated almost without limit. Then you have the natural pairing of strong unit types from two separate FOC charts, such as a Tau army fielding 3 Riptides and 3 Broadside squads. And then there are ally Shenanigans: Tau can ally with the Farsight enclaves to field up to 5 Riptides in a single FOC, while Chaos can ally with Guard to field 3 heldrakes and a squad of 3 Vendettas. Once you hit 2000 points, double FOC enables the player to double all the above silliness.

When people complain about spam, this is what they are talking about. They are not complaining that your White Scars are fielding 4 bike squads or your Imperial Guard are fielding 5 platoons are what have you. To insist otherwise is to lose oneself in semantics and miss the point entirely.

I don't get it.... Play what you want and I'll play you. Just agree what type of game your going to play beforehand. Friendly or competitive.

I think people getting angry is just a lack of communication. I brought a list to a friendly game I shouldn't have brought. Titan under 9 Void Shields. It was wrong but I had never seen a Titan or Void shields in play. I should have asked can I see these in play. My fault I didn't communicate.

Now when there is prize involved I don't think there is any reason not expect to see anything and everything to show up. The people that get mad b/c I have 3 Doom Scythes and 4 Night Scythes in my 1500pt Tournament list really confuse me. You go to a Tournament to play fluff? I think it comes down people don't like to lose so they get angry at anything they perceive messed up their chances to win.

Addaran wrote:

Granted, i don't think i've played against venom.... but they really don't look that horrible. They are AV 10 vehicules. My devgaunts can hurt them! So everthing in my army aside from hormagaunts can. It's the 11+ AV vehicules that start hurting nids, if the enemie have multiple of them. Specialy landraiders. Of course, i could prepare by bringing 9 zoan and 3 rupture tyranofexes, but in most normal nid armies, it's easy to target the 2-3 things that can even hurt strong vehicules. =/

If you can catch a venom then you can kill it, the problem is catching it. Most of the nid weapons are short ranged, meanwhile the Venom has a 36" weapon. And don't forget its weapons are poisonous, so they will hurt anything with a 4+. Tyranid MC aren't more resistant that a bunch of space marines against it.

 Mythra wrote:
I don't get it.... Play what you want and I'll play you. Just agree what type of game your going to play beforehand. Friendly or competitive.

I think people getting angry is just a lack of communication. I brought a list to a friendly game I shouldn't have brought. Titan under 9 Void Shields. It was wrong but I had never seen a Titan or Void shields in play. I should have asked can I see these in play. My fault I didn't communicate.

Now when there is prize involved I don't think there is any reason not expect to see anything and everything to show up. The people that get mad b/c I have 3 Doom Scythes and 4 Night Scythes in my 1500pt Tournament list really confuse me. You go to a Tournament to play fluff? I think it comes down people don't like to lose so they get angry at anything they perceive messed up their chances to win.

I agree completely with this.

 Mythra wrote:
I don't get it.... Play what you want and I'll play you. Just agree what type of game your going to play beforehand. Friendly or competitive.

I think people getting angry is just a lack of communication. I brought a list to a friendly game I shouldn't have brought. Titan under 9 Void Shields. It was wrong but I had never seen a Titan or Void shields in play. I should have asked can I see these in play. My fault I didn't communicate.

Now when there is prize involved I don't think there is any reason not expect to see anything and everything to show up. The people that get mad b/c I have 3 Doom Scythes and 4 Night Scythes in my 1500pt Tournament list really confuse me. You go to a Tournament to play fluff? I think it comes down people don't like to lose so they get angry at anything they perceive messed up their chances to win.

I agree with this. The problem is bringing spam to casual games.

For a tourney, I expect to face this kind of stuff. Venom spam, helldrakes, wave serpents, etc. Therefore I will bring my dual TL-BL flyrants, venoms, etc for my Nids. People aren't complaining about others bringing the best units to tourneys where prizes are on the line.

But for casual games, it gets boring facing the same copy-paste lists (with maybe one or two units changed at most) every time I go to my FLGS. I want to be able to play a blob guard army and run 180+ little guys or walking tyrants or other non-optimized units, or a necron army that isn't just min 5 warrior squads in scythes. Is it too much to ask to play a DE army in a casual game where it doesn't have 9 venoms and tons of splinter-born?

Spam is a problem when it is to the detriment to other players' enjoyment of the game. People go to tournaments to compete against the best. While I personally don't like the 40k has all of these optimized units that leads to spamming, I am fine facing them at tourneys and expect it. People also want to be able to play casual games against a variety of armies. That is where spamming optimized units annoys people.

Seems everyone is pretty much on the same wavelength.

If we understand it is a competitive game SPAM or anything else within the rules is fair game and expected.

It is the "fun" games when bringing a competitive list is of "poor taste".
This is when people want to field themed lists or a mix of units for a more balanced play.
Bringing the more cost effective/capable models in volume smacks of competitive play.
I still think you have to approach it like you could play either army.

What was the WWII Soviet army except infantry spam, Sturmovik spam and T-34 spam? Sprinkle in some Yaks and KV-2's.

 Freytag93 wrote:

 Mythra wrote:
I don't get it.... Play what you want and I'll play you. Just agree what type of game your going to play beforehand. Friendly or competitive.

I think people getting angry is just a lack of communication. I brought a list to a friendly game I shouldn't have brought. Titan under 9 Void Shields. It was wrong but I had never seen a Titan or Void shields in play. I should have asked can I see these in play. My fault I didn't communicate.

Now when there is prize involved I don't think there is any reason not expect to see anything and everything to show up. The people that get mad b/c I have 3 Doom Scythes and 4 Night Scythes in my 1500pt Tournament list really confuse me. You go to a Tournament to play fluff? I think it comes down people don't like to lose so they get angry at anything they perceive messed up their chances to win.

I agree with this. The problem is bringing spam to casual games.

For a tourney, I expect to face this kind of stuff. Venom spam, helldrakes, wave serpents, etc. Therefore I will bring my dual TL-BL flyrants, venoms, etc for my Nids. People aren't complaining about others bringing the best units to tourneys where prizes are on the line.

But for casual games, it gets boring facing the same copy-paste lists (with maybe one or two units changed at most) every time I go to my FLGS. I want to be able to play a blob guard army and run 180+ little guys or walking tyrants or other non-optimized units, or a necron army that isn't just min 5 warrior squads in scythes. Is it too much to ask to play a DE army in a casual game where it doesn't have 9 venoms and tons of splinter-born?

Spam is a problem when it is to the detriment to other players' enjoyment of the game. People go to tournaments to compete against the best. While I personally don't like the 40k has all of these optimized units that leads to spamming, I am fine facing them at tourneys and expect it. People also want to be able to play casual games against a variety of armies. That is where spamming optimized units annoys people.

Yeah who would want to play vs. any list and have fun, good thing there are units that suck or are OP so that doesn't happen.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Also, just by comparing to other vehicles, I don't get how the Venom looks cheesy.

The Heldrake is probably still the best overall non-super heavy vehicle in the core game, the Wave Serpent competes with it (arguably is better) and is, undoubtedly, the best transport in the game. The Razorback has more transport capacity than a Venom, better armor, more hull points, also has smoke launchers and searchlights, similar ability to damage infantry, better ability to damage mech, and costs the same.

Admittedly people call Razorback spam cheesy too.

The Chimera also has better armor, searchlights and smoke launchers, more anti infantry shooting, better anti-mech shooting, more hull points, a lower BS, and a higher transport capacity. It also costs the same as a Venom.

I'm comparing these things to the Venom before it pays for the 2nd s.cannon too - so really you're paying more for the Venom. 10 points to get 6 poison 4+ shots at AP 5 I think 10 points is pretty reasonable for that as an upgrade, especially since our vehicles are as expensive as far more durable and multi-purpose options that other armies get. Compared to other base line transports the Venom is hardly mind blowingly better. Heck, with the way the new rules work I'd probably prefer being able to put my Blaster Warrior builds into Razorbacks or Chimera - it would be more powerful and would cost less.

I'd offer to take Razorbacks or Chimera for some of your squads instead of Venoms. Then let them see if they still think Venoms are overpowered.

So statistically the venom vs a Razorback. from damage output against Infantry.

Vs MEQ the Venom is slightly better
Vs TEQ the Venom is slightly better
Against 4+ saves a Razorback is slightly better
Against a 5+ save a Venom is slightly better
Against T3 the Razorback is slightly better.
Against T5 or higher the Venom is way better.

Chimera is slightly better against most lower end targets, but worse against high toughness. Throw in again 10 points to double the output.

Throw in that for 10 points you double its effectiveness. (It would be the equivalent of taking another Heavy Bolter on a Razorback for 10 points)

It also has fire points (open topped), can move 12" and fire everything (big deal with LOS blockers in play).

Durability, against S7 shooting it is more difficult to put a damage result on a venom then on a razorback, as strength gets higher the odds for the venom improve. Now open topped and one less hull point hurt a bit here. If chimeras give up side armor venom is better hands down.

It also has a much higher upside due to more shots. No matter how well I roll a Razorback puts out 3 wounds, a venom puts out up to 6 (un upgraded) or 12 with upgrades.

What makes the venom better than the razorback comes down to movement, passengers, and Nightshields.

Between items 1 and 3, a lot of weapons that threaten both can be completely avoided by the venom and item allows the venom to either focus even more firepower at its target (splinter riffles + blaster) or threaten armored targets (blaster).

Between its size, speed, and Nightshields, I can't think of any direct fire vehicle in the game that is better at doing damage while avoiding getting even shot at in the first place.

I look at it this way. 6th Ed rules hurt other vehicles far more than the venom (arguably they help the venom.).

Venoms were always about as survivable as they are now (possibly less so in 5th ed when everyone was geared up for anti-tank, venom spam was hard countered by GK RB/Psyfleman spam at the end of 5th). But venoms already died really quickly when penetrated, so nothing changed there, but other vehicles were far more durable. Throw in that splinter cannons are great Vs infantry and garbage VS vehicles, and then look at the Meta where vehices are less common (and as such anti-vehicle shooting), and arguably the venom is not more lethal and more survivable.

Breng77 wrote:
I look at it this way. 6th Ed rules hurt other vehicles far more than the venom (arguably they help the venom.).

Venoms were always about as survivable as they are now (possibly less so in 5th ed when everyone was geared up for anti-tank, venom spam was hard countered by GK RB/Psyfleman spam at the end of 5th). But venoms already died really quickly when penetrated, so nothing changed there, but other vehicles were far more durable. Throw in that splinter cannons are great Vs infantry and garbage VS vehicles, and then look at the Meta where vehices are less common (and as such anti-vehicle shooting), and arguably the venom is not more lethal and more survivable.

The last 5th edition tournament I played in was the ATC. I kept track of how many venoms I lost to glancing 6's vs how many venoms where still playing around after 2 pens/glances. In the two days of the event I lost 6 venoms to a single glancing hit and only had 2 that survived taking more than 2 glances/pens. DE in general benefited greatly from the new vehicle rules. It made our vehicles slightly more resilient while making other vehicles more vunerable to our AT weapons (thanks to hullpoints!).

Just thought I'd add this

Martel732 wrote:
What was the WWII Soviet army except infantry spam, Sturmovik spam and T-34 spam? Sprinkle in some Yaks and KV-2's.

You forget their self-propelled guns and rocket artillery such as the Katyusha

That too.

Martel732 wrote:
What was the WWII Soviet army except infantry spam, Sturmovik spam and T-34 spam? Sprinkle in some Yaks and KV-2's.

Y HALO THAR IGNORANT STEREOTYPES.

Towards the end of the war the soviet military was every bit the equal in terms of planning that the Germans were and had mastered the art of long distance over-land logistics.

Describing them as "lol zergrushers" is borderline racist.

 Kain wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
What was the WWII Soviet army except infantry spam, Sturmovik spam and T-34 spam? Sprinkle in some Yaks and KV-2's.

Y HALO THAR IGNORANT STEREOTYPES.

Towards the end of the war the soviet military was every bit the equal in terms of planning that the Germans were and had mastered the art of long distance over-land logistics.

Describing them as "lol zergrushers" is borderline racist.

Yeah, I know that too. But they were REALLY good at spamming the things they liked. Compare the T-34 count to the Panther or Tiger count. The Germans never had a chance. The WWII Germans are actually one of the most overrated forces in history and I hate how most wargames (Flames of War) kiss their boots and make them godly.

How does flames of war make them godly? The premier german armor and weapons are hella expensive and usually prone to getting bogged down due to being over burdened. On the flip side Russians can bring massive amounts of armor, guns, and infantry for the same points, and in the case of the Tank Destroyers, the Russians have some of the best. And Katusha Rockets are terrifyingly effective.

 gardeth wrote:
How does flames of war make them godly? The premier german armor and weapons are hella expensive and usually prone to getting bogged down due to being over burdened. On the flip side Russians can bring massive amounts of armor, guns, and infantry for the same points, and in the case of the Tank Destroyers, the Russians have some of the best. And Katusha Rockets are terrifyingly effective.

I refuse to play a game that has the "Storm Trooper" rule, because the Germans were actually slower than the Americans and Soviets, due to having horse drawn equipment. Every time I have seen Flames of War played or played in it (about four times, fyi), the Germans have been invincible gods. Clearly whomever wrote Flames of War never stopped to check to see who actually won that war. Major turn off. Horribly inaccurate. Thus are the perils of making a game based off stuff that actually happened and existed. 40K can get away with literally anything. I can assure that the real life German did not have jitterbug Tiger tanks.

As someone who plays Flames of War I can tell you that the Germans are far from all powerful. My US paras have yet to lose a game to germans (though had a close call vs a tiger company). Also, the storm trooper move represents the tactical flexibility and agility that the Germans demonstrated through the war, not the logistical transport from theater to theater. Its this flexibility and ability to seize the initiative that allowed the much smaller German force to initially overpower then still slow an enemy that outnumbered them greatly.

As a huge WWII history buff I am exceedingly pleased with how Flames has handled the unit and army special rules.

"the storm trooper move represents the tactical flexibility and agility that the Germans demonstrated through the war,"

Yeah, because the Brits and Americans, didn't have that at all. I'm sick of war games sucking the Germans' you-know-what. They lost. For a reason.

You know what, I am not going to keep hijacking this thread to try and explain this to you. Pickup a book or watch some documentaries on just how amazingly well organized the German war machine was in WW2 when compared to the rest of the world. There's a reason they conquered most of Europe and a good chunk of Northern Africa and Russia despite being massively out numbered and out gunned. To deny this is to ignore the lesson of the dangerous of ignoring a militarized nation until it is too late and how the rest of the world didnt just roll over for Germany in WW2, they were beaten back by a force that was better prepared, better trained, and more organized by a wide margin.

Germany thankfully lost the war because of fighting on too many fronts with over extended supply lines against enemies who they could not even begin to compete with logistically.

It is ok to dislike or even hate an enemy, but DON"T downplay the danger they represented or the effectiveness with which they waged ware. To do otherwise is to dishonor those that died fighting them

That game is still a pile of gak. And I told the company that in person at Origins one year. They didn't much care for that.

No matter how snazzy their uniforms, the Germans didn't have teleporting Tiger tanks.

Your lack of understanding regarding game mechanics and what they represent is astounding....

The fact that you are calling a game that is one of the best direct translation for strategy to the table top "gak" is telling. I started playing this game without a clear understanding of the rules but a firm grasp of what the actual units/vehicles did historically and I was able to effectively play from the word go.

I think any good military strategy game, regardless of its scale, should require a combined arms approach in order to win. It makes for a much more fun and dynamic game, and adds variety. To spam a unit is to play the game in a way that I am sure was never intended. Unfortunatly GW has a very blind approach to game balance, so the spammable units are more common then they should be.

With GW, if you spam the right thing, you have as strong list. Spam the wrong thing, and you are looking at a tabling.

GorillaWarfare wrote:
I think any good military strategy game, regardless of its scale, should require a combined arms approach in order to win. It makes for a much more fun and dynamic game, and adds variety. To spam a unit is to play the game in a way that I am sure was never intended. Unfortunatly GW has a very blind approach to game balance, so the spammable units are more common then they should be.

One of the more infamous spam lists "venom spam" is dangerous BECAUSE it exemplifies the combined arms approach. The ravagers and trueborn are there for dedicated anti-armor, the venoms are dedicated anti-infantry, the warriors in the venoms can backup both options, and a beast pack is filling in the gaps/defending the line as needed.

Someone calling Flames of War gak?
Wow. Either you haven't played the game or you think the word "Gak" actually means "awesome."

 MWHistorian wrote:
Someone calling Flames of War gak?
Wow. Either you haven't played the game or you think the word "Gak" actually means "awesome."

I've played it four times. Each time was a miserable stomping by the god-like Germans with teleporting troops. Yeah, I think it's gak. It's 40K dressed up as a historical game. Except 40K gets a pass for not being based off, you know, history.

 gardeth wrote:

GorillaWarfare wrote:
I think any good military strategy game, regardless of its scale, should require a combined arms approach in order to win. It makes for a much more fun and dynamic game, and adds variety. To spam a unit is to play the game in a way that I am sure was never intended. Unfortunatly GW has a very blind approach to game balance, so the spammable units are more common then they should be.

One of the more infamous spam lists "venom spam" is dangerous BECAUSE it exemplifies the combined arms approach. The ravagers and trueborn are there for dedicated anti-armor, the venoms are dedicated anti-infantry, the warriors in the venoms can backup both options, and a beast pack is filling in the gaps/defending the line as needed.

Well plus the firepower that 5 venoms have on their own, even without the passengers. 5 venoms with 2 splintercannons equals an average of 20 wounds on infantry/MC regardless of toughness. So if you get first turn and have LOS, you are looking at making the enemy roll 20 saves just from the venoms. And thats just the average. 60 shots at bs4 means avg 40 hits. then to wound on 4+ means 20 wounds.

But I think being spammed feels like someone is just taking advantage of something and rubbing it in your face. Its like playing a fighting video game and your opponent finds a move that works, so he does it over and over again. Its effective yes, but it's also very infuriating.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm sick of war games sucking the Germans' you-know-what. They lost. For a reason.

Overconfidence and because they decided to fight 300 armies at once. The German probably had the best soldiers in average. They are one of the elite armies in history. But they fought vastly superior numbers, even if it wasn't always at the same time.

Try doing two 40K game in a row, but the casualties of the first aren't there in the 2nd game. Chances are you'll lose the 2nd one, even if the first went well.

Addaran wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm sick of war games sucking the Germans' you-know-what. They lost. For a reason.

Overconfidence and because they decided to fight 300 armies at once. The German probably had the best soldiers in average. They are one of the elite armies in history. But they fought vastly superior numbers, even if it wasn't always at the same time.

Try doing two 40K game in a row, but the casualties of the first aren't there in the 2nd game. Chances are you'll lose the 2nd one, even if the first went well.

Even assuming what you say is true, that's the perfect storm for the ultimate tactical-level force in a game. Since the Germans are weak only on the strategic level, they become gods on a table top tactical-level game. Boring. I get enough practice picking up models against Eldar. There is no reason to repeat the same exercise in a different system against Germans.

Addaran wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm sick of war games sucking the Germans' you-know-what. They lost. For a reason.

Overconfidence and because they decided to fight 300 armies at once. The German probably had the best soldiers in average. They are one of the elite armies in history. But they fought vastly superior numbers, even if it wasn't always at the same time.

Try doing two 40K game in a row, but the casualties of the first aren't there in the 2nd game. Chances are you'll lose the 2nd one, even if the first went well.

Another big factor in their defeat was their lack of resources and their poor management of what little resources they had.

The Germans could not produce a simple item to save their lives. Most of their gear was exceedingly complex and resource heavy compared to their allied equivalents. The Panther was completely overengineered which made repairing them a pain.

They also lacked crucial resources such as brass, fuel and even wool. It got so bad that towards the end of war many tanks were lost simply because they ran out of gas, bullets were made out of lacquered steel and their uniforms were partially tree based.

I could actually make a whole thread about why the Germans lost the war but that's going off topic. Spam in of itself isn't a bad thing. Having a uniform army is simply another way of designing a list which provides a ton of redundancy. What spam provides is paying points for more of the same dice rolls. I also think uniform armies look better on the table top since they feel more fluffy.

IIRC, the German tanks were a pain to maintain. But if you somehow managed keep all that expensive pieces together and working, then they became armored monsters that ate Shermans for breakfast.

The way I've always heard it said is that a German panzer could eat a Sherman 10 to 1. But there were 11 Shermans for every German tank...

The Sherman, iirc, was engineered with this in mind. It was made to be mass-produceable, and not intended to take on other tanks. It was more Infantry support than battle tank.

If they did need to take on a tank, weren't they supposed to do so at at least 3-to-1?

I'm really resisting the urge to correct you guys and derailing this thread further.

If you want to see how the eastern front went but don't want to buy a book; check out the series "Soviet Storm" on youtube. It's got pretty good CGI to go with the narration too.

See the Germanophile influence in gaming? First teleporting tanks, now people pimping their broken-down crappy tanks.

Kain is absolutely right. The Soviets were a horror show. The horror show happened to include spamming equipment that worked well.

The thread is no big loss, because we all know the old spam sob story. No one will complain about BA tactical marine spam, but WS spam is totally different.

Addaran wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm sick of war games sucking the Germans' you-know-what. They lost. For a reason.

Overconfidence and because they decided to fight 300 armies at once. The German probably had the best soldiers in average. They are one of the elite armies in history. But they fought vastly superior numbers, even if it wasn't always at the same time.

Try doing two 40K game in a row, but the casualties of the first aren't there in the 2nd game. Chances are you'll lose the 2nd one, even if the first went well.

Actually Hitler wanted the Indian soldiers, he once said about the Gurkha troops that he could win the world with them.

(Pity the Indian troops were largely under the control of incompetent Brit commanders )

As for the soviets, by Mid-war they were pretty much eating the German's lunch the battles of Stalingrad and Kursk were basically the endpoint of any German hopes of winning the war

ANYWAY, AWAY FROM history and flames of war, spam is fine as long as it's a tournament or you have justification such as fluff purposes etc.

Well, this seems to have gone a bit off topic. Next time, folks.