Changed the title of the thread based on general saltiness.

Curious where the community breaks down in this regard.

*For instance, 3 or more units of Dark Reapers would qualify. But, running 2 units of Dark Reapers would not.

*If a unit can act on its own and is independent after deployment, such as Carnifex (any variant) or Leman Russ (any variant), count the number of models. For instance, 1 unit of 3x Carnifex would be considered spamming Carnifex regardless of whether or not they're kitted for melee, shooting, etc.

*Transports are not excluded from this. If you run 3+ razorbacks, or rhinos, that would be considered 3+

*Troops are not excluded because some troops are generally undercosted.

*Count all imperial knight variants as Imperial Knight, Baneblade variants as Baneblade, etc. So running 2x Knight Crusaders and 1x Knight Gallant would be considered 3+ because you've got 3 imperial knights.

*Units taken as upgrades - such as Drones - don't count.

Just casually defining spam in such broad terms that nearly every army does it, probably so you can claim a majority in some unrelated argument.

By your definition here, I cannot play my Harlequin army without being guilty of "Harlequin spamming" because I have no other troop choice. Love it.

the_scotsman wrote:
Just casually defining spam in such broad terms that nearly every army does it, probably so you can claim a majority in some unrelated argument.

By your definition here, I cannot play my Harlequin army without being guilty of "Harlequin spamming" because I have no other troop choice. Love it.

Yes, you're playing what is a very small faction as mono-faction, so naturally you have to repeat the same unit multiple times. Just because you need to, in order to stay mono-faction, doesn't change that you are indeed spamming a unit.

And you don't *have* to, you could easily bridge the gap into Eldar soup if you wanted to.

Note that I am not also attaching a value judgment to people in this thread. I am not saying "spam is bad," or "those who spam must die."

Renegade Guard in casual. IG in competitive formats.

Have to run spam. Just for efficiency. Brigades are so much easier to fill out spam wise. 3 sentinels? Ok. 3 Spawns? ok.

With the prices we pay, and especially with how bad R&H is, spam is the only way I can play. I'll take two units of renegade ogryn. Hopefully 1 will make it into combat! I'll take 3 HWS of 3 mortars. 72 points, somethings gonna hit on 5s.

I don't count guardsmen or orks or tac marines. Troops have a higher spam threshold. Spam is reserved for purposeful rules exploitation, chasing the meta, and so on. That said, I am a collector painter first off, and just am not interested in collecting and painting 9 units of X for the WAAC.

 jeff white wrote:
I don't count guardsmen or orks or tac marines. Troops have a higher spam threshold. Spam is reserved for purposeful rules exploitation, chasing the meta, and so on. That said, I am a collector painter first off, and just am not interested in collecting and painting 9 units of X for the WAAC.

No, running troops in repetition is still spamming. You could say they have a higher threshold but that doesn't change the fact that you're repeating a unit.

Again I am not attaching a value judgment to this, and I am not distinguishing between being "forced to spam," and "electing to spam." Just, if people spam, or not.

I do spam, and play casually.

I also question your definition of Spam, as the difference between a Baneblade and a Stormlord is wider than the difference between a Predator and a Whirlwind, yet for some reason bringing the two counts as spam.

 Marmatag wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Just casually defining spam in such broad terms that nearly every army does it, probably so you can claim a majority in some unrelated argument.

By your definition here, I cannot play my Harlequin army without being guilty of "Harlequin spamming" because I have no other troop choice. Love it.

Yes, you're playing what is a very small faction as mono-faction, so naturally you have to repeat the same unit multiple times. Just because you need to, in order to stay mono-faction, doesn't change that you are indeed spamming a unit.

And you don't *have* to, you could easily bridge the gap into Eldar soup if you wanted to.

Note that I am not also attaching a value judgment to people in this thread. I am not saying "spam is bad," or "those who spam must die."

No, it's pretty obvious that the motivation is "look, everyone is spamming" by the incredibly broad definition you've set up. 3 of any unit, including transports, does not constitute "a spam list" it constitutes probably the vast majority of lists in the game, especially non-allied lists.

If the subject of your poll is "How many people are sexist" and the poll question to determine sexism is "Have you ever disagreed with a woman" then it can be pretty easily construed that you're trying to create some kind of misleading majority.

That's fine.

There are differences between numerous super heavies. For example a Knight Crusader is very different from a Knight Gallant. But these are still two imperial knights despite having different datasheets.

And I am aware that if someone plays an Imperial Knight list at 2000 points, they *have* to spam. Again, this is not about value judgment. Nor is it saying spammers are bad. I don't see spam as bad for the game - i see undercosted units as bad for the game, which is an ENTIRELY different discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Just casually defining spam in such broad terms that nearly every army does it, probably so you can claim a majority in some unrelated argument.

By your definition here, I cannot play my Harlequin army without being guilty of "Harlequin spamming" because I have no other troop choice. Love it.

Yes, you're playing what is a very small faction as mono-faction, so naturally you have to repeat the same unit multiple times. Just because you need to, in order to stay mono-faction, doesn't change that you are indeed spamming a unit.

And you don't *have* to, you could easily bridge the gap into Eldar soup if you wanted to.

Note that I am not also attaching a value judgment to people in this thread. I am not saying "spam is bad," or "those who spam must die."

No, it's pretty obvious that the motivation is "look, everyone is spamming" by the incredibly broad definition you've set up. 3 of any unit, including transports, does not constitute "a spam list" it constitutes probably the vast majority of lists in the game, especially non-allied lists.

If the subject of your poll is "How many people are sexist" and the poll question to determine sexism is "Have you ever disagreed with a woman" then it can be pretty easily construed that you're trying to create some kind of misleading majority.

Except that is not what i'm doing here at all, you're attempting to attach a motive to the way i've framed this - which is ridiculous.

My motivation isn't "look everyone is spamming." I want to collect data and then discuss it.

You're pretty cynical.

And i find it hilarious that right now it's a 50/50 split in spam vs non-spam in both competitive and casual... so saying everyone spams is not actually true based on the data we're collecting lol.

Competitive Eldar and Chaos - I play a spam list by both accounts. My Eldar lists take 3 units of rangers and my Chaos list has a total of 5 units of cultists.

I never run more than two of any unit and that is just for troops.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Competitive Eldar and Chaos - I play a spam list by both accounts. My Eldar lists take 3 units of rangers and my Chaos list has a total of 5 units of cultists.

Interesting. I've run into competitive cultist spam lists and they're actually pretty difficult to handle. What's the quantity per unit?

Yes but why?

Why lump a Baneblade in with a Stormlord but not a Whirlwind in with a Predator? That seems awfully contrived for no reason, and is the type of thing that can kill the accuracy of a poll. It's like saying "what's your favorite politician, but all Senators are counted as Mike Pence for this poll."

 Marmatag wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Competitive Eldar and Chaos - I play a spam list by both accounts. My Eldar lists take 3 units of rangers and my Chaos list has a total of 5 units of cultists.

Interesting. I've run into competitive cultist spam lists and they're actually pretty difficult to handle. What's the quantity per unit?

One big bomb of 40 and the remainder are 10 mans there to fill out force orgs to generate the CP I need to make the various set-ups in the list work.

I dont think 3 razorbacks is spam. A battalion must have 3 troops. Space marine tac squads arent that great by themselves, they need a decent transport to be viable.

I dont think i would cry razorback spam unless someone ran 5 or more.

3-4 units of plague marines, or 3 units of Nurglings. Or 3 herolds of nurgle. Also 3 units of oblits once I've built them.

So yeah, by your definition I spam. I play casual.

I guess I spam under these guidelines even if it's only when I take 3 MSU Rubric squads.

So I spam because I regularly use 3-4 5-man tactical squads... and I tought I wasn't spamming!

But that's the interesting part.

If tactical squads were the best single unit in the game, would running 5 of them be considered spam?

Running 5 units of reapers is certainly spam.

Running 5 blobs of 30 Hormagants would be considered spam, right?

Using 3 dreads is spamming, just like 3x20 poxwalkers ? I dont think so.

Under your definition i am spamming in my all primarus army as i run a battalion.

woops.

I spam Tacticals and sometimes Devastators then, I guess? I Spam Drop Pods with 3?


I spam Tyranid Warriors with 7 squads of 9 for sure though.

 p5freak wrote:
Using 3 dreads is spamming, just like 3x20 poxwalkers ? I dont think so.

Why?

Is the argument then that repeating units is only spam if it's effective? I don't buy that, because then "spam" is totally subjective and you can't have a constructive conversation about it with anyone, because everyone has a different definition of what "good" is, based on their own personal experiences.

It's worth pointing out that even with this definition, more people don't spam than do. Not that people who spam are doing anything wrong necessarily, just that this definition wasn't nearly as restrictive as you might suggest.

IMHO what constitutes spam is 100% subjective. Some units are not spam even if you take 5 units, some are spam if you take 2+ units. It's not quantifiable in black and white.

I would agree that spam is, at best, a subjective claim, and at worse, an entirely fabricated boogeyman that doesn't have any real meaning, much like the terms WAAC and CAAC.

Not really sure if bringing multiple of the same Troop choices (and transports) constitutes as spam.

If so, I do spam. If not, I don't spamm.
At most I take two of the same (non-troop) units, regardless of army.

I think between 2 units and 5 units theres a middle ground like... 4 units? 4 units of something sounds like spam to me.

2 or even 3 is in no way spam, specially for things like troops.

 MinscS2 wrote:
Not really sure if bringing multiple of the same Troop choices (and transports) constitutes as spam.

If so, I do spam. If not, I don't spamm.
At most I take two of the same (non-troop) units, regardless of army.

So, if I were to bring 5 units of genestealers would that be spam?

You probably answered yes.

But what if they were minimum sized? I can accomplish that same thing with 2 units.

Or consider Farseer who brings a blob of 40 cultists, and then 4 small blobs of 10. he could accomplish this with 2 units. Is it spam based on model count?

If that's the case, bringing 3 storm ravens would never be considered spam, because it's only 3 models!

Spam is mostly subjective. It's like trying to differentiate between "art" and "porn." The purpose of this discussion is to simply set a control point, gather data, and then have a discussion in regards to spam, from there.

For those of you who find this too restrictive: Are you surprised that less than half - 40% (at the time of this posting) - qualify as spam for the purpose of this experiment?

Most of times I don't have much in form of spamming. Only times that fit definition would be the games I run 3x20 tactical marines.

I play both casual and competitive games, and sometimes I spam and some other times I'm not.

More than two of a specific unit is spam if the unit is not a troop. Many factions litterally have 1-3 troops and usually there's always at least one of those that is not viable even in casual metas.

Drukhari for example will likely have 3x5 kabalite warriors at least, is this considered spam?

Are 3 razorback an example of spam?

Sometimes even other different unit types than troops can be taken in multiple squads/number without considering that some sort of spam. 3 ravagers are not very different to a ravager, a jetfighter and a bomber so it shouldn't be considered spam. 3 min or mid sized squads of tankbustas have basically the same numbers of a single big unit, same for the artillery: 5 single mek gunz shouldn't be considered spam when you can have a single squad with the same number of elements.

3 units of Cultists, 3 Predators, 3 units of Bloodletters, 3 units of Obliterators, 3 Helbrutes, 3 Berzerker squads, etc.

Every list I have run in 8th edition is a spam list, according to this survey. Would not call it a problem, each case is a different variety of CSMs.

Again I am not saying there is anything wrong with spamming.

Depends on what I'm running. My Custodes armies usually include 3 Troop units of 3 Custodian Guard each. I suppose those 9 infantry models count as spam by this specific definition.

Yes, I spam dominions+immolators, guardsmen+tanks, and wolf guard.


In fact, it's nearly impossible to have an army that doesn't have at least 3 of one kind of unit [and as I said, I wouldn't want to play with or against the codex kitchen sink anyway].

I mean, if I look at how I can build a list: I have 1 [pretty bad] troop choice, 1.5 HQ choices, and 2 choices in every other slot of which three are actually usable and one is only effectively usable once. If I tried to be as not-spam as I possibly could, I would still need to have at least duplicates if not triplicates.

 Marmatag wrote:
Again I am not saying there is anything wrong with spamming.

Definitely nothing wrong with it or if its even considered spamming considering 3 is an arbitrary requirement to be considered spam.

 Asmodai wrote:
Depends on what I'm running. My Custodes armies usually include 3 Troop units of 3 Custodian Guard each. I suppose those 9 infantry models count as spam by this specific definition.

Would you agree that a "Spam" army is entirely subjective?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:
Depends on what I'm running. My Custodes armies usually include 3 Troop units of 3 Custodian Guard each. I suppose those 9 infantry models count as spam by this specific definition.

Would you agree that a "Spam" army is entirely subjective?

I would agree that an army consisting of only one of the same unit is probably spamming

 Marmatag wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:
Not really sure if bringing multiple of the same Troop choices (and transports) constitutes as spam.

If so, I do spam. If not, I don't spamm.
At most I take two of the same (non-troop) units, regardless of army.

So, if I were to bring 5 units of genestealers would that be spam?

You probably answered yes.

But what if they were minimum sized? I can accomplish that same thing with 2 units.

Or consider Farseer who brings a blob of 40 cultists, and then 4 small blobs of 10. he could accomplish this with 2 units. Is it spam based on model count?

If that's the case, bringing 3 storm ravens would never be considered spam, because it's only 3 models!

Spam is mostly subjective. It's like trying to differentiate between "art" and "porn." The purpose of this discussion is to simply set a control point, gather data, and then have a discussion in regards to spam, from there.

For those of you who find this too restrictive: Are you surprised that less than half - 40% (at the time of this posting) - qualify as spam for the purpose of this experiment?

No, because spam in 40k is a morally charged and subjective term, and people are going to rate themselves as "not guilty" of spamming. See the multiple replies to the post of people going "I don't consider 3+ of the same troops unit/transport as spam" - those people probably do that, but still listed themselves as "don't spam."

In the "sexism test" I proposed earlier you'd probably see a surprisingly significant number of people stating that they had never had a disagreement with a woman, simply because they didn't want to categorize themselves as "sexist" based on the poll.

you can set up the poll with no moral judgement all you like, but you've used a term that to the majority of 40k players has a morally charged and highly subjective meaning, and in most cases if you are the kind of person who regularly uses the term "spam" you've PROBABLY defined spam as something that other players do.

The real definition of spam is probably closer to "A sub-category I can apply to any list I dislike that seems to have a lot of one thing" than "Any list which contains more than two of the same named unit".

There's no one BA unit worth spamming. I'll take two attack bikes to fill a brigade. But I don't think that's spamming. I also take 3 scouts and 3 tacs a lot.

It's an anonymous poll. It's not like you get "heaven points" for voting "no" in this poll.

Just because its charged to you doesn't mean we can't have a discussion. Stop being narcissistic. Should we not discuss things because people might get offended? Well, this is the USA in 2018...

I play casual and nothing appears more than twice in any of my 2000 pt lists, any bigger than that and all bets are off

 Desubot wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:
Depends on what I'm running. My Custodes armies usually include 3 Troop units of 3 Custodian Guard each. I suppose those 9 infantry models count as spam by this specific definition.

Would you agree that a "Spam" army is entirely subjective?

I would agree that an army consisting of only one of the same unit is probably spamming

What about a list that was 1 Chaos Lord and 6 Havoc Squads, where one of the Havoc Squads had autocannons and 5 models, one had Plasma and ten models (with the Mark of Slaanesh), one had melta and seven models (with the Mark of Nurgle), one had flamers and ten men, one had heavy bolters and ten men, and the last had plasma cannons and nine men with the Mark of Tzeench? They're "spamming havocs" but they play so differently I'd hardly consider it spam.

One of the issues is Marmatag is a hard core soup pusher. He believes that if you can mix and match you should. So by his very nature spamming of 3 units is unnecessary. Almost any mono codex player has to spam 3 units just to get to a battalion.

I don't understand what the purpose of this thread is if there is no definition of "spam" (other than a meat product) and whether it should be encouraged or not.

It depends on your fefinition of spam. I run 2 9 man units of tyranid warriors, but that needs to justefy the prime.

I usualy run 2 gaunt unitrs, or 2 zoanthropes in my lists (not always, it depends.)

If I ever take GSC allies into blood brother IG I am gonne grab 3 heavy weapon team units. That would be spam. But with IG you need quantaty because they are a bit unreliable. I want some lascannons vs those darn T8 models!

But no I do not spam.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
One of the issues is Marmatag is a hard core soup pusher. He believes that if you can mix and match you should. So by his very nature spamming of 3 units is unnecessary. Almost any mono codex player has to spam 3 units just to get to a battalion.

I don't understand what the purpose of this thread is if there is no definition of "spam" (other than a meat product) and whether it should be encouraged or not.

My personal character nonwithdstanding, I did not create this definition. This is the general consensus i've seen come from players other than myself. You can disagree with it if you want, but I don't really care, because i'm not emotionally attached to this discussion.

I'm not sure I push soup, but can we agree that it has *never* been easier to construct a more varied force?

When framing a competitive discussion - yes, I'll bring up soup, because that's an option some people have and others don't. There are situations where in a competitive army, souping is the absolute best decision without debate.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:
Depends on what I'm running. My Custodes armies usually include 3 Troop units of 3 Custodian Guard each. I suppose those 9 infantry models count as spam by this specific definition.

Would you agree that a "Spam" army is entirely subjective?

I would agree that an army consisting of only one of the same unit is probably spamming

What about a list that was 1 Chaos Lord and 6 Havoc Squads, where one of the Havoc Squads had autocannons and 5 models, one had Plasma and ten models (with the Mark of Slaanesh), one had melta and seven models (with the Mark of Nurgle), one had flamers and ten men, one had heavy bolters and ten men, and the last had plasma cannons and nine men with the Mark of Tzeench? They're "spamming havocs" but they play so differently I'd hardly consider it spam.

That list would be against the rules, as Havocs can't get Plasma cannons.
But I agree with your point. My plague marine squads usually all have different load outs and are used in different ways, that's why I wouldn't call it spam necessarily.

Nick Nanavati has a good blog post about spam recently. It might have prompted this thread?

https://thebrownmagic.com/2018/03/06/why-spam-should-stay-in-the-can/

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:
Depends on what I'm running. My Custodes armies usually include 3 Troop units of 3 Custodian Guard each. I suppose those 9 infantry models count as spam by this specific definition.

Would you agree that a "Spam" army is entirely subjective?

I would agree that an army consisting of only one of the same unit is probably spamming

What about a list that was 1 Chaos Lord and 6 Havoc Squads, where one of the Havoc Squads had autocannons and 5 models, one had Plasma and ten models (with the Mark of Slaanesh), one had melta and seven models (with the Mark of Nurgle), one had flamers and ten men, one had heavy bolters and ten men, and the last had plasma cannons and nine men with the Mark of Tzeench? They're "spamming havocs" but they play so differently I'd hardly consider it spam.

That list would be against the rules, as Havocs can't get Plasma cannons.
But I agree with your point. My plague marine squads usually all have different load outs and are used in different ways, that's why I wouldn't call it spam necessarily.

Sorry about the plasma cannon flub... but yes. I generally ask "does this army play all the same" rather than "are all the units the same (or similar) datasheets."

A Tau Farsight Enclaves army with a ton of Crysis Bodyguards is not meaningfully less spammed by bringing troops Crysis Squads and some Crysis Special Characters, but a Imperial Guard Leman Russ tank company can be vastly improved simply by including different main weapon options on the tanks (the Demolisher plays very differently from the Vanquisher, which acts differently than the Punisher).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:
Depends on what I'm running. My Custodes armies usually include 3 Troop units of 3 Custodian Guard each. I suppose those 9 infantry models count as spam by this specific definition.

Would you agree that a "Spam" army is entirely subjective?

I would agree that an army consisting of only one of the same unit is probably spamming

What about a list that was 1 Chaos Lord and 6 Havoc Squads, where one of the Havoc Squads had autocannons and 5 models, one had Plasma and ten models (with the Mark of Slaanesh), one had melta and seven models (with the Mark of Nurgle), one had flamers and ten men, one had heavy bolters and ten men, and the last had plasma cannons and nine men with the Mark of Tzeench? They're "spamming havocs" but they play so differently I'd hardly consider it spam.

That list would be against the rules, as Havocs can't get Plasma cannons.
But I agree with your point. My plague marine squads usually all have different load outs and are used in different ways, that's why I wouldn't call it spam necessarily.

Sorry about the plasma cannon flub... but yes. I generally ask "does this army play all the same" rather than "are all the units the same (or similar) datasheets."

A Tau Farsight Enclaves army with a ton of Crysis Bodyguards is not meaningfully less spammed by bringing troops Crysis Squads and some Crysis Special Characters, but a Imperial Guard Leman Russ tank company can be vastly improved simply by including different main weapon options on the tanks (the Demolisher plays very differently from the Vanquisher, which acts differently than the Punisher).

Well twas a stab at the whole 3 bane blade thing

but yeah you can have the same unit act wildly different depending on load outs too. but it all depends on some individuals concept of spam to be considered spam

 Marmatag wrote:
It's an anonymous poll. It's not like you get "heaven points" for voting "no" in this poll.

Just because its charged to you doesn't mean we can't have a discussion. Stop being narcissistic. Should we not discuss things because people might get offended? Well, this is the USA in 2018...

...he said, to someone who is actively participating in a discussion?

I am responding, directly, to your question regarding whether it surprises me that even with the strict definition of Spam listed, many people are ranking themselves as "Do not spam."

It does not. The reason it does not is because people have a very strong tendency to ignore or only partially abide by the rules set up by a poll when they personally have an emotional rather than logical investment in one of the terms presented.

Look at Martel's response, as an example. I'm assuming (admittedly, this is an assumption, and maybe Martel can confirm) that in the poll, Martel listed himself in one of the "Do not spam" categories, based on his response of "nothing the BA have is worth spamming." Then he immediately goes on to say "I might take 3+ of an attack bike or a scout squad or something, but I don't see that as spamming."

If he had responded PURELY based on a strict reading of a poll, then he would have listed himself as someone who uses spam. He did not, and we can see from the second half of his response that he likely categorized himself based on his own definition of the term itself and there was an internal inconsistency in his definition of the term and the one presented by you.

See Niiai's response below as well. The options in the poll are "Do spam" or "Do not spam" and they make it clear that they DO NOT spam at the bottom of a post where they say they occasionally do the exact thing you list as the definition of spam.

I mean... I GUESS I run spam because I have 3 neurothropes, 3 single model units of biovores, and 3 batches of 3/4 Raveners in my Jormundgandr list

But it's largely irrelevant.

If we can assume that people actually answered honestly, the vast majority of players do not spam, even with what we can agree is a fairly strong boundary to qualify as non-spam.

It also doesn't reflect that some armies simply have to spam, due to limited troop choices, or overall limited variety in their unit counts. This is more true - probably - for casual players than competitive players, because competitive players are more open to souping.

meleti wrote:Nick Nanavati has a good blog post about spam recently. It might have prompted this thread?

https://thebrownmagic.com/2018/03/06/why-spam-should-stay-in-the-can/

I really enjoyed that read.

Desubot wrote:Well twas a stab at the whole 3 bane blade thing

but yeah you can have the same unit act wildly different depending on load outs too. but it all depends on some individuals concept of spam to be considered spam

Oh, lol. Yeah, the 3-Baneblade thing has worked itself out in my local meta (I found opponents who enjoy the game as much as me) so I'm confident in the list now. So yes, I spam, for sure. I even earlier brought up counting the Baneblades differently, but if anyone ever looked at my Concordiat Super Heavy Armoured Regiment list they'd realize my companies are mono-type because of logistical concerns. But yes, I admit it, I'm a spammer. I do it for the fluff though, in my defense and because I like playing with big tanks more than I like playing with little tanks or little duders.
you could also argue I was compensating

And yes, that's all I was trying to prove. Even the same unit times six isn't spam, at least according to my definition.

Progressive scoring, and objective based games with selectable secondaries, make playing against 3x Baneblade chasis models actually way more engaging and interesting. Because the game becomes "how can i score," rather than, "how can i actually kill these baneblades?"

 Marmatag wrote:
But it's largely irrelevant.

If we can assume that people actually answered honestly, the vast majority of players do not spam, even with what we can agree is a fairly strong boundary to qualify as non-spam.

It also doesn't reflect that some armies simply have to spam, due to limited troop choices, or overall limited variety in their unit counts. This is more true - probably - for casual players than competitive players, because competitive players are more open to souping.

This is my point. We cannot assume that people answered honestly according to the definition you've set up for spam. I can point to multiple posts where people (at least seem to) have answered on the poll that they do not spam, but state in the post that they do the exact thing you lay down as the definition of spam.

my "sexism" example is similar here. When people have a strong, emotionally charged definition of a term that is dissimilar to that set up by the poll, you will get vastly different results.

If you ask the question:

"Have you ever had a disagreement with a woman"

And your answers are "no" and "Yes" then you'll get nearly 100% yes, because...of course everyone has had a disagreement with a woman at some point. When you were a baby, you probably disagreed as to whether you needed food or your diaper was full.

If you ask the same question, and have the answers set to "No, I have never had a disagreement with a woman" and "Yes, I am a sexist" then you will get a MUCH larger percentage of people who are, I think we can agree, pretty much lying and answering no. And the reason they do that has everything to do with the term "Sexist" and how they themselves are defining the term in their head and not by the flawed definition set up by the poll.

The weird thing to me about your definition of "spam" is that it becomes easier or harder depending on what army you're running, and spamming one unit three times doesn't make your list stronger/weaker, it depends on what the unit is. My Space Marines scrabbled on for a few months of 8th with wildly ineffectual lists that used four Razorbacks with veterans, which by your definition is spam, yet my competitive Custodes lists don't run more than two instances of anything, Troops or not. And if you're playing (for instance) Guard it becomes difficult to build a list without three instances of the same non-Troops unit simply because everything is so cheap.

 Marmatag wrote:
I see a lot of people talking about spam.

Curious where the community breaks down in this regard.

Spam would be considered adding the same unit more than 2 times.

I play Astra Militarum, and I try to do so according to the background, so apparently I "spam". As opposed to fielding an organised, ordered military force rather than a rabble of warbands.

 Marmatag wrote:
But it's largely irrelevant.

If we can assume that people actually answered honestly, the vast majority of players do not spam, even with what we can agree is a fairly strong boundary to qualify as non-spam.

It also doesn't reflect that some armies simply have to spam, due to limited troop choices, or overall limited variety in their unit counts. This is more true - probably - for casual players than competitive players, because competitive players are more open to souping.

I don't think you can assume people answered "honestly". I think quite a few people will have either not read your overly restrictive definition of spam before they voted or read it and voted that they don't spam anyway because they disagree with the definition you gave.

 Marmatag wrote:


Note that I am not also attaching a value judgment to people in this thread.

Yes you are, because just about every use of "spam" in this context (and almost every other, for that matter") is derogatory. "Do you routinely field more than two of the same unit in your army" would be a more neutral question, I would think.

 roflmajog wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
But it's largely irrelevant.

If we can assume that people actually answered honestly, the vast majority of players do not spam, even with what we can agree is a fairly strong boundary to qualify as non-spam.

It also doesn't reflect that some armies simply have to spam, due to limited troop choices, or overall limited variety in their unit counts. This is more true - probably - for casual players than competitive players, because competitive players are more open to souping.

I don't think you can assume people answered "honestly". I think quite a few people will have either not read your overly restrictive definition of spam before they voted or read it and voted that they don't spam anyway because they disagree with the definition you gave.

Confession: I voted "no" before reading his ridiculous definition of "spam." Apparently that time I ran 3 units of 5 DE Warriors in a 1500 pt list is considered "spamming."

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I see a lot of people talking about spam.

Curious where the community breaks down in this regard.

Spam would be considered adding the same unit more than 2 times.

I play Astra Militarum, and I try to do so according to the background, so apparently I "spam". As opposed to fielding an organised, ordered military force rather than a rabble of warbands.

Its interesting how much this demonstrates the emotional reaction this word generates.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 roflmajog wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
But it's largely irrelevant.

If we can assume that people actually answered honestly, the vast majority of players do not spam, even with what we can agree is a fairly strong boundary to qualify as non-spam.

It also doesn't reflect that some armies simply have to spam, due to limited troop choices, or overall limited variety in their unit counts. This is more true - probably - for casual players than competitive players, because competitive players are more open to souping.

I don't think you can assume people answered "honestly". I think quite a few people will have either not read your overly restrictive definition of spam before they voted or read it and voted that they don't spam anyway because they disagree with the definition you gave.

Confession: I voted "no" before reading his ridiculous definition of "spam." Apparently that time I ran 3 units of 5 DE Warriors in a 1500 pt list is considered "spamming."

This also.

Yeah, like I mentioned: Spam is just like WAAC or CAAC and has no real meaning, instead being a word thrown about to attack people.

I run three units of Demonettes for a batallion. That's the only unit I have more than one of in my list.

I laugh at people saying we can't trust people to answer honestly in a poll.

If we can't trust them to answer honestly in a poll, we can't trust anything people say on these forums.

So i'll start with the people who said we can't trust the poll results. Since I can't trust these guys, I'll disregard their comments that people probably lied.

lol, this place


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 roflmajog wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
But it's largely irrelevant.

If we can assume that people actually answered honestly, the vast majority of players do not spam, even with what we can agree is a fairly strong boundary to qualify as non-spam.

It also doesn't reflect that some armies simply have to spam, due to limited troop choices, or overall limited variety in their unit counts. This is more true - probably - for casual players than competitive players, because competitive players are more open to souping.

I don't think you can assume people answered "honestly". I think quite a few people will have either not read your overly restrictive definition of spam before they voted or read it and voted that they don't spam anyway because they disagree with the definition you gave.

"I disagree with the premise therefore i'm going to lie to feth up the data." -Dakka dakka, in a nutshell. This forum's motto should be "ego before rationality."

Or perhaps, "I am offended therefore the data is bad."

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I see a lot of people talking about spam.

Curious where the community breaks down in this regard.

Spam would be considered adding the same unit more than 2 times.

I play Astra Militarum, and I try to do so according to the background, so apparently I "spam". As opposed to fielding an organised, ordered military force rather than a rabble of warbands.

Its interesting how much this demonstrates the emotional reaction this word generates.

Not really. It's just that trying to field an Imperial Guard army with only one or two of basic units like Infantry Squads means you end up with an odd combination of units that looks less like an organised company and more like the leftovers from five different regiments that got mostly eaten by Tyranids; a platoon of one command squad, two infantry squads, two special weapon and two heavy weapon squads, some Ratlings some Ogryns, a couple of Leman Russ and a Hellhound or two, etc, etc. It might work, but it's quite the abnormality. If I played Orks or Chaos, I'd be all for that sort of thing.

Yeah, I didn't even want to bring up in this thread how silly Spam is for some of the "real armies" in the setting. A modern tank company is not two tanks, two squads of infantry, an AAV, a single helicopter, a brass section of the regimental band, and eighteen conscripts.

Of course that contention only matters if you attach an emotional response to the word spam.

 Marmatag wrote:
Of course that contention only matters if you attach an emotional response to the word spam.

God forbid people have emotional responses to words that have loaded meanings.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Of course that contention only matters if you attach an emotional response to the word spam.

God forbid people have emotional responses to words that have loaded meanings.

Please show me how an emotional response adds value to the discussion.

 Marmatag wrote:
I laugh at people saying we can't trust people to answer honestly in a poll.

If we can't trust them to answer honestly in a poll, we can't trust anything people say on these forums.

So i'll start with the people who said we can't trust the poll results. Since I can't trust these guys, I'll disregard their comments that people probably lied.

lol, this place


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 roflmajog wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
But it's largely irrelevant.

If we can assume that people actually answered honestly, the vast majority of players do not spam, even with what we can agree is a fairly strong boundary to qualify as non-spam.

It also doesn't reflect that some armies simply have to spam, due to limited troop choices, or overall limited variety in their unit counts. This is more true - probably - for casual players than competitive players, because competitive players are more open to souping.

I don't think you can assume people answered "honestly". I think quite a few people will have either not read your overly restrictive definition of spam before they voted or read it and voted that they don't spam anyway because they disagree with the definition you gave.

"I disagree with the premise therefore i'm going to lie to feth up the data." -Dakka dakka, in a nutshell. This forum's motto should be "ego before rationality."

Or perhaps, "I am offended therefore the data is bad."

I'm not saying that everybody lied but it is naiive to think that nobody used their own definition. Also at least two people voted before reading the definition (including me) (I actually do fit into your definition with my lists in 8th).

Also I am fielding more guardians in this edition (2 squads of 20) than I did last edition (3 squads of 10) but apparently last edition i was spamming them and this edition I'm not.

 Marmatag wrote:
Or perhaps, "I am offended therefore the data is bad."

This is 100% the motto Dakka Dakka.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Of course that contention only matters if you attach an emotional response to the word spam.

God forbid people have emotional responses to words that have loaded meanings.

Please show me how an emotional response adds value to the discussion.

That's something people pay thousands of dollars for at university (behavioral science and psychology) but I'll give you a rundown:

We're discussing a hobby that people play for purely emotional reasons. Therefore, any attempt at rational understanding of why or how people play the way they play is inherently flawed, because emotional effects can outright prevent someone from playing (or, alternatively, convince them to play more). We're also discussing a subjective topic not rooted in objective truth, which means that the decision making is entirely done within the mind in this fabricated universe. This means that emotions explicitly affect the way we will behave and since "do you spam?" is a behavioral question, we must consider emotions as a decisionmaking factor.

Not even close.

This was a simple question that was not open to emotional interpretation, with the boundaries clearly laid out.

While the definition of spam may be subjective in a broader sense, in the context of this thread, it is clearly and mathematically defined.

Bear in mind you're defending the stance that it is OK to lie to screw up data because you're emotionally charged. Or that it is okay to be upset because you don't like the premise of a discussion. There is no value in that. But i'm not surprised to see that response, this is literally what they teach in the USA now. If you're upset, someone must be at fault.

 Marmatag wrote:
Not even close.

This was a simple question that was not open to emotional interpretation, with the boundaries clearly laid out.

While the definition of spam may be subjective in a broader sense, in the context of this thread, it is clearly and mathematically defined.

Yes. But other people disagreed with the definition and disregarded it purely on emotional grounds. If your definition is so controversial that the respondents disagree with it, then perhaps your methodology requires reexamination. Otherwise, all you'll get out of the study is "people with emotional responses to the words I used didn't understand them the way I meant them!" which isn't what you were going for (I think).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Not even close.

This was a simple question that was not open to emotional interpretation, with the boundaries clearly laid out.

While the definition of spam may be subjective in a broader sense, in the context of this thread, it is clearly and mathematically defined.

Yes. But other people disagreed with the definition and disregarded it purely on emotional grounds.

Explain how disagreeing based on an emotional response is worth anything at all.

You are basically saying: "I'm upset by the premise therefore I disagree." A better solution would be to come up with an opposing viewpoint that is rooted in logic rather than hurted feels.

 Marmatag wrote:
I laugh at people saying we can't trust people to answer honestly in a poll.

If we can't trust them to answer honestly in a poll, we can't trust anything people say on these forums.

So i'll start with the people who said we can't trust the poll results. Since I can't trust these guys, I'll disregard their comments that people probably lied.

lol, this place

I mean, two thoughts really:

1. Dakka has no correlation to how actual 40k players play the game. We're just a few hundred people on a message board.
2. I voted myself "casual non-spam" since I'm not a very serious tournament player. I do play 3 Strike Teams in a Battalion though which I guess makes me a spammer.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Not even close.

This was a simple question that was not open to emotional interpretation, with the boundaries clearly laid out.

While the definition of spam may be subjective in a broader sense, in the context of this thread, it is clearly and mathematically defined.

Yes. But other people disagreed with the definition and disregarded it purely on emotional grounds.

Explain how disagreeing based on an emotional response is worth anything at all.

You are basically saying: "I'm upset by the premise therefore I disagree." A better solution would be to come up with an opposing viewpoint that is rooted in logic rather than hurted feels.

Why though?
It's an emotional game. Nothing at all has to be rooted in logic. Your 3 units is arbitrary. It could've been 50, in which case, why bother, or 2, in which case, yes, a spam do. In order to defeat an arbitrarily-drawn line in the sand, all I have to do is draw another line, say, 5 units, and say "NUH UH, this line is spam, your line is fabricated and made up!" and then your retort is, naturally, "NO YOU!"

Unless you can provide some logic why "3 of something" is the definition of spam? And why those things can be from vastly different datasheets (with as much as a 40-man transport capacity difference between them!) but still count the same?

3 was chosen because it is the general consensus in blogs/discussions I've had.

What would be the best way for me to see if that definition is accurate? Maybe find out if it matches the expectations in a given data set? How would I go about doing that?

 Marmatag wrote:
Not even close.

This was a simple question that was not open to emotional interpretation, with the boundaries clearly laid out.

While the definition of spam may be subjective in a broader sense, in the context of this thread, it is clearly and mathematically defined.

Bear in mind you're defending the stance that it is OK to lie to screw up data because you're emotionally charged. Or that it is okay to be upset because you don't like the premise of a discussion. There is no value in that. But i'm not surprised to see that response, this is literally what they teach in the USA now. If you're upset, someone must be at fault.

Ehh - if you asked the question differently. You'd get a different response.

If the title was "who here like to run duplicate units?" I'm pretty sure you'd get a lot more honest answers. Spam has a negative connotation.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Not even close.

This was a simple question that was not open to emotional interpretation, with the boundaries clearly laid out.

While the definition of spam may be subjective in a broader sense, in the context of this thread, it is clearly and mathematically defined.

Bear in mind you're defending the stance that it is OK to lie to screw up data because you're emotionally charged. Or that it is okay to be upset because you don't like the premise of a discussion. There is no value in that. But i'm not surprised to see that response, this is literally what they teach in the USA now. If you're upset, someone must be at fault.

Ehh - if you asked the question differently. You'd get a different response.

If the title was "who here like to run duplicate units?" I'm pretty sure you'd get a lot more honest answers. Spam has a negative connotation.

Bingo. Spam is an emotional word ('negatively connotated'), and to use it and then be upset when people respond emotionally is just silly.

It's like saying "How many of you are WAAC (by this I mean want to win games)?" and wondering why the thread devolved into an argument about the definition of WAAC. "It's just a clear, concise definition guys, why can't you understand it!?"

Okay, if this is how we're going to play it Unit, I can do that too.

"Oh look, this question is framed such that I would fit into a category I dislike. Since I only run 3 baneblades, i'm going to make a tremendous stink and derail the thread completely."

You have voiced your displeasure. What exactly are you expecting at this point?

I consider this poll and thread to be more spam than three ork trukks or three 5 man scout teams. The definition is so broad, I can't see how this would bring any usefull data. In this poll an all infantry army or all tank army is not even considered spam as long as it's different units.

 Marmatag wrote:
Okay, if this is how we're going to play it Unit, I can do that too.

"Oh look, this question is framed such that I would fit into a category I dislike. Since I only run 3 baneblades, i'm going to make a tremendous stink and derail the thread completely."

Actually, earlier in the thread I admitted I was a spammer. It doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Just so everyone knows, I spam Baneblades. I'm firmly in the spammer category. Fite me about it if you don't like spam! I love spam. It's what makes armies real armies (as I mentioned earlier as well).

EDIT:
I'm expecting you to understand why this is a silly thread. "Data gathering" in 40k (and especially on DakkaDakka) is a frankly silly endeavor in general, because there's a lot of emotion involved. I once heard someone say that when Guard is OP everyone complains more than when other people are OP, not because they have some hateboner for IG specifically because, viscerally and emotionally, gunlines are not as much fun to play against as mobile armies, even if the mobile army creams you just as badly. That's a purely emotional response, and I won't deny its validity nor its utility into understanding the "Guard problem."

 Marmatag wrote:
I laugh at people saying we can't trust people to answer honestly in a poll.

If we can't trust them to answer honestly in a poll, we can't trust anything people say on these forums.

So i'll start with the people who said we can't trust the poll results. Since I can't trust these guys, I'll disregard their comments that people probably lied.

lol, this place


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 roflmajog wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
But it's largely irrelevant.

If we can assume that people actually answered honestly, the vast majority of players do not spam, even with what we can agree is a fairly strong boundary to qualify as non-spam.

It also doesn't reflect that some armies simply have to spam, due to limited troop choices, or overall limited variety in their unit counts. This is more true - probably - for casual players than competitive players, because competitive players are more open to souping.

I don't think you can assume people answered "honestly". I think quite a few people will have either not read your overly restrictive definition of spam before they voted or read it and voted that they don't spam anyway because they disagree with the definition you gave.

"I disagree with the premise therefore i'm going to lie to feth up the data." -Dakka dakka, in a nutshell. This forum's motto should be "ego before rationality."

Or perhaps, "I am offended therefore the data is bad."

"Confession: I voted "no" before reading his ridiculous definition of "spam." Apparently that time I ran 3 units of 5 DE Warriors in a 1500 pt list is considered "spamming.""

Legitimately another guy posting a reply indicating that supports my point while you wrote your reply dismissing it.

I am not saying that people are INTENTIONALLY fething up the data. I'm saying they're doing it unintentionally because humans have a tendency to read sentences using their own definitions of particular terms. This is not a revolutionary concept in poll construction. It has nothing to do with me or anyone else being "offended". It is a thing you can look up.

I don't think I spam, but it is hard to fill out a brigade without "spamming troops". 3 squads of tacs I guess is spam. I could see it if they were 3x10 marine squads. so maybe I do spam but I only take 5 marines per squad tho. I guess I could take 2 intercessors, 2 scouts, and 2 tacs but I don't have enuff scouts.

I'm also a spammer. I take no shame in it. Basically all I play is spam.

For marines I run full primaris with 30 intercessors and 20 hellblasters and G man.

For Nids I run 3 Flyrants and at least 6 Carnifex.

For Daemons I run 3+ burning chariots with the rest of my army consisting of pink horrors and LOC.

Its how I have fun.

So for most armies any detachment other than patrol is spam. Got it.

 deviantduck wrote:
So for most armies any detachment other than patrol is spam. Got it.

seems so

Changed the title, and wording a bit, to hopefully decrease salt levels / turn off suicide watch.

Honestly, I'm regularly surprised at how little meaningful variety most factions have within a single FOC. Combine that with a chart of "must take 3 of X" and I don't see where anyone would wind up not taking 3 of things as the minimum standard.

I play both competitively and casually (or at least I did - in a bit of a slump now) and I don't usually use more than 2 of any unit. This isn't because I hate spamming or object to a particular list design, it's just how things pan out for me. I generally don't like buying, assembling and painting the same kit over and over again so I'll look to an alternative.

That said, my Death Guard have 3 Blight Haulers and 4 Bloat Drones WIP and I'd probably use 3 units of 20 Poxwalkers in my troops slots if I had the models. I also have about 80-100 power armoured Chaos marines made from various Chaos and Loyalist kits, upgrade sets and 3rd party bits but they're mostly WIP and I tend not to play with unpainted or partially assembled models. I've also used 3 units of Obliterators in 7th in some of my list because I have several different kits for them, but generally only use 2 units because of points cost.

So an Imperial Guard player is spamming if he has 30 or more Guardsmen in a 2000 point list? Really?

I love how the OP can't take feedback and how anyone who disagrees with him is mocked by him or "salty" because he is a bastion of logic and reason. In this thread alone, he has said:

-Changed the title of the thread based on general saltiness
- You're pretty cynical.
-But I'm not surprised to see that response, this is literally what they teach in the USA now. If you're upset, someone must be at fault.
- "Oh look, this question is framed such that I would fit into a category I dislike. Since I only run 3 baneblades, i'm going to make a tremendous stink and derail the thread completely."
-Changed the title, and wording a bit, to hopefully decrease salt levels / turn off suicide watch.

Talk about being triggered. And the best:

-Stop being narcissistic. Should we not discuss things because people might get offended? Well, this is the USA in 2018

Oh, the irony. Seriously, someone stop the bleeding before he ends up on r/iamverysmart.

Why yes: I run 3 units of custodian guard because they are my only troop choice ;P

Sass aside: I typically try and run 3-4 units of Custodian Wardens because I love the models.

As a custodian player: I wouldn't really regard either of those options as 'spamming' the unit since we're heavily limited by points and unit selection. that being said: people who run 3+ SC on Bikes are spamming, since the HQ slot doesn't quite have the same issues as the rest of the codex.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Oh, the irony. Seriously, someone stop the bleeding before he ends up on r/iamverysmart.

I think Marmatag ended up on there a long time ago.

As a Guard and AdMech player, there's not an unwritten and often written rule of lots of cheap screening for bigger things.

So I run upwards of 4 Guard squads and 3-4 small Skitarii squads. Cheap and easy to put between the enemy and my tanks.

I actually voted no and then read the definition of spam in the OP... So I should have voted that I'm a spammer by this definition.

Was there something wrong with spamming Plague Marines in Rhinos or are fluffy armies exempt?

I always run plenty of tactical squads for aesthetic reasons. Lots of guys slugging across the field

I'm also very guilty of spamming Zerkers back in 6th. You remember, back when Chainaxe spam was god-tier...

I play pure SoB, so I have to spam, something...

With the state of the thread, Marmatag, what were you hoping to get out of a discussion built around the assumption that three of anything is spam?

I usually have very little duplicate units, as I find that an army with varied units is more interesting to play, and more importantly, to model and paint.

That being said, under this definition I still do spam; my Primaris Space Marine army has three Intercessor squads, while my Imperial Guard Army has three Infantry squads...

I spam units that are cool to spam. When you play IG you want to field full Squadrons of vehicle types. As for troops i like them in platoon sized bunches, 20 to 50 man platoons. IG are the kings of spam!

OP obviously doesn't understand the underlying intention when people use the phrase "Spamming"...but please continue with your super cool thread. It's incredibly productive.

I play imperial guard, a regimented and professional military faction that is built around numbers and standardization (for rough things like equipment and vehicles)

Unless I'm playing 500pts or something, how the heck would I build a list without taking multiples of something and make it look like a remotely competent force? What kind of guard unit bigger than a patrol only run 2 infantry squads? Or a tank squadron where literally every tank has a different loadout and variant? That's not just competitive lists, but casual games as well. Fluffwise that's just how the army is built. Sure there will be some variation, but it should hardly be where say every infantry squad out of 12 has a unique loadout or where you have an IG tank company where every tank is a different variant meaning resupply would be a nightmare.

This is why it always bugs me when I see people want to introduce hard unit caps across the board, say only 2 of any given unit type in an army. That's all fun and games with something like grey knights that has an elite and focused army, but you quite literally break horde armies by doing so. Guard used to be able to get around this by using platoons, but since 8th many of the proposed anti spam fixes would mean such hilariously dumb things such as a 2k guard list with only 60 guardsmen in it. Worst still, you don't even fix certain spam situations. For example, a hard limit of up to 3 of any unit still means I can bring 12 leman russe's, 9 tanks in 3 heavy support slots and 3 command tanks.

Spam in and of itself is not bad, some armies are just built that way. Spam can be a sign of undercosted units, like Tau commanders and dark reapers, but that means these units in question need a tweak. For example either a pts increase like the rumored 5pt guardsmen or something like a rules tweak, where say Tau commanders get their own weapon table that is more appropriately costed, like GW's attempt to fix plasma in the IG codex.

The poll should have allowed multiple choices, as plenty of players (myself included) play both competitive and casual games. I voted for Competitive-Yes because my current competitive Chaos list runs 3 units of Obliterators. Oblits are probably one of the best, if not the best, units in the CSM codex.

Almost every ork army needs to have some unit three times.

My DG actually managed to not fall under this thread's definition of spam, but only because I bought a defiler instead of a third PBC because I liked the model more.

I run 3 squads of 5 man normal marines. Because it's lore friendly. Sometimes I run 6 squads if it's a bigger game. XD

Wow, look, as soon as the term "spam" was removed from the poll description, we went from 40% "Casual - no" with that being the most chosen response by a wide margin, to 39" "Casual - yes". The Competitive - yes column has also pulled ahead of the Competitive - no column since the poll terms were changed.

So with that in mind, let's talk about spam.

I'd say that rather than a definition that simply looks at the number of models or units a player takes, to really see something as "spam" a player needs to fit three categories:

1) The single unit must make up a large percentage of the points in an army. I'd say roughly 50% or more before I start looking at my list and thinking in terms of skew tactics and overloading threats. So you could be spamming with 200 guard bodies, or 3 baneblade tanks. Basically, I think of it as the break point where I have to start giving up on my ability to deal with particular threats or counters and I'm planning to just make up for it with sheer numbers of the same threat.

2) It (usually) has to be done for competitive gain, because most of the time spam is usually only employed as a pejorative by people who didn't like the list, or as a shorthand way to describe the list by a competitive player talking about it. You can have someone with an almost all-dreadnought, or all leman russ, or all whatever list, and somehow it always seems to only magically become a "spam" list when the rules change to make them a very difficult opponent to take on.

For the very reason that it's a subjective term, I think a lot of people are going to have a hard time nailing down a hard and fast definition for themselves.

You call it "spam", I call it "themed list".

(seriously though... 3 is way too low a threshhold. You need to run three units of a slot for most detachments. And if you want to stick to a theme, and dont want to use allies (because allies suck), then youre going to have to repeat units.

Also, as much as you repeat that youre not attaching a value to the word spam, the fact is, it has negative connotations. Id avoid using it in this context.

Sisters squads in Immolators

Dominons in Same

I play Guard my troop selection is very small, you get the picture.

I spam.

Spam is fine.

I'd much rather play against someone running a cohesive looking list with a few multiples of units than somebody running one of everything in an attempt to be 'fluffy'.

No one runs one of everything in an attempt to be "fluffy".

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 roflmajog wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
But it's largely irrelevant.

If we can assume that people actually answered honestly, the vast majority of players do not spam, even with what we can agree is a fairly strong boundary to qualify as non-spam.

It also doesn't reflect that some armies simply have to spam, due to limited troop choices, or overall limited variety in their unit counts. This is more true - probably - for casual players than competitive players, because competitive players are more open to souping.

I don't think you can assume people answered "honestly". I think quite a few people will have either not read your overly restrictive definition of spam before they voted or read it and voted that they don't spam anyway because they disagree with the definition you gave.

Confession: I voted "no" before reading his ridiculous definition of "spam." Apparently that time I ran 3 units of 5 DE Warriors in a 1500 pt list is considered "spamming."

Honestly I'm glad this post was made because it actually gets to something casual players and competitive players forget.

It isn't spamming if the unit really isn't that great, but some people hate the fact a unit is being ran that many times as for some reason they cannot stand the concept of redundancy.

Quite frankly, the "one of everything" armies look much worse on the table and are worse off crunch wise too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
No one runs one of everything in an attempt to be "fluffy".

Ooooooooooh yes they do. Definitely read more of the posts on this forum.

I'm sure someone, somewhere, absolutely does do that.

Even then, he wasn't saying people do that, just that he'd rather play someone who spammed than someone who did that.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 roflmajog wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
But it's largely irrelevant.

If we can assume that people actually answered honestly, the vast majority of players do not spam, even with what we can agree is a fairly strong boundary to qualify as non-spam.

It also doesn't reflect that some armies simply have to spam, due to limited troop choices, or overall limited variety in their unit counts. This is more true - probably - for casual players than competitive players, because competitive players are more open to souping.

I don't think you can assume people answered "honestly". I think quite a few people will have either not read your overly restrictive definition of spam before they voted or read it and voted that they don't spam anyway because they disagree with the definition you gave.

Confession: I voted "no" before reading his ridiculous definition of "spam." Apparently that time I ran 3 units of 5 DE Warriors in a 1500 pt list is considered "spamming."

Honestly I'm glad this post was made because it actually gets to something casual players and competitive players forget.

It isn't spamming if the unit really isn't that great, but some people hate the fact a unit is being ran that many times as for some reason they cannot stand the concept of redundancy.

Quite frankly, the "one of everything" armies look much worse on the table and are worse off crunch wise too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
No one runs one of everything in an attempt to be "fluffy".

Ooooooooooh yes they do. Definitely read more of the posts on this forum.

I really don't think it's redundancy people take issue with. I think it's a certain level of boredom when dealing with real spam tactics - i.e. lists that are more than 50% just one thing, because at that point you're relying on skew to make up for deficiencies in the list and you're going to have a much larger percentage totally uninteractive, one-sided games.

There's a line of reasonableness that the internet conveniently fails to recognize. When someone says "I dislike playing against spam lists" they're probably not remembering that one time someone DARED take three units of kabalite warriors, they're remembering that dude where they play who brings 2000 points of Ork Boyz with minimal support units, every game, and people have just stopped wanting to play against him. Because after a while, grinding away at 300 identical bodies who just move in a straight line across the field at you and attempt to bludgeon you with their statlines gets about as exciting as trying to kill 15,000,000 bears in an MMORPG to get an achievement. As fluffy as it is, as long as he's been playing it and as dedicated as he is to the concept, a list with very little variety is going to get a large percentage of players who will only want to play against it very occasionally and who will pass that game up for an opponent with a more varied list.

There's a middle ground, and I know this is a crazy idea, between feeling like you're "not allowed" to bring more than 2 of the same unit, and thinking that you should be able to bring 2000 points of completely identical models to the table and how dare anyone get sick of playing against that, they are clearly CAAC scumbags. Trying to present the former as "Spam" is disingenuous. Trying to cast complaints about something more like the latter as complaints about the former is similarly disingenuous.

I run 4 5-man squad of intercessors. 2 are DA with Stalker Bolt Rifles and 2 are IH with standard Bolt Rifles (I don't want to pay the points for auto)

I used to play AM where I ran 7 squads of catachan infantry and a traditional 3 tank hellhound squad (2 hellhounds and a devil dog). Three Leman Russes too.

Before this thread I'd never seen/heard of a 'one per list rule' for being 'fluffy'. Given the fiction and its hordes of faceless troops it doesn't seem a very fluffy way of playing at all.

Running 3 or 5 units of Dire Avengers is not spamming in the core sense. They are the basic troop choice.

Same with spamming any troop choice is not the same as spamming 5 Marine Captains or 6 Dreadnoughts.