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

One thing I've noticed is that a lot of people say that lists that spam the same unit over and over are boring. on paper I agree, however I think that when you actually play a list like this, it can be fun to play. Plus, less variety can actually make a list more themed, even though lists like this tend to be good.

For example, if a SW player had 18 Long Fangs, a ton of Grey Hunters, some Thunderwolves, and not much else, that's repetitive, but its no doubt a powerful list that I think could be pretty fun. I made an Ork list that has Wazzdakka, some bike squads, and maxed out Warbuggies, Kannons, and Lootas for Max firepower. On paper it is ridiculously repetitive, but I think it would still be fun to play.

At least that's what I think. What do you guys think about lists that only have about 4-5 different units, but spam them?

I personally think that playing against powerful lists is fun, and that playing against pushover-lists or pushover players is less fun. However, a lot of people just don't like that kind of challenge.

Spammy lists are both sad and arrogant. Sad because it is repeditive and there's little variety. Arrogant because it presumes that said spammed unit is the 'best' unit for the most common situations.

Phototoxin wrote:I DON'T LIKE SPAM!

But I love it! I'm having spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam, spam, spam, and spam.

Tbh, I don't mind spam at all. It might seem boring on paper but I like the challenge to face some of the more "spammy" lists, and with my memory...it's just simpler for me if every special in the army is a meltagun.
What I dislike is people trashing on others armies NEEDLEESLY. I don't want to hear that my army is boring neither that I should spam more of a certain unit. If I'm asking for advice it's fine to say something like that, as long as you have harder arguements than "That shucks. That's boring. F****** WAAC, drop that broadside!"

(Ps, sorry for the needless jab Photo, hoping for now hard feelings. )

My friend constantly berates me for using gimmick lists. However his frustration stems from the fact that my Gimmick lists usually kills his balanced list >.>

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:My friend constantly berates me for using gimmick lists. However his frustration stems from the fact that my Gimmick lists usually kills his balanced list >.>

A lot of people use "balanced" to mean "has a lot of different crap."

IMO a better definition of "balanced" is "can handle any task required."

Sometimes a "spammy" list is "balanced" (SM bikers).

Sometimes a "spammy" list is not as capable as a diverse one, if the diverse one has been designed to be balanced.

My friend's list is actually balanced as it can conceivably kill anything it goes up against. However all goes to hell when my Trygon pops up behind his lines. Ever since his first batle with it, the Trygon is something of a brown note to the guy and all common sense goes out the window the minute the giant nid worm shows up.

I had a recent argument with an individual regarding my Space Wolf all footer list which includes Njal, 2 units of Wolf Scouts, A Wolfguard (just to attach to the Grey Hunters and Scouts), 4 Units of Grey Hunters and 3 Units of Long Fangs. The theme of the army was to be balance in a way where it can take on everything and still keep the Leman Russ's way of war, feet solid on the ground. He told me my list was boring because its idiosyncratic but thats the SW mentality. I then wanted to explain to him that none of my opponents ever found this list boring to play against as it was extremely challenging. He scuffed.

I followed my statement with an explanation that I feel people who build lists to be gimmicks and slightly sub par on the competition aren't building armies for their opponent to enjoy (in a gameplay setting, not the hobby setting). They are solely building it for their own enjoyment and sometimes even for their own vanity. The one game out of dozens in which they beat a competitive army or a spam list instills in them a sense of superiority in which they say: "I must be awesome for I have defeated this better list with a weaker list, take that metagame!". Is it enjoyable for your opponents for the other 11 games to have just rolled your army with ease or little hindrance? I personally don't enjoy it on a gameplay level. I love my games to tell stories of heroism and epic but not one sided massacres because my opponent decided to bring an all Swooping Hawk theme army.

Well your milage may vary on that one. I like Gimmick Lists because of how striking they can look and feel. Sure I'm handicapped, and it's fun poking fun at my opponent for loosing to a handicapped list once in a while, but I'm not doing it for my own vanity. You make it sound like those people are playing the lethal joke character just to humiliate their opponents. Some do that, but I for one dont. Seeing a list made up solely of Noise Marines led by Lucius makes it feel like you're actually facing the Emperor's Children legion, not one of the many small Spikey Marine Warbands. Likewise someone running a whole army of aspect warriors led by an Avatar really gets the feeling of Biel Tan over someone who just painted his units in Biel Tan Colors, but only included Fire Dragons.

I should note that there are different sorts of spam.

First it's the "competative" spam. 3x Melta Vets squads, 2x3 Hydras, 3x15 Lootas. All these options bring something to the table. They are "normal", they are "hard". They are also some of the least enjoyable spam on the interwebs.
I don't mind it much.

Secondly it's the "funny" spam. Taking 3xvets squads are fine...3 Full units of ratlings? 3 Full units of shining spears? 6 units of pretty much any troop choice?
This I don't enjoy much. I can see it in a one off game, but it's too gimicky and fall apart really easily.

Thirdly it's the "full army spam", also known as building an army around a single theme. "What, themed armies are always fluffy as hell, not spam!".
How about the "fluffy" 9 detta air cav. The "barrage guard". Wolves with alot of TWC's. All these act as a sort of rock-scissor-paper game. If you've brought enough anti-something against them you roll over them, otherwise it's as "boring" as any army.

And now many of you might call me a hypocrite for seemingly enjoy the first one but not the second one when I already said I liked spam...

How should I explain this. It's like candy really. Alot of something is great. A little varity is great too, but we all have out favourites. But it can be...too much sometimes.

It all depends on your taste. I don't mind seeing 6 Vet squads or 3 Long Fangs. It's something that fits into the army, isn't the whole army, and is "counterable".
15 TWC's, 18 Bloodchrusers or 9 Leman Russes...These lists fully depend on whether or not you actually have any weapons to handle it to begin with. I.e, the game is pretty much over when lists are being exchanged.

Dam, looking over this post I see that I really need to work on my english.

I think repetitive lists can get more annoying rather than boring... You'll always of the same weakness... or if you're playing against a repeat list, you can potentially always get killed by the same things (stupid obliterators).

Like everything there's good and bad gimmicks, but that's for another thread

However truely repetitive lists, like facing 5 consecutive mechmarines in a row, gets really really annoying, especially if there's no other reward to be gained in it (claiming to be beating, the same, opponents every week gets old and makes you look like a jerk very fast).

willydstyle wrote:A lot of people use "balanced" to mean "has a lot of different crap."

IMO a better definition of "balanced" is "can handle any task required."

This.

People often use words like "variety" and "diversity" and even "versatility" to make "poor-quality" and "unfocused" sound like noble qualities.

Building simple and effective lists which are straighforward in application is the sign of strong list engineering*. Calling it full of "spam" is taking proper design and morally deriding it. Is a bridge somehow worse if it only uses one type of rivet, or a tool worse because it uses only one alloy?

You take what's best, and you use it. Refusing to make anything but cluttered lists that coordinate poorly on the battlefield is not the sign of a somehow enlightened player, nor is the person who brings simple, effective lists somehow a bottom-feeding cretin.

Engineering and emotion make poor bedfellows.



* I'd just like to note the famous quote from Saint-Exupery "An engineer has achieved perfection, not when there is no longer anything left to add, but when there is no longer anything left to take away". You call it "spam", I call it "perfection".

Personally, I'm sick of seeing the following things

IG: Melta Vets in Chimera, PCS with 4 Plasmas
Orks: Nob Bikers, Deffcoptas with TL Rokkits and Buzzsaw
SW: Long Fangs with 5 MLs
BA: Assault Marines with 2 Meltas in a Las/Plas Razor, Libbies with Shield and Unleash Rage
Tyranids: Hive Guard

Anytime I see a list with these units en-mass, I skip it.
Newsflash: You do not need these units to win
I play Blood Angels. I have one unit of 5 Assault Marines, yet I seem to win most my matches. I commit the cardinal sin of taking BA Tac Marines without a Rhino (shock and awe!) yet I'm a pretty successful player, yet some people think that only copying and pasting repetivive-as-feth lists will allow them to win.

Rant over, thanks for reading

Ailaros wrote:

willydstyle wrote:A lot of people use "balanced" to mean "has a lot of different crap."

IMO a better definition of "balanced" is "can handle any task required."

This.

People often use words like "variety" and "diversity" and even "versatility" to make "poor-quality" and "unfocused" sound like noble qualities.

Building simple and effective lists which are straighforward in application is the sign of strong list engineering*. Calling it full of "spam" is taking proper design and morally deriding it. Is a bridge somehow worse if it only uses one type of rivet, or a tool worse because it uses only one alloy?

You take what's best, and you use it. Refusing to make cluttered lists that coordinate poorly on the battlefield is not the sign of a somehow enlightened player, nor is the person who brings simple, effective lists somehow a bottom-feeding cretin.

Engineering and emotion make poor bedfellows.



* I'd just like to note the famous quote from Exupery "An engineer has achieved perfection, not when there is no longer anything left to add, but when there is no longer anything left to take away". You call it "spam", I call it "perfection".

+1 Win, so much win. I would tip my hat to you sir if I wore hats.

I'd like to encourage folks to NOT bring judgments of the other player into the discussion. Different strokes for different folks, and all that. Also, I know some of you feel defensive when you perceive someone as judging you negatively, but criticizing an army list as being dull is not a moral judgment on you as a person. It's a question of personal taste. Don't leap to defend yourself too enthusiastically when you're not actually being attacked.

A "spam" list (and what constitutes spam varies from person to person) can often be exciting and fun to play against, and with. Any close and tactically-challenging game is generally fun.

On the occasion that I do call a spam army boring, I'm usually talking about from the perspective of the owner of the army. While having a strong army is great and facilitates competitive games, the fewer different types of units you have, the more repetitive those games inherently become. After a while, you get sick of running an army of nothing but the same three units (whether that's Longfangs, TWC & GH; Lash princes, Plagues, and oblits, or whatever).

For my money, it's totally fine and expected to rely on the strong units in your codex; but it's more interesting, more visually appealing, and more tactically-challenging to mix in at least one or two less-seen units. Sometimes this genuinely makes your list weaker. Sometimes it can be equally strong, if you find good synergies and combinations. If you manage to create an original list that competes on even footing with the "usual suspect" top lists, that's an achievement.

Oscarius also had an excellent point that there are some armies which rely on totally overloading the enemy with a given unit. 9 Vendettas, 18-24 bloodcrushers, 4+ land raiders, or 12+ Razorbacks are all examples of this. IMO these armies do indeed become boring for opponents as well. Playing against them a couple of times is an exciting and unusual challenge. But playing against them a bunch of times becomes a predictable chore, as you come to know right from the start whether you have the necessary tools to deal with them, and the outcome is often foreseeable after the first turn or two of dice rolling, if not before.

Ailaros' argument is well made, but reduces our enjoyable hobby of playing with miniature soldiers to the mundane utilitarianism of bridge-building. Heck, to be honest, that's not fair to the bridge builders. In real life they normally strive for beauty and aethetic value, and frequently take on the challenge of making something NEW and pushing the envelope, instead of just repeating the exact same old time-tested designs.

That quote from Saint-Exupery, carried too far, can be used as an argument for not innovating, and for leaving off all aesthetic touches. Forget those little towers, copies of the Bunker Hill monument on top of the Zakim Bridge, and don't bother making it the longest cable-stayed bridge in the world. Other bridge styles are proven to work well (and perhaps more efficiently) over that distance. Taking away those towers on top might make the bridge's design more efficient, but they wouldn't make it a better bridge, unless your priorities completely exclude aethetics and symbolism.

When designing and playing an army, we too, like the bridge-builders, have other priorities in mind than just efficiency. The most efficient army in the world is probably among the most repetitive and predictable; but those two words don't normally go hand in hand with pleasure. As with most things, moderation and balance are often important to maximize your own enjoyment.

When I said repetitive, I didn't mean taking all of one thing necessarily. Here's what I had in mind.

HQ

Wazdakka Gutsmek - 180pts

ELITES

x10 Lootas - 150pts

x10 Lootas - 150pts

x10 Lootas - 150pts

TROOP

x5 Warbikers - 165pts
-Nob w/ Bosspole
-Power Klaw

x5 Warbikers - 165pts
-Nob w/ Bosspole
-Power Klaw

x5 Warbikers - 165pts
-Nob w/ Bosspole
-Power Klaw

x5 Warbikers - 165pts
-Nob w/ Bosspole
-Powerklaw

x5 Warbikers - 125pts
-Wazdakka goes here

FAST ATTACK

x3 Warbuggies - 105pts
-x3 Twin-Linked Rokkits

x3 Warbuggies - 105pts
-x3 Twin-Linked Rokkits

x3 Warbuggies - 105pts
-x3 Twin-Linked Rokkits

HEAVY SUPPORT

x3 Big Gunz - 91pts
-Kannons
-Runtherd
-x3 Ammo Runts
-x4 Extra Krew

x3 Big Gunz - 91pts
-Kannons
-Runtherd
-x3 Ammo Runts
-x4 Extra Krew

x3 Big Gunz - 88pts
-Kannons
-Runtherd
-x3 Ammo Runts
-x3 Extra Krew

Total: 2000pts


It effectively takes one kind of unit in each FOC slot. I think this list would be pretty fun to play, as well as powerful, but maybe that's just me.

I think it'd be a ton of fun to play, at least at first. I could see how it could get old after a while, though. It's basically several copies of the same four units.

However, the way this army plays is, I think, a bit different from any of the common armies. 6 really static shooting units, 8 really fast moving, small units. I think that it seems more original, and the play style would probably help it stay "fresh" and interesting longer than some.

While I can see the inherent strength and competitiveness of a list build around a small core of unit types, I'd imagine I'd go bonkers using a list using less than 5 distinctly different units. My experience with "spammy" lists is simply applying the same basic strategies over and over again. It leaves little room for creativity.

Going against these lists is largely the same. You figure out once how to defeat it, and you make the same moves every time you play that list, or one of it's close variations. Once you've got the strategy down, you hope for average dice, and you have a reasonable chance to win.

I'm personally a fan of using well rounded (i.e. "all comers") lists with a little variety. While I can identify what the most solid and competitive units in any of my codices are, I have far more fun with a list that challenges me to maximize inter-unit synergy in new and unexpected ways, both on the tabletop and in the list building stage. These lists aren't always the most competitive, but can hold their own, and are much more fun for me to play. What's more, no one has ever had issue with one of my lists when it comes to comp scores.

I suppose my overall problem with the trend of repetitive lists is the fear that the practice will lead to overall tactical stagnation. You can always try to counter the "metagame, but for their to be a metagame to counter, there most be the popular trend in the way people build lists. The spam lists are the extreme of this concept. It is far more interesting to fail at being a pioneer the be brutally successful at following the herd.

I think it's more important to take what works for you, and what you like most about your army. What I hate is when I'm up against someone who I can obviously tell copy pasted their list from the internet and barely knows how it works, but they're using it because they were told that the list was powerful. Thats just being lazy and it really doesn't make you any better at the game it's just annoying.

I mostly play Imperial Guard and I started right before the switch to the 5th edition guard. I played for about 4 months before the 5th edition guard came out and when I bought my army I chose the Catachans because I wanted an army that could be flexible and spring a few nasty surprises on my opponents to keep them on their toes without having to depend too much on tanks. My list has changed alot since then and while I do have 2 Chimeras with melta, demo vets inside I also take a Vet squad with Harker to outflank (something I dearly miss in the new codex, why the heck don't forward sentries have infiltrate?). Which isn't very common to see.

I also have 3 scout sentinels outflanking with heavy flamers, a squad of 10 Ratlings (I really don't like the ratling models, I use the Catachan sniper models and I really would prefer not to take Ratlings at all but there isn't any other way to get snipers in the guard army that arent completly worthless.), 2 Griffons, 2 combined 20-man infantry squads w/ autocannons and flamers, commissar as well (Which I also hate having, but again I have no other way to represent Catachan stubborness), 2 Hellhounds and the army is led by Straken himself.

Is it spamming? Maybe, I've got the Vet squads, Infantry squads are copies of eachother, 2 Hellhounds and Heavy Flamer Scout sentinels for template spam. Marbo and the 3 squads of demo vets are kind of spammy because of all the Demo charges I can throw, Griffon batteries also drop templtes everywhere.But I have one hell of a fun time playing it and it gives my opponents something new to try and fight without the list being too weak and gimmicky. So in the end I say that you can build any list you like no matter what it has. Just make sure the list is fun to play and don't let the internet, or your own ego, write it for you.

Green Tide Orks. Not only are you recycling one unit type, that unit is big, so you end up with the vast majority of your models being nearly identical.

It's fluffy, it looks impressive as hell (with even half-decently constructed and painted models), and it's perfectly playable without coming even remotely close to overpowered (except, arguably, in very low-point games). While some people might call it boring and mindless (point horde at enemy, move and run until you can charge), I look forward to the challenge of using those grunts as best I can against a variety of threats. I can pick and choose my "side dish" HQ and supporting units to add a touch of variety, if I so desire.

It seems to me like most people's annoyance at "spam" lists is less a reaction against repetition within a list, but between lists. Razor-spam doesn't break the game, nor do IG MechVets or Loganwing. Play against enough of them, though, and it gets old. If half a dozen players got together for the weekend, each bringing a different army's "internet approved spam list of the month" and played a round robin tourney, it would be fun. If there were only 2 lists being fielded between those 6 players, much of the flavor would be lost. The latter case seems to be more indicative of the metagame at a lot of people's FLGS, from what I've heard on Dakka which understandably, but not entirely fairly, contributes to the backlash. That's my feeling, at least.

Commander Endova wrote: It is far more interesting to fail at being a pioneer the be brutally successful at following the herd.

Yoink.

As for Repetitive lists being boring, I have to agree. As you all know, I play Chaos Space Marines, though I have never run a Duel Lash/Oblit/Plague Melta army. I prefer Normal marines over Cult Marines, though I will admit to DoWII making me reconsider a Nurgle Based force.

But anyway, I am told I am the most fun person to play against in my gaming group. Not because I always win, I don't. Not because I run predictable lists, because I don't. No, I am considered the most fun to play against because you "Never freakin know what he is going to bring to the table, or how he will use it". Havocs with 4 Meltas and a Power Weapon waiting in the backline for their deep strikers to show up, Obliterators charging into combat, Sorcerers turning models into Spawn, you name it, I have done it. I play Chaos Chaoticly, and the people love me for it. Even if I don't "win" the game, if both players enjoyed it, I consider it a win.

I do not mind what sort of list my opponent takes as I generally can figure out what I want to use to counter any given unit.

The only time I find a "repetitive" list boring is when the same player takes the same list ten games in a row as that tends to get a bit old. I do not mind this if it is a new player without a lot of model options but one of the fun things for me in this game is the variety of forces you can play against and the challenge they present.

I do not even mind different opponents taking basically the same lists as at least then you get a variety in their basic game play techniques and styles.

I usually play repetitive lists, I find it helps organization and play. Rather than having to think for a second, which unit of marines has the meltagun or the plasma rifle, etc. you know they are all equipped identically.

I guess I'd fit into this extremely "spammy" category of wargamers. If so, then so be it. I build my lists to represent a separate aspect of whatever force I'm using. I run air cav guard with melta/demo vets in Vendettas and triple flamer demo vets in Valks. This list may be seen as boring and spammy but I'm just trying to represent an elite airborne pioneer unit of the IG. I've always preferred specialists to the horde of grunts but I've nothing against those who don't. I also play a heavily armored tank list to represent an IG siege company. It is comprised entirely of LR Demolishers except for the command tank which is an Executioner.

Um... It doesn't end there. My Orks are a Wazzdakka all biker/biker nob list but I didn't take them because they were the "best" units. I just wanted to do an Orky biker gang. I don't have deff koptas or Lootas or anything like that. I realize that the list could be considered very weak but I've won the vast majority of games with this list.

Just to complete the list of my spammy weak armies, my SMs are a homebrewed chapter version of the SW Loganwing and a foot list that fields a full unit of 10 honorguard, dreads and other close combat goodness. Does it win, hardly ever, but is it fun. Usually.

I guess I'm just a fluff over function kind of guy.

For non tournament games I usually try to build fun, fluffy and themed unique lists, while still remaining relatively competative. I hate facing poorly balanced all-over the place lists that get completly destroyed - I would much rather have a challenge. My current Imperial Fists list looks like this:

Lysander
5x TH/SS Termies, LRR, EA, MM
10 marines, melta, combimelta, ML, rhino HK dozer
10 marines,flamer combi flamer, ML, rhino HK dozer
5 sniper scouts, camo, ML
2x Typhoon speeders
2x Typhoon speeders
Vindicator- siege shield
Vindicator- siege shield
Vindicator- siege shield

Coming up against a top tier list (TWC+long fang spam, IG leafblower, razorspam BA) I would probably lose, but it does well against most average lists. For Tournaments however, I focus on being 100% competitive and spammy if needed. My 1850 Tourny list is:

Vulkan
MOTF
10 marines, melta, combimelta, MM, drop pod
10 marines, melta, combimelta, MM, drop pod
10 marines, melta, combimelta, MM, drop pod
Dreadnought, MM, HF, drop pod
Dreadnought, MM, HF, drop pod
Dreadnought, MM, HF, drop pod
Dreadnought, MM, HF, drop pod
Dreadnought, MM, HF, drop pod
Dreadnought, MM, HF, drop pod

Phototoxin wrote:Spammy lists are both sad and arrogant. Sad because it is repeditive and there's little variety. Arrogant because it presumes that said spammed unit is the 'best' unit for the most common situations.

Some armies like Necrons and Sisters of Battle are practically forced to have semi-spamy lists, not everyone has a huge variety of wargear at their disposal.

For the most part the only army that is truly spammed at my game store is the blood angels (starting with them now anyways) and the space wolves. We have a grand total of 3 of each at the store now and for the most part all are very closely identical. However at the same time they have a few BIG differences, the space wolf players (besides massive amounts of Long Fangs and some Tunderwolf Cav) all are pretty different. I dont mind it as much since its what players want to play with but i do admit the idea i may come across those armies several times in a row in a tournament does kinda make me feel a little....sigh....

Sandman wrote:I guess I'd fit into this extremely "spammy" category of wargamers. If so, then so be it. I build my lists to represent a separate aspect of whatever force I'm using. I run air cav guard with melta/demo vets in Vendettas and triple flamer demo vets in Valks. This list may be seen as boring and spammy but I'm just trying to represent an elite airborne pioneer unit of the IG. I've always preferred specialists to the horde of grunts but I've nothing against those who don't. I also play a heavily armored tank list to represent an IG siege company. It is comprised entirely of LR Demolishers except for the command tank which is an Executioner.

Um... It doesn't end there. My Orks are a Wazzdakka all biker/biker nob list but I didn't take them because they were the "best" units. I just wanted to do an Orky biker gang. I don't have deff koptas or Lootas or anything like that. I realize that the list could be considered very weak but I've won the vast majority of games with this list.

Just to complete the list of my spammy weak armies, my SMs are a homebrewed chapter version of the SW Loganwing and a foot list that fields a full unit of 10 honorguard, dreads and other close combat goodness. Does it win, hardly ever, but is it fun. Usually.

I guess I'm just a fluff over function kind of guy.

See, but that isn't really what anyone is talking about. You have a reason to use a list like that (Fluffy), rather than a "OMAGAWD THIS UNIT IS THE BEST SPAM SPAM SPAM!"

Taking Chaos Space Marines for instance, lets look at two lists, one being the standard CSM list of Plagues, Lash Princes, and Obliterators:

1500 pts:
Prince, Lash, Wings, MoS................................................. 155pts
Prince, Lash, Wings, MoS................................................. 155pts
7 Plague Marines, Champ (Power Fist), 2 Meltaguns, Rhino.... 256pts
7 Plague Marines, Champ (Power Fist), 2 Meltaguns, Rhino.... 256pts
3 Obliterators................................................................. 225pts
3 Obliterators................................................................. 225pts
3 Obliterators................................................................. 225pts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................................................1497pts

A fairly spammy list, no? It goes with the best units of the army, and hopes that it wins for them.

Now, lets look at a fluffy army:

1500 pts

Kharn The Betrayer........................................................... 165 pts
9 Berserkers, Champ (Power Weapon, Melta Bombs) Rhino...... 259 pts
9 Berserkers, Champ (Power Fist) Rhino................................ 264 pts
9 Berserkers, Champ (Power Fist) Rhino................................ 264 pts
Chaos Defiler (2 Close Combat Arms).................................... 150 pts
Chaos Defiler (2 Close Combat Arms).................................... 150 pts
3 Chaos Bikers, Icon of Khorne............................................ 129 pts
9 Bloodletters (Lesser Summoned Daemons)......................... 117 pts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................................................. 1498 pts

Technically, this fluffy army is a the same, if not a bit more, spammy than the Spammy list up above. However, since that's the theme of your army, and your making a fluffy army dedicated to one God, it's not spam. Is this the most effective list? No, no it is not. Would it be fun to play, both with and against? Yes, Yes it would. Just my $0.02.

Well, the same old same old lists over and over again are suck to play against.

Heck, i feel as if i am the ONLY eldar player that doesnt have Eldrad with the Avatar as HQ Choices (A vanilla farseer and asuremen, or two farseers for me)

Almost all ultramarines i've played against featured a razorback with a command squad, one of which is calgar, a whirlwind, plasma-cannon devistators, a drop-pod of sterngaurd, and the rest of the point cap is filled with tac-marines in rhinoes

I love playing against themed armies, they generally are made to be more interesting that anything else, and the combination of units they have range from the obscene to the awesome.