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.

Lot of sexual tension in this thread.

I like the one on the left.

G

On-Topic, people!!

Less filling!

On topic?

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

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

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

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


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

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


Now back on topic.

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

When choosing a unit you should ask.

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

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

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

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

So 16 bikes and 3 attack bikes. as your troops

You are only using 2 troop slots for this

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

3 5 man bikes w/ 2 meltaguns

Placing the Attack bikes in Fast attack.

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

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

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

G

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

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

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

G

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

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

For Example

2 6 Man Seer Councils on Bikes

2 Fire Dragon Squads w/ Wave Serpent

2 Dire Avenger with Wave Serpent


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


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

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

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

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

G

Lash = Fail.

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

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

G

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

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

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

G

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

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

Kyley wrote:

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

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

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

EDIT: Actually, not gonna get involved lol.

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

You should, it's fun. lol

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

G

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

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

G

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

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

For instance.

2 Attack Bikes w/ Multimeltas

and

2 Landspeeders w/ Multimeltas


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

The same though could be said of

2 Attack Bikes
2 attack bikes

Where that is just a exact same unit.

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

G

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

G

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

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

Wait, I have a question.

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

Consider this list

1xDP Lash

10xCSM Icon
10xCSM Icon

rest of the army CHAOS SPAWN.

^^^Redundant spam, must be powerful right?

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

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

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

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

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

The point is that redundancy works.

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

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

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

How much redundancy do you really need?

G

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

G

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

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

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

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

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

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