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.

So I'm looking at playing some 40k again, not tournament level stuff, but I'm reading about 5th Ed and trying to work things into my armies, and it seems like while things have technically "changed" in terms of what's hot and what's not from when I played in 4th Ed, it seems that the core "problem" that made me want to stop playing the game is still sort of around.

In 4th Ed it was Skimmer Spam and MC Spam that just made the game annoying to play way back when. Effectively it was the kind of stuff you just couldn't reliably kill those units effectively and that's what was maximized.

Now that MC's don't get cover saves from having their bases in area terrain and Skimmers can fall to the almighty 5th Ed Melta, it seems that the new "Spam" is just armor, lots and lots of armor.

On one hand, I almost prefer this since in 4th I liked running Mech Marines as my "non competitive/fun army" and I had a Kult Of Speed Ork force actually built, rather than the Horde of shooty death that the 4th Ed Dex made so awesome after it came out. On the other hand it just seems like 40k is still a game of "I take as much of this one kind of unit as possible" as it ever was.

Thoughts?

Not at all! I play Space Marines, and aside from the only two troop choices being tacs and scouts, I take all different stuff. In all my opponents, too, there is a lot of diversity. Spamming is still possible, but it really can't get you anywhere anymore because there is just too much variety in army lists and most choices you can take specialize at one specific thing, and are weak against a lot of other stuff.

Most complex military design/organization is based on multiple redundant systems, from fire bases and squad deployment to the fuel lines in your vehicles. This kind of layout is meant to prevent a massive systematic failure by providing backups and, in some cases, backups to those backups.

Having a bunch of fire teams that can't fill the role of the other fire teams in the unit is nothing shy of a disaster waiting to happen.

Spamming, as it were, is actually a pretty solid strategy, as it provides multiple redundant systems to prevent mass failure within your forces.

To quote myself in an older thread that covered this....

Voodoo Boyz wrote:So I'm looking at playing some 40k again, not tournament level stuff, but I'm reading about 5th Ed and trying to work things into my armies, and it seems like while things have technically "changed" in terms of what's hot and what's not from when I played in 4th Ed, it seems that the core "problem" that made me want to stop playing the game is still sort of around.

In 4th Ed it was Skimmer Spam and MC Spam that just made the game annoying to play way back when. Effectively it was the kind of stuff you just couldn't reliably kill those units effectively and that's what was maximized.

Now that MC's don't get cover saves from having their bases in area terrain and Skimmers can fall to the almighty 5th Ed Melta, it seems that the new "Spam" is just armor, lots and lots of armor.

On one hand, I almost prefer this since in 4th I liked running Mech Marines as my "non competitive/fun army" and I had a Kult Of Speed Ork force actually built, rather than the Horde of shooty death that the 4th Ed Dex made so awesome after it came out. On the other hand it just seems like 40k is still a game of "I take as much of this one kind of unit as possible" as it ever was.

Thoughts?

My best advice is to play what you like and don't come here( or any other forum) looking for tactics/army list advice. The "pros" will tell you exactly what to play, but then your army will look like every other flavor of the month army. Buy the models you like, put them on the field and see what happens...

A lot of battles are objective based. Only troops can hold objectives, so for those games it's all about getting troops to objectives and keeping them safe along the way. Because of that, and the vehicles are a bit more resilient in 5ed there are alot more transports. Another side effect is that the rest of the army needs to keep up with those transports to support them, so yeah there are more vehicles.

I agree with Nightwatch and *CT Gamer...

I also had many of the same reservations about playing again (However, mine were from 2nd Edition) but I have to say, I am overall pleased playing again and I have yet to see some of the absurdity that existed in the past. Welcome aboard!



*Note: Many 'experts' seem to put out a lot of info geared very specifically to winning at all costs. It may be true but also seems to smack of examining the Codex inside and out much more than actual playing of the game.

Dronze is correct, partially.

You want redundancy. The easy way to get redundancy is to spam multiples of something. In many cases, this also allows you to overcome an opponent's ability to cope with that specific type of thing that you are spamming.

But, you can also achieve redundancy by fielding different types of units that fill the same role.

If you're eldar, and you need an assault troop, you can field scorpions, banshees, or harlequins. If you need two assault squads, you can either spam one of those, or bring two different types.

Where this breaks down, however, is that if you bring different types, your opponent can focus on the one that hurts them the most. From the above example, if you bring one unit of scorpions and one unit of banshees, then when you play against deathwing, they'll focus their firepower on the banshees, and deal with the scorpion assault. If you're facing orks, they'll try and shoot the scorpions and fight the banshees.


Vehicle/MC spam is the most effective, because in 5th ed, the cost of fielding a vehicle, especially transports, has gone down, their survivability has gone up, and the cost of fielding anti-vehicle weapons has gone up. A lascannon can cost certain units as much as 35 points, while a rhino also costs 35. If I can bring tanks as cheaply as you can take anti-tank guns (some of while will miss, or fail to kill the tank), I'll have an easy time overwhelming your anti-tank capabilities.

But, as long as you have some redundancies built into your army, you should do okay. As long as an opponent cannot focus on just one unit and deny you an opportunity to fight back, you'll do ok.

I will never understand this aversion to so called "spammig".

This is how military organizations have always worked, and always will work. Any military unit is a grouping of simillar if not identical units. The "Best of" lists with 3 identical troops, 3 identical Fast attacks and 3 identical elites and heavies is by far the most accurate representation of how such an army would actually fight.

Take a look at any actual military TO&E this is how it is done. So I just done understand why so many people look at this as somehow "unfluffy" or "cheesy".

Why is it more fun to have an enemy with three different heavy support choices that do not synergise than an opponent with a logical array of forces at his disposal.

Thats not to say that there is never a reason for diversity, but it is not somehow a "superior" way of playing the game.

I dont understand why everyone in this hobby is so damn judgemental of the way other people play.

But each one of my army mans is a unique and beautiful snowflake

If by "spam" you mean "optimization", then everything in life is about "spam".

I'm well aware of how the military operates and the levels of redundancy required. This isn't the military.

In honesty, at least with GW games, you're looking at "spam" always being effective. 2 is always more than double the effectiveness of 1, and so on. IE. If I take enough of something that you can't realistically compensate for it, I win.

Oh well, I'm only playing 40k for fun with friends, and while we're mildly competitive, I guess the current situation is better than what it was before.

The problem is that GW makes games that rely on a point system to build your army. As a result, units that are effective for the point value are taken, and usually in multiples, over units that aren't effective. Every point-based system has a problem that some things are better for the points than other units. Plus, GW has always struggled to get a suitable point cost for unit upgrades (whether it's a standard, meltagun, or a leader).

Agreed. Balancing point costs is a tough and long process. Certain units are more effective then they thought, others less so. This leads to some things being over-costed for their effectiveness (less likely to earn points back) and other under-costed (more likely to earn their points back). When these under-costed units/upgrades/characters etc are discovered, it leads to many people using them. Since they are more cost effective, it makes sense to buy more of them rather than adding in less cost effective units instead.

Basically spamming is all about the lack of balance. If the units were pointed out in perfect balance (which is nigh impossible to do btw) then having a more diverse army would be much more viable.

As it stands, diverse armies are better for more balanced armies than for the ones with only a few choices that are cost effective.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:I'm well aware of how the military operates and the levels of redundancy required. This isn't the military.

Ok this is what I dont understand, im not trying to be a DB here, just can not comprehend that point. This is a War game, its all about the military or para military organizations. Thats kind of the whole point of a war game isnt it, to play a game about war? So if you aknowlege that is how a military organization works, why would you have a problem with using that same concept to generate your fictional ARMY list.

Im not trying to discuss what works best only this view that somehow people who "spam" are looked down on by some people. Why those people seem to feel like a random mixture of unorganized units is somehow more "fully" for a space marine list than an actual organized and logical TO&E styled list.

And why is this phenomenon more common in the GW hobby in particular. No one complains about "spamming" in FOW or AT-43 I wonder why so many people have such seeming anger over what to me seems like the natural way to design an Army. Sure im ex military so im used to thinking like this, but if we are all playing a wargame why is it wrong to design a military style list for an army?

I actually think it has more to do with what you spam than the fact that you are spamming. People see "spamming" as a form of power gaming, because they assume most people are just spamming what they feel is the most effective unit for the points cost.

For instance, no one would get yelled at for "spamming" 15 spawn. People would think it's cool or fun, etc. But you really wouldn't get very many complaints.

I don't necessarily agree, but I think that's what I normally see.

Well yeah, of course you are taking the most effective choice for the points cost. Why would you not do that and Why is that bad?

I will never understand how NOT doing something illogical(delberatly taking a less than optimal choice) makes you a bad gamer.

The Romans spammed, and look how effective they were, for so long. Has any other empire existed with the same military structure for as long?

I think you could argue the Samurai spammed....

Most European armies post Renaissance spammed. You had musketeers ( glorified spearmen), heavy and light cavalry, and artillery. Clausewitz I believe estimated something like 70% of your army should be infantry....

bigtmac68 wrote:Well yeah, of course you are taking the most effective choice for the points cost. Why would you not do that and Why is that bad?

I will never understand how NOT doing something illogical(delberatly taking a less than optimal choice) makes you a bad gamer.

HAH! Play in a WHFB GT with that mindset and see what happens!

In effect, I got sick of 4th Edition 40k because I had to build to "beat Godzilla Nids" AND "beat Mech Eldar" AND "beat Demon Bomb Chaos" (before that went away). And when I did that with my Marines, and eventually with Orks in their new dex, I had an army that effectively blew all other competition out of the water.

And at that point playing "Competitively" revolved around taking out the big lists. Thanks to wonderful GW game design, WHFB has gone down a similar road.

WM/Hordes doesn't have that, or at least isn't nearly as bad. There is far more variety in what's competitive yet still diverse and fun.

As I came back to look at 5th Ed 40k in an environment I never really played in I went through the following stages:

1.) Laughing at how Godzilla and Mech Eldar are now "screwed" or at least vastly different from before.
2.) Evaluating what I'd take in my armies and seeing what's considered effective.
3.) Noticing that taking a LOT of armor is generally the new "spam".

As far as being "bad", well if it makes the game stale because you KNOW what you're going to face against the majority of the time, it gets annoying and stale, ie. less fun.

Now that is a very valid point and I totally understand that frustration, but I think it might be misplaced unless the concept of armies being mechanized in general is bothersome. There are strong valid "tier 1" builds for every army at this point and some have multiples.

Looking at Ard Boyz I can see at least a dozen builds that can compete and even the top builds are highy varied. I played another Mech Vet player this weekend and we each had very different armies that played in a very different way because there is so much variety over what you can optimize.

Are allmost all of the best lists mechanized, well yeah but that leaves an incredible variety of builds to choose from. Besides its the beautiful plastic tank that have always been the one thing 40k has that no other game can even try to compare against.

Im an admited tread head, so the new trend makes me very happy but I would hope that having at least a dozen top tier builds with a near infinite variety of tuning possible between them would not make a player feel stale.

Any of these lists has a chance to win Ard Boyz, and that is the most obnoxiously comp less environment there is so if there were one end all be all it would show up here.

Jet Council Eldar (Scares me more than anything!)
Eldarzilla
Nob Bikers Orks
Mech Orks
Green Tide (needs good matchups)
Mech Vet
Air Cav Hybrid Mech Vet
Gunline IG with tricks. (Needs good Matchups)
Vulkan Mech
Vulkan Bike
Mech CSM
Dual Lash
Bloodcrusher Demons (Needs good Matchups)
MSU Tzeentch Demons (Needs the opposite Matchups)
SM Bikers
Blood Angels (Needs Good Matchups)
Necron Tri Monolith
Mech Tau
Dark Eldar (Needs good matchups)

And im sure plenty more than that that I cant think of off the top of my head.

That seems like a pretty diverse playing field to me. I have never seen such a wide open field as to what army is best and what army can compete. You may hear a lot of people complaining about Mech Vet right now but It is hardly invincible and has numerous weaknesses ( And Im a Mech Vet player, so im not bashing the build)

Yes the majority of builds run lots of transports, but thats due to them not sucking this time around so its just natural that they would be common for every army that can take them.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:WM/Hordes doesn't have that, or at least isn't nearly as bad. There is far more variety in what's competitive yet still diverse and fun.

I think due to the different release methods, WM doesn't seem to suffer from it as much since everyone goes up at once. Cavalry really changed the face of the game, but did so across the board (well, a little less if you were Cryx). 40k suffers that Codex X is on top for 6 to 12 months, and then the anti-X Codex comes out.

WM has the same points-effectiveness problem though. Why did so many people play Sorscha (at least pre-Remix)? She was point for point just about the best warcaster (although some things like mageblight took her down a couple pegs). In Mk I how many Cryx armies had Bane Knights? How many had Bane Thralls? I got sick of the Tartarus + 20 Bane Knights Cryx armies.

I look at 40k this way - it's like fashion. Hold onto all your junk units, in the next codex and/or ruleset, they'll be good again.

I'm more in favor of Mech than the alternatives, and gladly, the Melta is the universal answer to all your AV problems, so it's not like we're talking "Stupid Resilient" like 4th Ed Holofields/Skimmers in general, or T6 +5 Cover Save models that shoot you.

As far as WM/Hordes. There were (or even ARE) imbalances, absolutely. But as you said "Pre-Remix", where in FAQ's they FIX game balance issues. Their release schedule helps with this immensely and the game changes too frequently for the "builds" to dominate too long without counters.

I'm probably spoiled from WM/Hordes, but my friends demand "the 40k" and coming back to see the state of the game, I think it's better than it was in 4th Ed, but no where near as good as things are in PP land.

I find 5th to be better than 4th. I haven't played a PP game in probably a year or so. I enjoy their games, but I got tired of the 'multi-combo-activate my caster and kill you' feel of the game. It just seemed like PP was more about stopping the opponent's super-combo than anything else.

IF PP would make a game with pretty tank kits, I would probably never have to play 40k again. I love walkers and all, but for me its all about the tanks baby!!!

So I live with 40k and its rather bizzare rule issues that always crop up in what is really a very solid game that could be easilly fixed with just a few simple clarifications and design decisions.

I can understand why they dont bother though. Gamers are whinning bitches who will complain about anything. You can give them gold models with diamond bases and rules that even the worst rules lawyer could not question, and you would still have legions of gamers complaining about something.

bigtmac68 wrote:
I can understand why they dont bother though. Gamers are whinning bitches who will complain about anything. You can give them gold models with diamond bases and rules that even the worst rules lawyer could not question, and you would still have legions of gamers complaining about something.

Not really. With PP even if there's something wonky, you get a clear official ruling on the matter and really, that's that. You adapt to dealing with the problem and generally there's a way to stop it or pull off your own crazyness. The "complaints" are never about the rules clarity or problems. In general things change so often that bitching is far more limited, like say about a patch to a MMO, than it would be with GW and their crazy and protracted "balance swings".

But this isn't about PP and how awesome they are in comparison. Later tonight I'm going to make my first real 40k list in forever and I'm going to actually PLAY a game in lord knows how long on Thursday. I'll have to post the list later for review.

bigtmac68 wrote:Well yeah, of course you are taking the most effective choice for the points cost. Why would you not do that and Why is that bad?

I will never understand how NOT doing something illogical(delberatly taking a less than optimal choice) makes you a bad gamer.

But, whenever I go to battle I am sure to bring a wet paper towel roll to fight with. It is fluffy.

But I only bring ONE.

If your point is to win games, then yes, the most effective choice is logical.

I agree that a random assortment of troops is not the most fluffy, but neather nessisaraly is chocing only the most effective. Take a Space Marine army. There's a request for aid from a world, and they send 1 company.

Is it then fluffy for you to take 2 Company Captians, after all, the company should have only one captian. Or to take 3 Devistator squads, even though a company only has 2?

Fluff wise, you don't always have access to exactly what you want to compleate the mission. In a wargame, you do always have exactly what you want to play with (assuming you bought the models).


[As a side note, PP has far, far less variablity in their units/models which is one reason they can run their rules better]

You don't get as much spam in Warmachine/Hordes because of the point values and activation
order. In 40k you can't really "wait and see" if a unit will accomplish its goal. You have to
count on it to do so because all your units move in the same phase and they all have to shoot
in the same phase, and they all have to commit to melee in the same phase.

They're different games.

I completely agree with Big T. There is nothing wrong with spam. If you don't like it you can build an army that has completely diversified units except possibly for your troop choices... for instance all of the Space Marine lists I can think of except for Dark Angels only have two troop choices to choose from. Look at Chaos Space Marines though! One of the best CSM armies that I have seen had not one unit that was identical or even the same choice as another.

On the flip side I do understand that spam can indeed make the game tend to be boring. I am thinking of 4th edition specifically:

Tri Falcon eldar with lots of small guardian jet bike units
Chaos daemon bombs with lots of daemonettes and furies
Space Marines with lots of 6 man las/plas tactical squads

By the end of 4th edition you mostly saw spam lists at all the big tournaments. I was really glad when 5th edition rolled out and swept a lot of these armies under the proverbial rug. Already we are seeing some spam now such as Fateweaver/Blood Crusher lists, IG mech vets, nob bikers, etc. The good thing about popular spam lists is you know what to expect and you should be able to counter them if you put some thought into it.

I play Blood Angels primarily and I have only two of the same unit, it's a solid army and very much diversified as a whole.

G

Mostly going to echo Big T, but here goes anyway...

If you like vehicles at all, 5e is better than 4e. If you're playing "mildly competitive" games, and you put together a reasonably balanced mechanized list that can deal with more than one AV14 target, you're unlikely to get stomped.

I think it's a lot more fun than 4e at the "mildly competitive" level. I've seen a lot fewer tablings in 5e than 4e (in part due to the greater focus on objective missions puts more emphasis on survivable troops choices over just blowing everything up), which I consider a good thing.

Honestly the more I think about it, obviously Spam can be considered bad, but if say you're going to spam Space Marines in Rhinos, at least then the game will still be dynamic and interesting, rather than say, 2x Guardian Jetbikes, 3x Falcons, 2x Harlies, 1x Fire Dragons, and an Autarch....