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.

Of course, given that they're Imperial Guard you don't really need to focus fire so much, and in fact need to split fire between as many units as possible because they're easy to kill, but they'll swamp you if you methodically wipe them out rather than trying to force multiple morale checks. Remember that you only need to kill half the squad before they'll be unable to rally. Of course, if the Imperial Guard blob up their squads for you to concentrate fire on, then the standard rules of thumb apply.

Narlix wrote:

I agree the above is weak, but i also have a very hard time calling it "spam" , its a Troops option for the blood angel, there are only so many things you can do with them, Also if you want to be somewhat realistic, every squad in going to be identically equipped . standard issue and all.

I mean would it make it look better if 2 of the units gave up jump pack for drop pods?, They are doing the same thing. ( though now you have to buy a pod for another unit to fly empty ). I mean would you call it spamming if it was a bunch of 10 man tac with flamers and rockets in rhino's? Most people would call that the better part of a company.

I mean the reason you see Assault Squad x10, Fist, x2 Meltas is because it does 2 roles well. I mean would you consider the following spam?

3x Assault Squad x10, Fist, x2 Meltas
3x scouts x 6 rocket launcher sniper rifles

I don't think its reasonable to expect or want people to bring stuff that dosen't work, I mean there is no reason to take Tac squads with the BA .

Some units just are not worth taking , are you really going to take stormtroopers in an IG army, are you really going to take wraith guard in an eldar list, alot of the time units people don't take are over pointed, to narrowly focused, just poorly though out , or just outright don't work.

Most armies are going to focus in on either shooting or assaulting, If i am makeing a shooty eldar list troop wise im taking rangers , dire avengers, maybe guardians. if im making assault eldar, im going to use bikes for objective grabbing. it makes no sense at all to take one of each option. The reason you take 2 or 4 of the same squad is consistency , 2 units of assault marines with meltas will kill tanks one will get picked apart before it makes it, 4 units will kill the tanks and then assault. Sure I could use 2 assault squads and 2 dev squads, and get similar results but, once the tanks are dead the dev squads sitting back drinking beer, wile the assault squads are fighting. if i do it with 4 assault squads i get more fight out of the units.

The point is, having the same melta squads is one dimensional. Im not saying dont run all assault squads, but dont load them out the same way. I think it should be a 2:1 ratio for meltas to flamers, and given furious charge for the +1 I, a 2:1 ratio for power weapons (something I never used as chaos) to fists.

The reason being is that there are more than just marine players out there. Flame throwers, even a single squad, can force your, say, daemon or tyranid opponent to actually spread their guys out a bit. They ignore cover as well, something meltas do not do. This unit single handedly causes a lot of problems for your opponent, and in my opinion, the value in that outweighs having yet another melta squad. It gives your army some versatility, forcing everything within 20" to spread out or get toasted. Im not saying 3x melta is bad, but I dont think it's optimal.

Somewhat offtopic - I disagree about BA tacticals being useless entirely. This isnt the first time Ive read that on here. Switching from the chaos book where CSMs have 2 attacks each, I thought tacticals would be terrible. However, in the 5ish games Ive played so far, theyve (10x, missile, plasma, power weapon) definitely been my MVP for the same price as a basic assault squad. I know scouts get the 3++ cover with camo, but theyre completely useless in CC or against cover ignoring weaponry. Tacticals are surprisingly tough, a good fire base and are great objective holders.

I think that this goes back to a WAC mindset vrs playing for fun. I think that when you are playing a competitive list there ARE units that are just best when equipped a certain way:

10x CSM, 2x MG, PF, IoCG in Rhino
6x FD in Falcon with ML
10x GH, 2xMG in Rhino
10x Wyches, 2x Blaster and Succubus with punisher in a raider
You get the idea.

I think that the main theme of these units is that they CAN do just about everything. I play CSM and there are only a few things that the CSM squad above has no chance of beating, TH/SS termies being the most obnoxious and broken out of them all. But that's another point entirely.

I'm actually going to suggest to a friend that we play with "bad armies" next time we play. Something with no rhyme or reason like:

7 berzerkers on foot
10man csm with AC, rhino with havoc launcher
8 demons
vindy
3LC pred
1oblit
lord with MoN and DP with wings
6 raptors with MoN and a flamer
5 term with a combi plasma, combi melts, CF MoS and AC

I think this is the type of army that the OP wants to see more of. and honestly, I think hes right in saying that it will be fun.

i'm not sure if people quite understand what i mean, i'm not talking about random collections of units in an army. I'm talking about not spamming out a unit multiple times. for example in my eldar i run

autarch, fusion gun jump generator, mandiblasters, powerweapon
farseer, jetbike, doom, mindwar, runes of warding, singing spear
10 avengers bladestorm,dual catapult in a serpent brightlance, undercannon, spiritstones
6 firedragons, in a serpent brightlance undercannon, spiritstones
6 guardian jetbikes, 2 cannons, warlock attached, embolden
10 scorpions, exarch w/ biting blade
fireprism with undercannon, spirit stones,
10 rangers
8 warpspiders, exarch w/dual spinner powerblades, withdraw

now i'm sure most of you think its crap, where are the holofields on the prism why rangers and not pathfinders etc... surprisingly this can do some serious damage to people in the right hands now an army like this

eldrad
10 avengers bladestorm,dual catapult in a serpent cannon, undercannon, spiritstones
10 avengers bladestorm,dual catapult in a serpent cannon, undercannon, spiritstones
3 guardian jetbikes cannon
3 guardian jetbikes cannon
3 guardian jetbikes cannon
3 guardian jetbikes cannon
falcon cannon, undercannon, spirit stones, holofield
falcon cannon, undercannon, spirit stones, holofield
falcon cannon, undercannon, spirit stones, holofield
6 firedragons
6 firedragons
6 firedragons

now sure the second one can also put out a bunch of damage and win games thats not the point

which one would be more fun to play with or against? the second one is in my opinion super boring wow you took all the "best units" and copied them that took real thought, and wow playing that army seems super hard to do. I'm advocating variety in peoples lists after all if this is the "best" eldar list to play then why would people play anything different? soon after especially with the internet, everyone's eldar list will look like that and that seems to me to be very stagnant propositon both of those lists can win games why not use one that can actually be interesting to play with or against?


In a tournament suppose you play against guard all 3 times, how many of their armies are going to look almost identical? how many will have copied and pasted a bunch of units in their lists? vemdetta with vetterans with melta x3 anybody? How many people at adepticon played the same guard list?? sadly enough there are tons of unit choices in that book that go unsed because of the thoughts that they aren't "optimal", however they can be just as good if used correctly

or suppose you play chaos all 3 rounds how many have 2 lash and 3 units of oblits?

both of those books have tons of other units that can also kill your opponents units, you just have to know how to use them correctly

in no way am I talking about taking a bunch of random "bad" units to make up an army that can be fun in its own right but an army with carefully thought out unit selections that can all work together is going to be more fun than typing out a unit and applying control-c

I also am not saying you shouldn't take those units in an army firedragons in a falcon can be good and useful and if they suit your play style go for it, cool units are..well.. cool
what I am saying is that you don't need 2 or even 3 of the same unit kitted out identically

i think that there are people who play for fun fun, and people who play for winning fun. I appologize if that doesnt make since to u. For fun fun, i usualy do a variety, one plague marine squad with flamers, 1 with meltas, or one with plasmas, a random heavy support (only models i dont ahve for it is the oblits, idky i realy should get some). I like the cc dreadnot when im feeling lucky and ill toss two land raiders in when i wanna feel cool (Two big A** tanks? hell yeah). I use the sorrcer with nurgles rot when i wanna roll alot of dice and not harm my space marine friends.

But on occation, say for instance someone is being a dick that day. I wanna win, so I take two squads of melta/flamer and two squads of plasma/plasma plague marines with a lord, in rinos. with most likly my deflier and vindicator if they fit. hard to squishy and they hit like a hammer. Good tendancy to win, against my friends anyways.

Another thing is how people play what they have, if i just want to have fun, yes when paying with my eldar, i will charge with my guardians and see what happens!... terrible idea! i know. but when i wanna win, ill step back, into terrain if i get charged, the enemy goes on initive one. THen fire my heavy wep and assult two pee shooters. I suck with eldar anyways so i usualy just go for fun! and see what happens.
But its all what a person wants, to some people only winning is fun. I play with a guy, who only winning is fun. Honeslty it can be a downer to play them, but its also more of a challange than my friend who palys just for fun. "Dude you can have ur Sanguinary Guard deepstrike next turn without rolling for it or their scatter, if you let me shoot you in the assult phase, cuz i forgot to and i just announed all my charges."
"Yeah that works! I love my Sanguinary Guard I want them right now!"
for example, fun. laxed rules, making deals in this case. I love lesser deamons and greater deamons, cuz they are fun.

Tortuga932 wrote:i'm not sure if people quite understand what i mean, i'm not talking about random collections of units in an army. I'm talking about not spamming out a unit multiple times. for example in my eldar i run

autarch, fusion gun jump generator, mandiblasters, powerweapon
farseer, jetbike, doom, mindwar, runes of warding, singing spear
10 avengers bladestorm,dual catapult in a serpent brightlance, undercannon, spiritstones
6 firedragons, in a serpent brightlance undercannon, spiritstones
6 guardian jetbikes, 2 cannons, warlock attached, embolden
10 scorpions, exarch w/ biting blade
fireprism with undercannon, spirit stones,
10 rangers
8 warpspiders, exarch w/dual spinner powerblades, withdraw

now i'm sure most of you think its crap, where are the holofields on the prism why rangers and not pathfinders etc... surprisingly this can do some serious damage to people in the right hands now an army like this

eldrad
10 avengers bladestorm,dual catapult in a serpent cannon, undercannon, spiritstones
10 avengers bladestorm,dual catapult in a serpent cannon, undercannon, spiritstones
3 guardian jetbikes cannon
3 guardian jetbikes cannon
3 guardian jetbikes cannon
3 guardian jetbikes cannon
falcon cannon, undercannon, spirit stones, holofield
falcon cannon, undercannon, spirit stones, holofield
falcon cannon, undercannon, spirit stones, holofield
6 firedragons
6 firedragons
6 firedragons

now sure the second one can also put out a bunch of damage and win games thats not the point

which one would be more fun to play with or against? the second one is in my opinion super boring wow you took all the "best units" and copied them that took real thought, and wow playing that army seems super hard to do. I'm advocating variety in peoples lists after all if this is the "best" eldar list to play then why would people play anything different? soon after especially with the internet, everyone's eldar list will look like that and that seems to me to be very stagnant propositon both of those lists can win games why not use one that can actually be interesting to play with or against?


In a tournament suppose you play against guard all 3 times, how many of their armies are going to look almost identical? how many will have copied and pasted a bunch of units in their lists? vemdetta with vetterans with melta x3 anybody? How many people at adepticon played the same guard list?? sadly enough there are tons of unit choices in that book that go unsed because of the thoughts that they aren't "optimal", however they can be just as good if used correctly

or suppose you play chaos all 3 rounds how many have 2 lash and 3 units of oblits?

both of those books have tons of other units that can also kill your opponents units, you just have to know how to use them correctly

in no way am I talking about taking a bunch of random "bad" units to make up an army that can be fun in its own right but an army with carefully thought out unit selections that can all work together is going to be more fun than typing out a unit and applying control-c

I also am not saying you shouldn't take those units in an army firedragons in a falcon can be good and useful and if they suit your play style go for it, cool units are..well.. cool
what I am saying is that you don't need 2 or even 3 of the same unit kitted out identically

So your point is that the non-copy pasted army is just as good as the copy pasted armies that are prevalent.

I guess this brings us back to the argument of what makes a unit "good." When we talk about optimal squads, we call them optimal because time has proven that that set of upgrades and equipment gives us the best chance to deal with what is presented to us. So when we say that is the "best" way to use the unit it doesn't mean it is always the best thing to use, but rather it is the best thing to use against what we THINK we are going to face.

I think this is a good example:

CSM vs Ork boys. normal CSM "optimal" equipment is 2x MG and PF with IoCG. Against orks the optimal equipment is probably 2x Flamer and either IoS or IoK, with no PF or PW necessary to save points. Now lets think about the implications of a unit that is "good" at killing orks in a competitive list: all it can do is kill orks! the second that unit runs into a dreadnought or a land raider or a monstrous creature it is in trouble. The decision comes down to this:

Do I sacrifice my ability to deal reasonably well with everything for the ability to kill more orks with that squad? For a competitve player the answer is no. I think that this is what leads you to the copy-paste. The optimal unit can still do everything reaosnably well so why risk the sub-optimal unit getting in a bad situation?

Icon of Slaanesh as optimal against Orks? What the typo?

A Vindicator is equally good at smashing Dreadnoughts and Orks. It's optimized to do everything except precise sniper fire.

ahhh some actual thought on the matter. :-)

I do believe a non-copy pasted army is just as good as a copy pasted army

now as to the csm unit i would go with 2 flamers and a pf icon doesn't matter a whole lot its really up to you, because with that load out you can deal with horde unit, a basic unit, tanks (can damage a land raider but not reasonably) every other tank is fair game from krak and pf, and dreaddys, and monstrous creatures

there is optimal equipment for a unit to face another certain type of unit i definately agree, however there is some fluctuation on what optimal actually is when you consider your opponents list and their tactics and even your own tactics. Whats optimal in one game will be worse in another game.

in the case of the two eldar lists, both can deal with armor pretty effectively, however i'd make the case that one of the lists has some flaws against certain builds of armies, i think for example a horde ork army would give the spam list trouble. whereas the other list would have less trouble, now by no means would it just beat them but it has more effectiveness against a footslogging boys army (differing opinions on that I know).

thats kinda the crux of what I'm getting at, everyone wants to spam units out- notably melta since they believe they'll be facing tanks more often than not. but doing that weakens your list against other things (on a personal side not I also find it very boring to play against those lists time after time, especially when among different opponents tall their lists look the same)

I don't think spamming out a unit makes it so that you can do reasonably well against everything there are other builds and armies that give spam lisst trouble, whereas an army with a variety of untis has a variety of tools to deal with a variety of situations,


I also don't believe there is a very good argument for only certain units being "good" I think that every unit when used properly can do damage to your opponents army. after all they are all designed to kill other models. It's all in how you use them. there is a lot of perception of a unit being good or "point effective" I think that's kind of an excuse. vanguard are by no means "point effective" but if you kit them out nasty and use them right, they can tear the heart out of your opponents army, just like a unit that is "point effective" such as firedragons, fail to kill a tank (assuming they have any) and die a horrible horrible death. It's all in how you use the respective units, I don't think having an extra unit of firedragons as back up makes your army better, you can just as easily have something else in your army that does the same thing just a little differently, firedragons shooting at a chimera, can be just as effective as a unit of warpspiders shooting at the same chimera (assuming side which isn't too difficult) however the spiders being more mobile, and having a gun that can do some good damage to a different unit makes a big difference, firedragons can hurt other units also but the mobility makes it so that the dragons will probably get one shot off and die, and the spiders can shoot and manuever to do it again the next turn take a unit of gaunts for example for the dragons to shoot them they have to be in assault range, they will kill at most 6ish and then get assaulted and probably die the spiders, can shoot them kill far more, and still warp away to not be assaulted (depends on how close to 12 you can position them and a warp away roll which average favors you)

I'm not advocating taking spiders over dragons, I'm just trying to showcase how 2 different units can achieve the same goals slightly differently, i.e. tank killing while simultaneously increasing your tactical options when not dealing with their primary job. and this makes your army more interesting and fun to play with and against. because you actually get to use tactics in a game *gasp* and yes i do know spiders can't kill land raiders but i think your army is better by having a unit of dragons and spiders vs 2 units of dragons

this is a case of more specialized xeno units the effect is a little more pronounced, but i do believe the same thing applies in your marine squads, choices coming down to gear chosen for the troop units, but in those armies its also a function of the other units you've chosen to bring to the table. Does a csm unit need 2 melta if there are other ways in your army to kill tanks, probably not, thats what i'm getting at also, if you bring other units that kill tanks just in slightly different ways, you don't need to spam out a csm unit with dual melta all the time, you can instead bring a 10 man noise marine unit with sonic weapons in a rhino instead (pretty scary if you ask me) they don't kill tanks so well, (aside from str6 attacks to the rear) but they can murder infantry pretty well since you don't "need" them to kill tanks and you have increased the versatility in your army to deal with unexpected matchups or situations

alot of this come from just taking a look at the "non-optimal" units in a book and thinking on what they can actually do, and how to use them
take possessed for example, a unit that you don't typically see as good, most people would consider them an anti-infantry unit, however they all have str5 base which when assaulting a vehicle, makes them acutally pretty good at killing a tank, and thats before they get a random ability. there are tons of units in each codex that people gloss over just because they aren't "optimal" just because a unit isn't optimal doesn't mean it's not good.

Tortuga932:

You're obviously smart, so please capitalize properly (at the start of each sentence and proper names), and remember that "its" is possessive, and "it's" is a contraction for "it is". It would make your posts much easier to read.

Also, being non-optimal does mean something is not good, since 'good' is equivalent to 'better' in a relative system, and optimal is best and therefore what is good for that system.

That said, most of the units people seem to think are non-optimal are non-optimal for how they're being used: usually the person in question picks the most straightforward unit, notes that the other units can't shoot or fight in close combat as well, and leave it at that as those tactics and strategy were things that happened in other games.

I’m not bothered by unit spamming. My opponent is free to build his list as he sees fit within the limitations of the force organization chart. I myself often duplicate units within my lists and it has nothing to do with lack of tactical flexibility. I duplicate units because it gives me strategic flexibility.

I constantly strive toward exploring new builds but have simply found that my current build, minus about 250 points is optimal for my play style. At this point in my list development, I’m merely tinkering with that last 250 points to continue to optimize my list. Eventually I will get there and, when I play in tournaments, I will almost certainly use the build that I have driven toward for quite some time now.

When a new Eldar codex is released, I’ll likely begin the process over again.

There's a big difference between redundancy (multiple units that can accomplish the same role) and spamming (multiple identical units). I have no problem with either, but redundancy is clearly a little less boring. The lists that are the most obnoxious are the internet spam lists, where it's clearly a min/max'd list that the particular player didn't even create on their own.

One of the incidental causes of redundancy and/or spamming is that many armies only have one viable option for a role, or there is a theme that requires multiples, and that leads to spamming of units. For example, I run dreadbash for the orks. Am I supposed to equip my kans differently, giving them subpar guns just to avoid duplicating efforts, or can I keep them all with rokkits because that's the role I want for them (ranged anti-vehicle and DCCW for up-close-n-personal)? Or running two deffdreads with skorchas because, well, that's the only gun that makes any sense on them?

IMO, the biggest reason there is so much spam is that the game DEMANDS specialist, one-trick pony units. Units can only fire at one target (aside from very few exceptions) and this creates a situation where units are geared towards one use and then replicated so that use can be repeated around the board. If you could split fire with your units, you would see WAY more "jack of all trades" type units and less spam because every unit could do multiple jobs. But instead, you get scenarios where you have 10 man squads with one lascannon/dark lance/multimelta/whatever, so one guy shoots and the rest stand around with their thumbs in their asses. But if a unit could say, fire its bolters at infantry squad X and fire its missile launcher at Chimera Y, then hell yes I'd create less spammy, more versatile armies. It's the fault of the game and the rules that create situations like this. People are just reacting to it and trying to remain competitive, which means, unfortunately, optimized and redundant or spammy lists in a lot of cases.

Actually the 5th edition rules distinctly benefit flexible mixed units, thanks to the wound allocation rules. It's less about splitting your own fire amongst the enemy, and splitting their fire amongst the troops in your own units.

Likewise once you dismount an infantry unit by exploding their transport with your Melta Guns, it helps to have 16 Bolter shots to mop up the infantry next turn. Increased mechanization means that dedicated anti-vehicle squads can be killed off quickly before they kill all the enemy vehicles, and dedicated anti-infantry squads are worthless until infantry targets have been exposed.

Indeed, rules like Combat Tactics and Combat Squads mean that squads can be mixed because they can be split to engage different units (and be engaged by different units), or Fall Back, automatically Rally, and then be positioned to use Heavy Weapons despite moving, or move into position to use special weapons, or to even assault.

If anything spam is a relic of th 4th edition.

Nurglitch wrote:Actually the 5th edition rules distinctly benefit flexible mixed units, thanks to the wound allocation rules. It's less about splitting your own fire amongst the enemy, and splitting their fire amongst the troops in your own units.

If anything spam is a relic of th 4th edition.

I disagree. The rules favor specialized units because you can’t split fire. While it’s true that 16 bolter shots are nice to have around after you’ve destroyed a transport via meltaguns, those 16 shots are essentially “wasted” on the turn that you destroyed the transport. Wound allocation favors larger units but also favors equipment redundancy as well because, if you’re forced to allocate wounds to your meltaguns in an IG veteran squad for example, multiple melta-equipped vets help to ensure you’ll retain the vehicle threat capability of the unit.

When I think of “spam” however, I think of multiple units equipped in exactly the same way; five IG vet squads equipped with chimera and 3 melta guns for example.

Nurglitch wrote:Icon of Slaanesh as optimal against Orks? What the typo?

A Vindicator is equally good at smashing Dreadnoughts and Orks. It's optimized to do everything except precise sniper fire.

Why not? If they charge you you still get first strike. Unless I'm mistaken and they are I2 base which is entirely possible.

Chaos Space Marines are I4. They get to attack first because Ork Boy are I2 and only jack it up to I3 on the charge. The Nob could get it up to I4, but few people are willing to risk not taking a Power Klaw.

Tortuga:

One of your arguments is that a "less optimal" unit can do the same thing as an optimal unit under the right circumstances.

That statement proves my point. UNDER THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES the less optimal unit will perform just as well. The critical thing to note here is that the "optimal" unit will find its self in the favorable circumstances more often, or importantly, MORE EASILY.

Your example of the FD vs WS against tanks. Sure spiders can kill tanks but that is predicated on the tank having 11 or 10 armor. Not a stretch by any imagination BUT the dragons don't care about armor at all and therefore find them selves in circumstances that lead to tank kills more often.

The same argument can be extended to CSM with our without MGs. Sure if the tank has 10 or 11 armor it can get crack grenaded. But is removing the ability to take on ANY tank and have favorable circumstances more often worth killing 10 more orks with flamers? By taking the optimal unit you maximize the chances of that unit finding itself in favorable circumstances.

Now when playing competitively you want all your units to have a greater chance of being in favorable circumstances so you spam the optimal build.

circumstances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:Chaos Space Marines are I4. They get to attack first because Ork Boy are I2 and only jack it up to I3 on the charge. The Nob could get it up to I4, but few people are willing to risk not taking a Power Klaw.

Ah yea I thought they were I3 base when I wrote IoS.

Keep in mind that some things will be "spammed". As a sm player, I generally take 3 tac squads w/ flamer & missile launchers, sometimes w/ transports. It just so happens that marines don't have much in the way of troops, and my squads can perform multiple tasks. As long as they're flexible, taking the same unit can be okay. However, spamming is very frustrating, especially with heavy support.

Keep in mind that some things will be "spammed". As a sm player, I generally take 3 tac squads w/ flamer & missile launchers, sometimes w/ transports. It just so happens that marines don't have much in the way of troops, and my squads can perform multiple tasks. As long as they're flexible, taking the same unit can be okay. However, spamming is very frustrating, especially with heavy support.

Keep in mind that some things will be "spammed". As a sm player, I generally take 3 tac squads w/ flamer & missile launchers, sometimes w/ transports. It just so happens that marines don't have much in the way of troops, and my squads can perform multiple tasks. As long as they're flexible, taking the same unit can be okay. However, spamming is very frustrating, especially with heavy support.

WOW! A TRIPLE POST! You never see those nowadays.

I dont mind having multiple copied units. It shows that that slot is specialized as something in that army. (Troops infantry focused, Heavy Support as Tank hunters etc.)