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.

Ragnar4 wrote:This rule sets out to try to encourage players to think of other ways to achieve the same goal. Perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree by making an argument that Spam lists are harmful to the game. The question is: Last time you played against a spam list, did you enjoy it? Even if you won, was it a chore? Last time you played as a spam list, did you enjoy it? Was sweeping your opponent off the field with it fun, or a chore? Was losing still something you enjoyed or was it a horrible 5 turns before the game finally ended?

Playing against spam lists is pretty much the norm these days, and therefore most people have learnt to adapt to them. I doubt anyone thinks of it as a chore, as a game is a game, and figuring out how to beat a spam list is a tactical challenge in itself. If you're facing a horde, what do you do with your big guns? How do you kill all the chimeras with the few big guns you have?
In the same vein, using a spam list still requires tactical decisiveness. Less than a spread out list with slots from every FOC, but it's still there. My opponent has many template weapons, and I'm running a horde, what do I do? Especially considering that in today's meta-game, troops are incredibly important, encouraging spam even further. Your rule was a nice attempt to try and make lists more varied and interesting, but really, it wasn't a good way to go about it. To accomplish something like that, you'd have to rewrite a good deal of the rules in the codices, and MAKE the different choices worth their points.

MekanobSamael wrote:This is exactly right. And, by the way, a group of uniformly equipped tanks or infantry squads wouldn't be at all out of the fluff in some armies. When you're setting out to accomplish a specific task, you select the troops best for that task. If you find one sort of troop is generally better at this sort of thing than another, then you're free to deploy them in force. There's nothing anti-fluff about trying to win.

Well sort of, the somewhat like a company but not quite and with a ludicrous level of support that is a 40K 1850-2000 army has no real world equivalent, so any kind of argument about realism, for or against, falls down from the start.

I really don't have a problem with how an IG list built of Chimera chassis looks, and I don’t think there’s an issue with fluff. The problem comes up in play, either the other guy has enough medium AT or he doesn't. A horde of footslogging orks looks brilliant and feels right, but either the other guy has enough bullets or he doesn't – the ork player just storms forward either way. The result is that games with spam/redundant armies are frequently less tactically interesting than games with more varied unit types on the field.

It's a problem that can't be solved with a points hike, it's a fundamental issue. I think a game like FoW provides a pretty good example of how to beat the issue, as the different unit types are valuable for performing completely different roles. You can take all armour, but you’ll find yourself losing a lot of games as you lack the infantry to assault objectives and repel enemy assaults. You can take a horde of infantry, but a chronic lack of mobility will see you lose a lot of games. An army needs a balance of infantry, armour and artillery to succeed.

40K has been trying to enforce diversity, first with the FOC, but that controls units by fluff, not by their actual type (devestators are an MEQ unit but they’re lumped in with medium and heavy armour, while razorbacks are accessible through the troops section, allowing a player to build an army of entirely MEQ or entirely medium armour quite easily). The result is that it has little effect on the problem.

There was an effort to solve the issue in a meaningful way with 5th ed by making troops the only scoring unit, but it only goes so far. Considering that the rule can be overcome by turning transports into scoring units by putting troops inside them it’s clear a larger overhaul is needed to solve the issue.

Lone Dragoon wrote:The only problem with saying that, it takes almost a can't see the forest because of the trees approach. It is the game itself that should be the basis of being fun, and I enjoy playing 40k as much as the next guy. The problem is, I don't really care what I see on the field across from me, so long as its a legal army.

Did you read my whole post? Because it looks like you took one sentence out of context and have replied to that. I have no problem with you playing how you play, if you find opponents with the same approach then happy gaming to all of you.

However a lot of people are like myself and my gaming group find that such an approach tends towards seeing the same old lists game in, game out. Fun but less useful units aren’t ever seen, and the drive towards spam lists often results in paper/rock/scissors match ups, where the tightly focussed army design means that you either have the guns to knock out the enemy’s unit type or you don’t. You get extreme results and very little original thinking on the battlefield.

So we’ve developed a culture of talking about lists before games, and taking army lists with other considerations in mind than just winning. Different strokes for different folks.

Saying that the armies you are seeing makes the game less fun is like saying, you want to drive like a NASCAR driver on the streets but the stop signs get in the way. If the armies on the table make it less fun, find another group to play with that's more in line with your thinking and philosophy. My advice to people that complain about those lists, you learn more from losing than you do from winning.

I wasn’t ever complaining about my own group. I’m quite happy with my current play group.

To extend your NASCAR example, though, you need to remember this is the rules proposals forum – we aren’t drivers, we’re NASCAR officials. The question isn’t what a driver can do to have more fun, the issue is what the officials can do to make racing more interesting across the board.

Now, suppose the problem is that a lot of people are bored of seeing the same car used in every single race – they’d like to see some variety out there but drivers are just using what helps them win. NASCAR could introduce a rule that said ‘you can’t use the same car two races in a row’ but that’d just be annoying. What I’m suggesting is to have different tracks suited to different cars so drivers will want to change cars depending on conditions.

So the conversation really should be focussed on how to create a ruleset where an all chimera list will be legal, but the player will often think ‘damn I really need a heavy tank to do something no chimera can do’ or ‘damn some footslogging infantry would be really useful right now’. The benefits of presenting only AV12 to the enemy would be checked by the need to have diverse tactical options available.

1) What Ragnar4 is talking about is trying to force a change to the fluff and building army side of things, something that isn't broken. I felt I was at least semi-justified in sharing my view of competitive armies vs. fluff armies because.... *gasp* wargames are based on wars. I play redundant (Or spam if you want) lists, and when a realistic army goes to war, there are multiple units set up the same way for a reason.... it works.

There’s a much, much bigger consideration than adherence to fluff and that is whether an army is interesting to play with an against. Spam/Redundant armies tend to be more limited in their tactical options, and games are more often defined by their match up with the opposing list. As such, encouraging more diverse armies is a good thing.

In my opinion it's all about bringing the most "realistic" army to the tabletop, because as I said, a wargame and a war are both alike in this aspect- I've never seen anyone say I'm setting out to lose a game/war. Have you?

No, but I am happy to sacrifice some of my chance of winning to put a more interesting army on the field. Would you happily play a boring army if it gave you the highest chance of winning?

"Interesting"? So when I have to break my fluff of having an army of clone guardsmen, or a heavily organized Death Korps army, or Necrons, or codex adhering Space Marines, it is more "interesting" of a game? Having to tack on random wargear, or break fluff, or do whatever stupid arbitrary thing YOU think will make the game more interesting (it wont) breaks the game and is unfun.

ph34r wrote:"Interesting"? So when I have to break my fluff of having an army of clone guardsmen, or a heavily organized Death Korps army, or Necrons, or codex adhering Space Marines, it is more "interesting" of a game? Having to tack on random wargear, or break fluff, or do whatever stupid arbitrary thing YOU think will make the game more interesting (it wont) breaks the game and is unfun.

First up, you’ll note I’m not arguing for the originally proposed idea. As you’ve pointed out it would just encourage arbitrary differentiation to avoid the points cost, and wouldn’t solve the underlying problem of players taking a single unit type across their army.

Second up, if you want to play your list as it is and you find it interesting, go crazy. If we were in the same group and I found your army an interesting match I’d play you. If I didn’t I wouldn’t, and I’d accept the same from you.

Thirdly, I am arguing for what I feel would produce a more interesting tactical game. Of course I am. I imagine everyone here is arguing for what they feel is a more interesting game. Are you suggesting we should argue for what a randomly determined third party believes would make a more interesting game?

Now, if you’re interested in actually talking about this, then I’d recommend going back and actually reading what I posted. I am talking about a tactical system where people are encouraged to take different units because different units have genuinely unique battlefield roles. Where an army of all Chimera chassis would be legal and not carry a points impact, but would have to measure the advantages of redundancy against the tactical limitations of having no infantry or heavy armour – because there would be specific things that only infantry and heavy armour could achieve.

Heres an idea. How about we leave the core rules alone and hope for the best?

I will admit that I found your post Really Long, and skimmed most of it. In any case, armies with only 1 type of unit should be able to be countered more easily I agree, but the problem is essentially a vehicle problem more than a game system problem. Nerf vehicle survivability slightly and I think most "all your weapons except X are wasted" lists would no longer be issues.

I think this is just a silly idea. It pretty much throws the teachings of Roboutte Guilliman out the window... "Thy company shall hath 6 tactical squads, 2 assault squads, and 2 devastator squads, and thou shalt prosper..." guess the vanilla marines are kinda fethed then. Orks wouldn't do well either with this idea because their whole shebang is huge mobs of cheap boyz charging around like the crazy barbarians they are and overwhelming with numbers. "Sorry Mike, your second squad of 30 boyz costs more now" would kind of ruin the green tide.

Sure it can work fine for Space Wolves with all their customization, but a standard Ultramarine Tactical Squad carries a missile launcher, a flamer, and a chainsword for sarge and they ride in a rhino... that is Ultramarine canon. Sure you can flip up the weapons a bit with 'special' upgrades like taking a melta or sarge having a more powerful hand weapon. That is, at least from a fluffy perspective, not the norm. The Codex Astartes deliberately makes for precise well ordered and perfectly matched redundancy and allows for special issued weapons for special circumstances on an individual basis, but the 'true' astartes company has a rigid rule of armament.

Also think of the necrons. They don't even get options for the majority of their force, just lots of redundant and identical warriors.

ph34r wrote:I will admit that I found your post Really Long, and skimmed most of it. In any case, armies with only 1 type of unit should be able to be countered more easily I agree, but the problem is essentially a vehicle problem more than a game system problem. Nerf vehicle survivability slightly and I think most "all your weapons except X are wasted" lists would no longer be issues.

You think so? In fourth monstrous creatures were a little tough for their points so the dominant army was nidzilla, and it was the same principle there - pick a good unit and take nothing but that. I think as long as units are all used for the same thing (killing the enemy) the game will have the same problem.

Fair point on the long posts. I'll keep it shorter.

Hi again.
Are you agreeing that more playtesting would find these synergistic bonuses, and then allow the PV to be modified accorduinlgy?

As flat PV based on individual models fails to cost UNITs poerformance accuratley, due to synergistic conciderations in the unit.
And flat multiplier for multiple units, fails to cost the ARMY performance accuratley due to synergistic conciderations in the army.

Surley PV allocated for UNITS , modified to reflect actual synergistic bonuses within an army is the best option?

TTFN
Lanrak.

Personally I feel that unpainted and half-finished minis should cost more points.

sebster wrote:

ph34r wrote:I will admit that I found your post Really Long, and skimmed most of it. In any case, armies with only 1 type of unit should be able to be countered more easily I agree, but the problem is essentially a vehicle problem more than a game system problem. Nerf vehicle survivability slightly and I think most "all your weapons except X are wasted" lists would no longer be issues.

You think so? In fourth monstrous creatures were a little tough for their points so the dominant army was nidzilla, and it was the same principle there - pick a good unit and take nothing but that. I think as long as units are all used for the same thing (killing the enemy) the game will have the same problem.

Fair point on the long posts. I'll keep it shorter.

In 4th MC's were a little bit over the top, but at least anti infantry weapons could be put to use against the smaller bugs. When you are facing a wall of AV, your lasguns, bolters, and heavy bolters are effectively wasted points.

Well. . . with my mech guard list:

3x Vet squads w/ 3melta in a chimera
2x Vet squads w/ 3 PG & autocannon in chimera w/ hstubber
2x CCS 4x melta chimeras
2x Vendetta
2x LRBT w/ plasma sponsons

1x executioner

I prefer the term "Standard Issue" to "Spam"

This rule would force me to pay a premium on every single unit in my army except for the executioner. My troops are supposed to be standard ranks, not haphazardly assorted militia.

so no, I won't sack the fluff or the strategic advantage of redundant units. Redundancy is something that is practiced in actual military tactics. Why should 40k be different?

Sorry if that wasn't constructive, but I think the idea should be scrapped totally.

Guitardian wrote:I think this is just a silly idea. It pretty much throws the teachings of Roboutte Guilliman out the window... "Thy company shall hath 6 tactical squads, 2 assault squads, and 2 devastator squads, and thou shalt prosper..." guess the vanilla marines are kinda fethed then. Orks wouldn't do well either with this idea because their whole shebang is huge mobs of cheap boyz charging around like the crazy barbarians they are and overwhelming with numbers. "Sorry Mike, your second squad of 30 boyz costs more now" would kind of ruin the green tide.

S

If you crack open the SM book, you'll see that Sicarious' chapter has 6/2/2 but each unit is loaded out completely differently. Minor changes make a major difference.

I can see that the backlash I'm getting makes this a less than optimal rule, but I still think that there needs to be something done about people who math hammer their way into an "ultimate list" that takes only the most cost effective unit point for point instead of taking something a little less effective with a different battlefield role.

I understand that I'm probably wrong with the initial approach, but a lot of good subject matter has sprung up allowing us to move forward with the idea as a whole. I still assert there is some form of application of the overly broad ideal of this rule which will make armies *want* to take a little bit of everything in order to be competitive, instead of simply bringing the best of the best every time.

ph34r wrote:In 4th MC's were a little bit over the top, but at least anti infantry weapons could be put to use against the smaller bugs. When you are facing a wall of AV, your lasguns, bolters, and heavy bolters are effectively wasted points.

The point isn't really which spam list in which edition was the best, the point is that as long as the only battlefield role is killing the enemy and the FOC is loose enough that you can take similar chassis across multiple sections, then spam lists will always be optimal.

Mathhammer doesn't work so even spamming the 'ultimate list' wont help where the terrain is placed, where the other guy moves, how bad you psyche each other out and such factors (plus dice... always dice) SO all the number crunching in the world about potential kill rate of weapon x versus target y is really just a side project for people who find it fun to do probability mathematics. There is no 'ultimate list' but if I want to field an ultramarines 'reserve company' in a 2000 list, I will have my 10 tactical squads with standard issue gear and a couple of rhinos, and a captain who, if he's lucky might get a power sword. It is fluffy. It is very spammy. But it is also a cool thing to see the 'less elite' marines take the table once in a while.

My list: (simplest 2000 army list ever)
Tac Squad x 10 @ 170 pts = 1700 points, misslunches and flamers, maybe a few hvy bolters. No upgrade points.

Captain, powersword = 115 points
4 rhinos, 1 razorback = 180 points

5 points left for random upgrades (maybe some lucky squad gets a melta or whatever)

That would be a pure Codex Astartes chapter approved Marine 9th company, at a perfect 2000 points, that would give Roboutte a hard on if he saw it. It actually wouldn't be too terrible on the table. A bit one-sided (A BIT!?) but that's what tactical squads are for. Misslunchers for AT and flamers for AI, and lots of scoring units, many of which have cheapo moving terrain to ride around in.

That same list, by the 'spam = pay a penalty' price 'would cost 2450 not 2000 because 9 out of 10 units are redundant. It's not an abusive list, its just a dead straightforeward list. Maybe I just didn't want to pay much attention to nitpicking and was just fine with my stock rhinos, misslunchers, flamers and chainsword sarges. Rinse and repeat says I. I just want to see a whole company take the table at once in an actually reasonable sized (slightly big by my standards but still reasonable) game.

Ragnar4 wrote:The first unit you buy costs Codex Price.

If you purchase a unit that is point for point, upgrade for upgrade the exact same as a unit you've already purchased once in your list, the item costs an additional 50 points.

SO: If you purchased one Dakka Pred (AC, 2HB) for 85 points, if you bought a second one, it would cost you 85 for the cost, and then +50 for a total of 135 for each additional predator.

This would prevent redundant spam lists and encourage players to develop a role for oft unused units.

So, just to get this straight, every rhino in a marine army would need to have slightly different upgrades or it gets hit by a 50pt penalty?

Well, this does not solve the problem - players will continue to use the exact same units. It just requires a few points to be wasted on upgrades. Sometimes it doesn't even require that: "this sarge has powerfist and bolter, this one has powerfist and bolt pistol - tada!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Guitardian wrote:
My list: (simplest 2000 army list ever)
Tac Squad x 10 @ 170 pts = 1700 points, misslunches and flamers, maybe a few hvy bolters. No upgrade points.

Captain, powersword = 115 points
4 rhinos, 1 razorback = 180 points

Sadly you can only have six tac squads. A battle company can be squeezed into 2.5k points (six tac, two assault, two dev)

okay dump a couple of trannies for an extra HQ @100 points. razor + rhino + captains sword =almost enough for an extra HQ so you can make 2 FO out of it (10 points short grrrr...) downgrade 2 marines out of a squad = 100 exactly 100 guys on the table, and the cappie and libbie/chappie cruise in the 8 man squad in a rhino too? still, I would want to be able to fit that in 2000. I would end up having 2 x FO with 5 squads each, depending on if I give them Missiles, Multimeltas, or Heavy bolters I would still be paying bookoo points for redundancy. Still just a silly idea. Works great for highly 'independant' style armies but not for the armies that have redundancy as their primary strength.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordes of gaunts are hordes of gaunts, hordes of guardsmen are hordes of guardsmen, etc.