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.

There is no such thing as spam, people who whine about spam are either just fluff bunnies, and people who cant afford to max their lists out.

Do i need to get you all a box of tissues? mabye some johnson and johnsons no more tears?

Just Dave wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:

Just Dave wrote:Despite that fact that it showed no tactical acumen, only the the ability to copy and paste?

To me, running 2 vindicators alongside a LRC is redundancy as any of them reaching the line would cause serious pain and therefore casualties can be afforded.

However, to me, simply copying the same unit - by the letter - is 'spam' and unimaginative. Eldar shouldn't even rely on redundancy or spam according to the fluff, they should specialise. Whilst - according to you - ' "Spam" fits the fluff.'

Well, in some situations (not all, but some) spam does fit the fluff. We hear plenty of stories of a few Marines getting overrun by an ocean of Gaunts. We hear about Tau fending off wave after wave of Orks. What's to say the "non-horde" type armies can't get in on the action? Waves of Dire Avengers. Waves of Tactical Marines. Waves of Necron Warriors. My point is, it's not necessarily a bad thing, and the distinction you're making is very subjective.

You argue that taking six of the same unit doesn't show tactical acumen. I argue that if that list is successful on the battlefield, how can it not be a tactically sound list? To you, tactical acumen seems to be ability to contextually specialize. To me, it's the ability to win a battle. I guess both definitions have merit, and either can be argued as right or wrong, but I don't see that anyone should be - to use a bit of a strong word here - condemned for employing tactics that you would define as the result of a "lack of creativity."

Well thank you for pointing out that it's our/your opinion rather than fact. And yes, I do believe it to be subjective and I agree that certain armies can 'spam', as in the examples you have mentioned. I also agree, that someone shouldn't be 'condemned for it', I wouldn't approve of 'spamming' such as that which I described, but I wouldn't particularly criticise or even condemn them, simply not approve. IMHO.

My argument is that unnecessarily taking 6 of the same unit, without the thought that 'I may lose one, may want back up' but instead thinking along the lines of 'that unit's good, where's the copy/paste option' is 'spam'. I understand Ork hordes, the intention is to take waves and waves of the buggers (although you could mix them up a bit for variety sakes, eg. Shoota instead of Rockets), but in my Eldar, for example, I believe that if there in no tactical or almost imaginative intention then yes, I think I would class it as spamming.

Don't get me wrong, I agree to a point - if you simply say, "Yeah, I like that unit, they do okay," and copy and paste six times, that shows a lack of creativity. On the other hand, if you say, "That unit did a spectacular job last time I fielded them, and this other one just sort of sat around with its thumb up its ass, I think I'll take more of the former and see if they perform twice as well with twice as many units on the field," that shows tactical acumen. Hell, I've done that (replacing sniper scouts with another Tac squad, replacing Kroot with more Fire Warriors) It's a fine line, but the line is there, and taking lots of one unit does not, in my opinion, automatically constitute spam.

And yes, as said before, it's very subjective.

JSK-Fox wrote:Are 4 dreadnoughts spam?
I hope not...

How in the hell do you take 4 dreadnoughts? Is there actually a legit way to do this?

kill dem stunties wrote:There is no such thing as spam, people who whine about spam are either just fluff bunnies, and people who cant afford to max their lists out.

Do i need to get you all a box of tissues? mabye some johnson and johnsons no more tears?

I try to play in as many tournaments as I can, and I bring hard lists.

I SPAM troop choices, and heavy support, and fast attack.

I actually SPAM them since they're the most effective, I don't take more for redundancy, I SPAM them.

Is redundancy just for fluff bunnies who can't win, who call their spamming redundancy?

Master of the Forge allows you to take dreads as heavy support.

Melissia wrote:Master of the Forge allows you to take dreads as heavy support.

Holy hell, I've been playing Space Marines since I started and I didn't realize that.

I wonder what other bits of awesome I can find if I dig through Codex: SM again.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:

kill dem stunties wrote:There is no such thing as spam, people who whine about spam are either just fluff bunnies, and people who cant afford to max their lists out.

Do i need to get you all a box of tissues? mabye some johnson and johnsons no more tears?

I try to play in as many tournaments as I can, and I bring hard lists.

I SPAM troop choices, and heavy support, and fast attack.

I actually SPAM them since they're the most effective, I don't take more for redundancy, I SPAM them.

Is redundancy just for fluff bunnies who can't win, who call their spamming redundancy?

Youre either being sarcastic or have a fundamental lack of understanding at the subject at hand

If you spam your units, you are making use of the principle of redundancy. But spam is not negative, its just another word for redundancy in this context.

Melissia wrote:

Just Dave wrote:In my opinion, the difference between redundancy and spam is tactical acumen and intentions.

And would you try and claim a person with high "tactical acumen" cannot see the use of a list with six identical troops choices?

The concept of "spam" is an illusion created by crappy players. People whine that a Space Marine list with three tactical squads is "spam". People whine that an Ork list with more than three mobs of boyz is "spam". People whine that a Sisters list with more than two squads of Battle Sisters is "spam". People whine that ALL Necron lists are "spam". People whine that using more than one fragon squad is "spam". People whine that having an infantry platoon with more than three squads is "spam". People whine that having more than one Imperial Guard Veteran Squad is "spam". People whine that filling up an artillery battery is "spam".

The common thread in all of this is that people whine.

A common thread with all life (particularly England) is whining. A common thread with this is that people refuse to believe that spam might exist.

You are very stern on your opinion and appear to be thinking that I'll claim spam to any multiplication of a unit (and that I'm a crappy player - thanks )

I agree, someone with high tactical acumen could see the benefit of a list with six identical troop choices, however - as I said - this also seems to scream a lack of imagination and that this person with tactical acumen may also see that six identical troops may not be necessary and that it's not redundancy but unnecessary.

So say someone chose to field 6 troop choices, all occupied by Fenrisian Wolves and would someone claim that this is redundancy? Particularly if they themselves had tactical acumen? or if these wolves (and Canis) were the only things in the army?

I wouldn't agree with people that think that: "The concept of "spam" is an illusion created by crappy players. People whine that a Space Marine list with three tactical squads is "spam". People whine that an Ork list with more than three mobs of boyz is "spam". People whine that a Sisters list with more than two squads of Battle Sisters is "spam". People whine that ALL Necron lists are "spam". People whine that using more than one fragon squad is "spam". People whine that having an infantry platoon with more than three squads is "spam". People whine that having more than one Imperial Guard Veteran Squad is "spam". People whine that filling up an artillery battery is "spam"." however you've gone for very specific examples. As I've said also, I believe that 'spamming' is acceptable in some - horde for example - armies.

I would quite likely believe that someone who had 6 tactical squads all with a lascannon, flamer and rhino is spam, however 3 of the same (or more) is understandable in many cases, IMHO.

"People whine" that killing is wrong, also.

>.<

Nope. She meant heavy support.

SaintHazard wrote:

Just Dave wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:

Just Dave wrote:Despite that fact that it showed no tactical acumen, only the the ability to copy and paste?

To me, running 2 vindicators alongside a LRC is redundancy as any of them reaching the line would cause serious pain and therefore casualties can be afforded.

However, to me, simply copying the same unit - by the letter - is 'spam' and unimaginative. Eldar shouldn't even rely on redundancy or spam according to the fluff, they should specialise. Whilst - according to you - ' "Spam" fits the fluff.'

Well, in some situations (not all, but some) spam does fit the fluff. We hear plenty of stories of a few Marines getting overrun by an ocean of Gaunts. We hear about Tau fending off wave after wave of Orks. What's to say the "non-horde" type armies can't get in on the action? Waves of Dire Avengers. Waves of Tactical Marines. Waves of Necron Warriors. My point is, it's not necessarily a bad thing, and the distinction you're making is very subjective.

You argue that taking six of the same unit doesn't show tactical acumen. I argue that if that list is successful on the battlefield, how can it not be a tactically sound list? To you, tactical acumen seems to be ability to contextually specialize. To me, it's the ability to win a battle. I guess both definitions have merit, and either can be argued as right or wrong, but I don't see that anyone should be - to use a bit of a strong word here - condemned for employing tactics that you would define as the result of a "lack of creativity."

Well thank you for pointing out that it's our/your opinion rather than fact. And yes, I do believe it to be subjective and I agree that certain armies can 'spam', as in the examples you have mentioned. I also agree, that someone shouldn't be 'condemned for it', I wouldn't approve of 'spamming' such as that which I described, but I wouldn't particularly criticise or even condemn them, simply not approve. IMHO.

My argument is that unnecessarily taking 6 of the same unit, without the thought that 'I may lose one, may want back up' but instead thinking along the lines of 'that unit's good, where's the copy/paste option' is 'spam'. I understand Ork hordes, the intention is to take waves and waves of the buggers (although you could mix them up a bit for variety sakes, eg. Shoota instead of Rockets), but in my Eldar, for example, I believe that if there in no tactical or almost imaginative intention then yes, I think I would class it as spamming.

Don't get me wrong, I agree to a point - if you simply say, "Yeah, I like that unit, they do okay," and copy and paste six times, that shows a lack of creativity. On the other hand, if you say, "That unit did a spectacular job last time I fielded them, and this other one just sort of sat around with its thumb up its ass, I think I'll take more of the former and see if they perform twice as well with twice as many units on the field," that shows tactical acumen. Hell, I've done that (replacing sniper scouts with another Tac squad, replacing Kroot with more Fire Warriors) It's a fine line, but the line is there, and taking lots of one unit does not, in my opinion, automatically constitute spam.

And yes, as said before, it's very subjective.

I agree. It's completely understandable to take more than one of a unit, particularly if they did well and you came up with some good examples. However, if say, Fire Warriors performed badly and the person decided that it would be best to have 5 squads of as many Kroot as they can, it COULD constitute spam.

As you said "It's a fine line, but the line is there, and taking lots of one unit does not, in my opinion, automatically constitute spam.And yes, as said before, it's very subjective", I don't believe something would automatically constitute spam and yes it is subjective, but this does mean that spam could exist, rather than 'redundancy=spam'...

kill dem stunties wrote:But spam is not negative, its just another word for redundancy in this context.

That's a good way to put it.

kill dem stunties wrote:

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:

kill dem stunties wrote:There is no such thing as spam, people who whine about spam are either just fluff bunnies, and people who cant afford to max their lists out.

Do i need to get you all a box of tissues? mabye some johnson and johnsons no more tears?

I try to play in as many tournaments as I can, and I bring hard lists.

I SPAM troop choices, and heavy support, and fast attack.

I actually SPAM them since they're the most effective, I don't take more for redundancy, I SPAM them.

Is redundancy just for fluff bunnies who can't win, who call their spamming redundancy?

Youre either being sarcastic or have a fundamental lack of understanding at the subject at hand

If you spam your units, you are making use of the principle of redundancy. But spam is not negative, its just another word for redundancy in this context.

I don't take alot of it so it can get its job done.

I take alot of them because they are the best in that category for my army list.

I take as many as possible. With no regards to if it will get the job done, since I am sure that one would be enough.

Just Dave wrote:You are very stern on your opinion and appear to be thinking that I'll claim spam to any multiplication of a unit (and that I'm a crappy player - thanks )

I'm actually holding back. The very idea that people want to insult a player's army list by calling it "spam" infuriates me. Opinions like these are worth less than nothing. Elitism is one of the worst things to ever happen to this hobby, regardless of what form it takes.

Melissia wrote:

Just Dave wrote:You are very stern on your opinion and appear to be thinking that I'll claim spam to any multiplication of a unit (and that I'm a crappy player - thanks )

I'm actually holding back. The very idea that people want to insult a player's army list by calling it "spam" infuriates me. Opinions like these are worth less than nothing. Elitism is one of the worst things to ever happen to this hobby, regardless of what form it takes.

I think I can smell Irony...

Despite me disliking Ultramarines, you don't see me deride players for playing them. I might make a joke occasionally, but that's merely humor. I dislike twin-lash lists, but I understand why they take them and don't discourage it. I dislike biker nob lists, but hey, whatever floats your boat. I dislike joke armies and "hello kitty marines", which are disturbingly popular on the internet... but they're your models, do whatever you want with them. I dislike the opinions of those who deride lists as spam, and plenty of other opinions.

This isn't elitism. Elitism is saying that somehow one group of players is inherently better than another group is. I don't hold myself as better-- I have held opinions in the past that I would now find reprehensible, so I would not make such a claim.



edit: So yes. Back on topic...

Spam doesn't really exist. Whether it's for the tactical purpose of redundancy, for fluff purposes, or just because you think it'd look nice all painted up, it's not "spam". It's just another way of doing your army list-- focusing on numbers and generalization instead of uniqueness and specialization.

Just Dave wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:

Just Dave wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:

Just Dave wrote:Despite that fact that it showed no tactical acumen, only the the ability to copy and paste?

To me, running 2 vindicators alongside a LRC is redundancy as any of them reaching the line would cause serious pain and therefore casualties can be afforded.

However, to me, simply copying the same unit - by the letter - is 'spam' and unimaginative. Eldar shouldn't even rely on redundancy or spam according to the fluff, they should specialise. Whilst - according to you - ' "Spam" fits the fluff.'

Well, in some situations (not all, but some) spam does fit the fluff. We hear plenty of stories of a few Marines getting overrun by an ocean of Gaunts. We hear about Tau fending off wave after wave of Orks. What's to say the "non-horde" type armies can't get in on the action? Waves of Dire Avengers. Waves of Tactical Marines. Waves of Necron Warriors. My point is, it's not necessarily a bad thing, and the distinction you're making is very subjective.

You argue that taking six of the same unit doesn't show tactical acumen. I argue that if that list is successful on the battlefield, how can it not be a tactically sound list? To you, tactical acumen seems to be ability to contextually specialize. To me, it's the ability to win a battle. I guess both definitions have merit, and either can be argued as right or wrong, but I don't see that anyone should be - to use a bit of a strong word here - condemned for employing tactics that you would define as the result of a "lack of creativity."

Well thank you for pointing out that it's our/your opinion rather than fact. And yes, I do believe it to be subjective and I agree that certain armies can 'spam', as in the examples you have mentioned. I also agree, that someone shouldn't be 'condemned for it', I wouldn't approve of 'spamming' such as that which I described, but I wouldn't particularly criticise or even condemn them, simply not approve. IMHO.

My argument is that unnecessarily taking 6 of the same unit, without the thought that 'I may lose one, may want back up' but instead thinking along the lines of 'that unit's good, where's the copy/paste option' is 'spam'. I understand Ork hordes, the intention is to take waves and waves of the buggers (although you could mix them up a bit for variety sakes, eg. Shoota instead of Rockets), but in my Eldar, for example, I believe that if there in no tactical or almost imaginative intention then yes, I think I would class it as spamming.

Don't get me wrong, I agree to a point - if you simply say, "Yeah, I like that unit, they do okay," and copy and paste six times, that shows a lack of creativity. On the other hand, if you say, "That unit did a spectacular job last time I fielded them, and this other one just sort of sat around with its thumb up its ass, I think I'll take more of the former and see if they perform twice as well with twice as many units on the field," that shows tactical acumen. Hell, I've done that (replacing sniper scouts with another Tac squad, replacing Kroot with more Fire Warriors) It's a fine line, but the line is there, and taking lots of one unit does not, in my opinion, automatically constitute spam.

And yes, as said before, it's very subjective.

I agree. It's completely understandable to take more than one of a unit, particularly if they did well and you came up with some good examples. However, if say, Fire Warriors performed badly and the person decided that it would be best to have 5 squads of as many Kroot as they can, it COULD constitute spam.

As you said "It's a fine line, but the line is there, and taking lots of one unit does not, in my opinion, automatically constitute spam.And yes, as said before, it's very subjective", I don't believe something would automatically constitute spam and yes it is subjective, but this does mean that spam could exist, rather than 'redundancy=spam'...

I think we started on opposite sides of this debate but ended up saying very similar things.

I think we did this whole "debate" thing wrong.

I'd argue that Elitism is that, and the belief that you must be right and that those who oppose this belief are either ignorant and or/wrong or ("worth less than nothing")

To me, that is Elitism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SaintHazard wrote:

Just Dave wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:

Just Dave wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:

Just Dave wrote:Despite that fact that it showed no tactical acumen, only the the ability to copy and paste?

To me, running 2 vindicators alongside a LRC is redundancy as any of them reaching the line would cause serious pain and therefore casualties can be afforded.

However, to me, simply copying the same unit - by the letter - is 'spam' and unimaginative. Eldar shouldn't even rely on redundancy or spam according to the fluff, they should specialise. Whilst - according to you - ' "Spam" fits the fluff.'

Well, in some situations (not all, but some) spam does fit the fluff. We hear plenty of stories of a few Marines getting overrun by an ocean of Gaunts. We hear about Tau fending off wave after wave of Orks. What's to say the "non-horde" type armies can't get in on the action? Waves of Dire Avengers. Waves of Tactical Marines. Waves of Necron Warriors. My point is, it's not necessarily a bad thing, and the distinction you're making is very subjective.

You argue that taking six of the same unit doesn't show tactical acumen. I argue that if that list is successful on the battlefield, how can it not be a tactically sound list? To you, tactical acumen seems to be ability to contextually specialize. To me, it's the ability to win a battle. I guess both definitions have merit, and either can be argued as right or wrong, but I don't see that anyone should be - to use a bit of a strong word here - condemned for employing tactics that you would define as the result of a "lack of creativity."

Well thank you for pointing out that it's our/your opinion rather than fact. And yes, I do believe it to be subjective and I agree that certain armies can 'spam', as in the examples you have mentioned. I also agree, that someone shouldn't be 'condemned for it', I wouldn't approve of 'spamming' such as that which I described, but I wouldn't particularly criticise or even condemn them, simply not approve. IMHO.

My argument is that unnecessarily taking 6 of the same unit, without the thought that 'I may lose one, may want back up' but instead thinking along the lines of 'that unit's good, where's the copy/paste option' is 'spam'. I understand Ork hordes, the intention is to take waves and waves of the buggers (although you could mix them up a bit for variety sakes, eg. Shoota instead of Rockets), but in my Eldar, for example, I believe that if there in no tactical or almost imaginative intention then yes, I think I would class it as spamming.

Don't get me wrong, I agree to a point - if you simply say, "Yeah, I like that unit, they do okay," and copy and paste six times, that shows a lack of creativity. On the other hand, if you say, "That unit did a spectacular job last time I fielded them, and this other one just sort of sat around with its thumb up its ass, I think I'll take more of the former and see if they perform twice as well with twice as many units on the field," that shows tactical acumen. Hell, I've done that (replacing sniper scouts with another Tac squad, replacing Kroot with more Fire Warriors) It's a fine line, but the line is there, and taking lots of one unit does not, in my opinion, automatically constitute spam.

And yes, as said before, it's very subjective.

I agree. It's completely understandable to take more than one of a unit, particularly if they did well and you came up with some good examples. However, if say, Fire Warriors performed badly and the person decided that it would be best to have 5 squads of as many Kroot as they can, it COULD constitute spam.

As you said "It's a fine line, but the line is there, and taking lots of one unit does not, in my opinion, automatically constitute spam.And yes, as said before, it's very subjective", I don't believe something would automatically constitute spam and yes it is subjective, but this does mean that spam could exist, rather than 'redundancy=spam'...

I think we started on opposite sides of this debate but ended up saying very similar things.

I think we did this whole "debate" thing wrong.

haha! Yes, I was just thinking that as I posted my response. Actually, we did the whole debate thing right. Very right IMHO. We did the whole internet thing wrong!

Merriam-Webster wrote:
Main Entry: re·dun·dan·cy
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈdən-dən(t)-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural re·dun·dan·cies
Date: circa 1602
1 a : the quality or state of being redundant : superfluity b : the use of redundant components; also : such components c chiefly British : dismissal from a job especially by layoff
2 : profusion, abundance
3 a : superfluous repetition : prolixity b : an act or instance of needless repetition
4 : the part of a message that can be eliminated without loss of essential information

Notice the bolded parts, and think about spamming.

So in reagards to 40K:

Redundancy- Taking multiple units that serve the same primary purpose.

Spamming- Taking the same unit multiple times.

There's not a whole lot of difference. You can be redundant and not spam, but if you do spam, it's redundant. One is not more or less tactically sound then the other (though I'd argue being redundant with different units is more creative), and therefore require the same amount of tactical acumen to create and use.

darkdm wrote:

Merriam-Webster wrote:
Main Entry: re·dun·dan·cy
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈdən-dən(t)-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural re·dun·dan·cies
Date: circa 1602
1 a : the quality or state of being redundant : superfluity b : the use of redundant components; also : such components c chiefly British : dismissal from a job especially by layoff
2 : profusion, abundance
3 a : superfluous repetition : prolixity b : an act or instance of needless repetition
4 : the part of a message that can be eliminated without loss of essential information

Notice the bolded parts, and think about spamming.

So in reagards to 40K:

Redundancy- Taking multiple units that serve the same primary purpose.

Spamming- Taking the same unit multiple times.

There's not a whole lot of difference. You can be redundant and not spam, but if you do spam, it's redundant. One is not more or less tactically sound then the other (though I'd argue being redundant with different units is more creative), and therefore require the same amount of tactical acumen to create and use.

Well, now we're just playing with semantics.

We defined the two terms in the context of army lists early on in the thread. Throw Merriam-Webster out the window, please. We don't need'em.

Not everyone agrees with your definition.

I don't even agree that "spam" is an appropriate word to describe an army list at all in the first place.

Melissia wrote:Not everyone agrees with your definition.

I don't even agree that "spam" is an appropriate word to describe an army list at all in the first place.

I'm not sure who you're replying to, but if it was to me, you just inadvertantly made my point for me.

I don't agree with Merriam-Webster's definition in context. Neither does half this thread, apparently.

I never said anyone had to. Just that bringing more definitions onto the table isn't going to help anyone.

I was replying to both of you

Melissia wrote:I was replying to both of you

Fair 'nough.

Maybe in future we should define terms clearly before beginning a debate.

We can make up words so as not to step on anyone's toes regarding definitions.

"Vlork" and "windywoo" might work well.

I don't think windywoo means what you think it does.

And I don't think it is a term that is quite appropriate for this forum

I'm fairly certain it doesn't mean anything at all. It was a nonsense word that popped into my head. Am I wrong?

SaintHazard wrote:
Well, now we're just playing with semantics.

We defined the two terms in the context of army lists early on in the thread. Throw Merriam-Webster out the window, please. We don't need'em.

How is what I said any different from what others have been saying? And how is what the dictionary said any different than that? I didn't give a specific example, but I did mention redundancy and spamming in relation to 40K. I was merely providing backing for my argument. It may be an argument for symantics, but how is it any different then from:

Dark wrote:
- It's on my list: spam
- It's on his list: redundancy

The OP asked here the line is between redundancy and spamming lies, and I offered up my opinion with support, as worthless as it may be. Whether you agree with it is up to you, but ask (on the internet) and you will receive (untold amounts of unless opinions and facts).

Just Dave wrote:Wait wait wait, so this army wouldn't be classed as spam, merely redundancy? (for example):

The biggest problem I have with this list is the Farseers. If it was me, I'd at least set aside 20-40 points to add some variation between the two. They're independent characters, after all, not the products of an assembly line.

SaintHazard wrote:I'm fairly certain it doesn't mean anything at all. It was a nonsense word that popped into my head. Am I wrong?

Dude

Melissia wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:I'm fairly certain it doesn't mean anything at all. It was a nonsense word that popped into my head. Am I wrong?

Dude

I knew that.

Just making sure you were paying attention is all.

Obviously.

Yes, yes, becuase the complainer is always wrong.

I will admit, the difference between redundancy and spam has little to do with strategy and has more to do with sportsmanship, but it's annoying to see someone drop three Manticores on the field. It's even worse when it's a melta spam list, and you know that if you came back with a horde army, they'd have a disadvantage because they didn't invest in anything that could handle large groups on infantry.