Spam itself isn't OP, and not sure why many find it wrong...

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.

**MWHistorian**

Mythra wrote:
I don't get it.... Play what you want and I'll play you. Just agree what type of game your going to play beforehand. Friendly or competitive.

I think people getting angry is just a lack of communication. I brought a list to a friendly game I shouldn't have brought. Titan under 9 Void Shields. It was wrong but I had never seen a Titan or Void shields in play. I should have asked can I see these in play. My fault I didn't communicate.

Now when there is prize involved I don't think there is any reason not expect to see anything and everything to show up. The people that get mad b/c I have 3 Doom Scythes and 4 Night Scythes in my 1500pt Tournament list really confuse me. You go to a Tournament to play fluff? I think it comes down people don't like to lose so they get angry at anything they perceive messed up their chances to win.

I agree completely with this.

**Freytag93**

Mythra wrote:
I don't get it.... Play what you want and I'll play you. Just agree what type of game your going to play beforehand. Friendly or competitive.

I think people getting angry is just a lack of communication. I brought a list to a friendly game I shouldn't have brought. Titan under 9 Void Shields. It was wrong but I had never seen a Titan or Void shields in play. I should have asked can I see these in play. My fault I didn't communicate.

Now when there is prize involved I don't think there is any reason not expect to see anything and everything to show up. The people that get mad b/c I have 3 Doom Scythes and 4 Night Scythes in my 1500pt Tournament list really confuse me. You go to a Tournament to play fluff? I think it comes down people don't like to lose so they get angry at anything they perceive messed up their chances to win.

I agree with this. The problem is bringing spam to casual games.

For a tourney, I expect to face this kind of stuff. Venom spam, helldrakes, wave serpents, etc. Therefore I will bring my dual TL-BL flyrants, venoms, etc for my Nids. People aren't complaining about others bringing the best units to tourneys where prizes are on the line.

But for casual games, it gets boring facing the same copy-paste lists (with maybe one or two units changed at most) every time I go to my FLGS. I want to be able to play a blob guard army and run 180+ little guys or walking tyrants or other non-optimized units, or a necron army that isn't just min 5 warrior squads in scythes. Is it too much to ask to play a DE army in a casual game where it doesn't have 9 venoms and tons of splinter-born?

Spam is a problem when it is to the detriment to other players' enjoyment of the game. People go to tournaments to compete against the best. While I personally don't like the 40k has all of these optimized units that leads to spamming, I am fine facing them at tourneys and expect it. People also want to be able to play casual games against a variety of armies. That is where spamming optimized units annoys people.

**Talizvar**

Seems everyone is pretty much on the same wavelength.

If we understand it is a competitive game SPAM or anything else within the rules is fair game and expected.

It is the "fun" games when bringing a competitive list is of "poor taste".
This is when people want to field themed lists or a mix of units for a more balanced play.
Bringing the more cost effective/capable models in volume smacks of competitive play.
I still think you have to approach it like you could play either army.

**Martel732**

What was the WWII Soviet army except infantry spam, Sturmovik spam and T-34 spam? Sprinkle in some Yaks and KV-2's.

**Noir**

Freytag93 wrote:
Mythra wrote:
I don't get it.... Play what you want and I'll play you. Just agree what type of game your going to play beforehand. Friendly or competitive.

I think people getting angry is just a lack of communication. I brought a list to a friendly game I shouldn't have brought. Titan under 9 Void Shields. It was wrong but I had never seen a Titan or Void shields in play. I should have asked can I see these in play. My fault I didn't communicate.

Now when there is prize involved I don't think there is any reason not expect to see anything and everything to show up. The people that get mad b/c I have 3 Doom Scythes and 4 Night Scythes in my 1500pt Tournament list really confuse me. You go to a Tournament to play fluff? I think it comes down people don't like to lose so they get angry at anything they perceive messed up their chances to win.
I agree with this. The problem is bringing spam to casual games.

For a tourney, I expect to face this kind of stuff. Venom spam, helldrakes, wave serpents, etc. Therefore I will bring my dual TL-BL flyrants, venoms, etc for my Nids. People aren't complaining about others bringing the best units to tourneys where prizes are on the line.

But for casual games, it gets boring facing the same copy-paste lists (with maybe one or two units changed at most) every time I go to my FLGS. I want to be able to play a blob guard army and run 180+ little guys or walking tyrants or other non-optimized units, or a necron army that isn't just min 5 warrior squads in scythes. Is it too much to ask to play a DE army in a casual game where it doesn't have 9 venoms and tons of splinter-born?

Spam is a problem when it is to the detriment to other players' enjoyment of the game. People go to tournaments to compete against the best. While I personally don't like the 40k has all of these optimized units that leads to spamming, I am fine facing them at tourneys and expect it. People also want to be able to play casual games against a variety of armies. That is where spamming optimized units annoys people.

Yeah who would want to play vs. any list and have fun, good thing there are units that suck or are OP so that doesn't happen.

**Breng77**

Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Also, just by comparing to other vehicles, I don't get how the Venom looks cheesy.

The Heldrake is probably still the best overall non-super heavy vehicle in the core game, the Wave Serpent competes with it (arguably is better) and is, undoubtedly, the best transport in the game. The Razorback has more transport capacity than a Venom, better armor, more hull points, also has smoke launchers and searchlights, similar ability to damage infantry, better ability to damage mech, and costs the same.

Admittedly people call Razorback spam cheesy too.

The Chimera also has better armor, searchlights and smoke launchers, more anti infantry shooting, better anti-mech shooting, more hull points, a lower BS, and a higher transport capacity. It also costs the same as a Venom.

I'm comparing these things to the Venom before it pays for the 2nd s.cannon too - so really you're paying more for the Venom. 10 points to get 6 poison 4+ shots at AP 5 I think 10 points is pretty reasonable for that as an upgrade, especially since our vehicles are as expensive as far more durable and multi-purpose options that other armies get. Compared to other base line transports the Venom is hardly mind blowingly better. Heck, with the way the new rules work I'd probably prefer being able to put my Blaster Warrior builds into Razorbacks or Chimera - it would be more powerful and would cost less.

I'd offer to take Razorbacks or Chimera for some of your squads instead of Venoms. Then let them see if they still think Venoms are overpowered.

So statistically the venom vs a Razorback. from damage output against Infantry.

Vs MEQ the Venom is slightly better
Vs TEQ the Venom is slightly better
Against 4+ saves a Razorback is slightly better
Against a 5+ save a Venom is slightly better
Against T3 the Razorback is slightly better.
Against T5 or higher the Venom is way better.

Chimera is slightly better against most lower end targets, but worse against high toughness. Throw in again 10 points to double the output.

Throw in that for 10 points you double its effectiveness. (It would be the equivalent of taking another Heavy Bolter on a Razorback for 10 points)

It also has fire points (open topped), can move 12" and fire everything (big deal with LOS blockers in play).

Durability, against S7 shooting it is more difficult to put a damage result on a venom then on a razorback, as strength gets higher the odds for the venom improve. Now open topped and one less hull point hurt a bit here. If chimeras give up side armor venom is better hands down.

It also has a much higher upside due to more shots. No matter how well I roll a Razorback puts out 3 wounds, a venom puts out up to 6 (un upgraded) or 12 with upgrades.

**gardeth**

What makes the venom better than the razorback comes down to movement, passengers, and Nightshields.

Between items 1 and 3, a lot of weapons that threaten both can be completely avoided by the venom and item allows the venom to either focus even more firepower at its target (splinter riffles + blaster) or threaten armored targets (blaster).

Between its size, speed, and Nightshields, I can't think of any direct fire vehicle in the game that is better at doing damage while avoiding getting even shot at in the first place.

**Breng77**

I look at it this way. 6th Ed rules hurt other vehicles far more than the venom (arguably they help the venom.).

Venoms were always about as survivable as they are now (possibly less so in 5th ed when everyone was geared up for anti-tank, venom spam was hard countered by GK RB/Psyfleman spam at the end of 5th). But venoms already died really quickly when penetrated, so nothing changed there, but other vehicles were far more durable. Throw in that splinter cannons are great Vs infantry and garbage VS vehicles, and then look at the Meta where vehices are less common (and as such anti-vehicle shooting), and arguably the venom is not more lethal and more survivable.

**gardeth**

Breng77 wrote:
I look at it this way. 6th Ed rules hurt other vehicles far more than the venom (arguably they help the venom.).

Venoms were always about as survivable as they are now (possibly less so in 5th ed when everyone was geared up for anti-tank, venom spam was hard countered by GK RB/Psyfleman spam at the end of 5th). But venoms already died really quickly when penetrated, so nothing changed there, but other vehicles were far more durable. Throw in that splinter cannons are great Vs infantry and garbage VS vehicles, and then look at the Meta where vehices are less common (and as such anti-vehicle shooting), and arguably the venom is not more lethal and more survivable.

The last 5th edition tournament I played in was the ATC. I kept track of how many venoms I lost to glancing 6's vs how many venoms where still playing around after 2 pens/glances. In the two days of the event I lost 6 venoms to a single glancing hit and only had 2 that survived taking more than 2 glances/pens. DE in general benefited greatly from the new vehicle rules. It made our vehicles slightly more resilient while making other vehicles more vunerable to our AT weapons (thanks to hullpoints!).

**hiveof_chimera**

Just thought I'd add this

**Avinash_Tyagi**

Martel732 wrote:
What was the WWII Soviet army except infantry spam, Sturmovik spam and T-34 spam? Sprinkle in some Yaks and KV-2's.

You forget their self-propelled guns and rocket artillery such as the Katyusha

**Martel732**

That too.

**Kain**

Martel732 wrote:
What was the WWII Soviet army except infantry spam, Sturmovik spam and T-34 spam? Sprinkle in some Yaks and KV-2's.

Y HALO THAR IGNORANT STEREOTYPES.

Towards the end of the war the soviet military was every bit the equal in terms of planning that the Germans were and had mastered the art of long distance over-land logistics.

Describing them as "lol zergrushers" is borderline racist.

**Martel732**

Kain wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
What was the WWII Soviet army except infantry spam, Sturmovik spam and T-34 spam? Sprinkle in some Yaks and KV-2's.

Y HALO THAR IGNORANT STEREOTYPES.

Towards the end of the war the soviet military was every bit the equal in terms of planning that the Germans were and had mastered the art of long distance over-land logistics.

Describing them as "lol zergrushers" is borderline racist.

Yeah, I know that too. But they were REALLY good at spamming the things they liked. Compare the T-34 count to the Panther or Tiger count. The Germans never had a chance. The WWII Germans are actually one of the most overrated forces in history and I hate how most wargames (Flames of War) kiss their boots and make them godly.

**gardeth**

How does flames of war make them godly? The premier german armor and weapons are hella expensive and usually prone to getting bogged down due to being over burdened. On the flip side Russians can bring massive amounts of armor, guns, and infantry for the same points, and in the case of the Tank Destroyers, the Russians have some of the best. And Katusha Rockets are terrifyingly effective.

**Martel732**

gardeth wrote:
How does flames of war make them godly? The premier german armor and weapons are hella expensive and usually prone to getting bogged down due to being over burdened. On the flip side Russians can bring massive amounts of armor, guns, and infantry for the same points, and in the case of the Tank Destroyers, the Russians have some of the best. And Katusha Rockets are terrifyingly effective.

I refuse to play a game that has the "Storm Trooper" rule, because the Germans were actually slower than the Americans and Soviets, due to having horse drawn equipment. Every time I have seen Flames of War played or played in it (about four times, fyi), the Germans have been invincible gods. Clearly whomever wrote Flames of War never stopped to check to see who actually won that war. Major turn off. Horribly inaccurate. Thus are the perils of making a game based off stuff that actually happened and existed. 40K can get away with literally anything. I can assure that the real life German did not have jitterbug Tiger tanks.

**gardeth**

As someone who plays Flames of War I can tell you that the Germans are far from all powerful. My US paras have yet to lose a game to germans (though had a close call vs a tiger company). Also, the storm trooper move represents the tactical flexibility and agility that the Germans demonstrated through the war, not the logistical transport from theater to theater. Its this flexibility and ability to seize the initiative that allowed the much smaller German force to initially overpower then still slow an enemy that outnumbered them greatly.

As a huge WWII history buff I am exceedingly pleased with how Flames has handled the unit and army special rules.

**Martel732**

"the storm trooper move represents the tactical flexibility and agility that the Germans demonstrated through the war,"

Yeah, because the Brits and Americans, didn't have that at all. I'm sick of war games sucking the Germans' you-know-what. They lost. For a reason.

**gardeth**

You know what, I am not going to keep hijacking this thread to try and explain this to you. Pickup a book or watch some documentaries on just how amazingly well organized the German war machine was in WW2 when compared to the rest of the world. There's a reason they conquered most of Europe and a good chunk of Northern Africa and Russia despite being massively out numbered and out gunned. To deny this is to ignore the lesson of the dangerous of ignoring a militarized nation until it is too late and how the rest of the world didnt just roll over for Germany in WW2, they were beaten back by a force that was better prepared, better trained, and more organized by a wide margin.

Germany thankfully lost the war because of fighting on too many fronts with over extended supply lines against enemies who they could not even begin to compete with logistically.

It is ok to dislike or even hate an enemy, but DON"T downplay the danger they represented or the effectiveness with which they waged ware. To do otherwise is to dishonor those that died fighting them

**Martel732**

That game is still a pile of gak. And I told the company that in person at Origins one year. They didn't much care for that.

No matter how snazzy their uniforms, the Germans didn't have teleporting Tiger tanks.

**gardeth**

Your lack of understanding regarding game mechanics and what they represent is astounding....

The fact that you are calling a game that is one of the best direct translation for strategy to the table top "gak" is telling. I started playing this game without a clear understanding of the rules but a firm grasp of what the actual units/vehicles did historically and I was able to effectively play from the word go.

**GorillaWarfare**

I think any good military strategy game, regardless of its scale, should require a combined arms approach in order to win. It makes for a much more fun and dynamic game, and adds variety. To spam a unit is to play the game in a way that I am sure was never intended. Unfortunatly GW has a very blind approach to game balance, so the spammable units are more common then they should be.

**Martel732**

With GW, if you spam the right thing, you have as strong list. Spam the wrong thing, and you are looking at a tabling.

**gardeth**

GorillaWarfare wrote:
I think any good military strategy game, regardless of its scale, should require a combined arms approach in order to win. It makes for a much more fun and dynamic game, and adds variety. To spam a unit is to play the game in a way that I am sure was never intended. Unfortunatly GW has a very blind approach to game balance, so the spammable units are more common then they should be.

One of the more infamous spam lists "venom spam" is dangerous BECAUSE it exemplifies the combined arms approach. The ravagers and trueborn are there for dedicated anti-armor, the venoms are dedicated anti-infantry, the warriors in the venoms can backup both options, and a beast pack is filling in the gaps/defending the line as needed.

**MWHistorian**

Someone calling Flames of War gak?
Wow. Either you haven't played the game or you think the word "Gak" actually means "awesome."

**Martel732**

MWHistorian wrote:
Someone calling Flames of War gak?
Wow. Either you haven't played the game or you think the word "Gak" actually means "awesome."

I've played it four times. Each time was a miserable stomping by the god-like Germans with teleporting troops. Yeah, I think it's gak. It's 40K dressed up as a historical game. Except 40K gets a pass for not being based off, you know, history.

**Icculus**

gardeth wrote:
GorillaWarfare wrote:
I think any good military strategy game, regardless of its scale, should require a combined arms approach in order to win. It makes for a much more fun and dynamic game, and adds variety. To spam a unit is to play the game in a way that I am sure was never intended. Unfortunatly GW has a very blind approach to game balance, so the spammable units are more common then they should be.

One of the more infamous spam lists "venom spam" is dangerous BECAUSE it exemplifies the combined arms approach. The ravagers and trueborn are there for dedicated anti-armor, the venoms are dedicated anti-infantry, the warriors in the venoms can backup both options, and a beast pack is filling in the gaps/defending the line as needed.

Well plus the firepower that 5 venoms have on their own, even without the passengers. 5 venoms with 2 splintercannons equals an average of 20 wounds on infantry/MC regardless of toughness. So if you get first turn and have LOS, you are looking at making the enemy roll 20 saves just from the venoms. And thats just the average. 60 shots at bs4 means avg 40 hits. then to wound on 4+ means 20 wounds.

But I think being spammed feels like someone is just taking advantage of something and rubbing it in your face. Its like playing a fighting video game and your opponent finds a move that works, so he does it over and over again. Its effective yes, but it's also very infuriating.

**Addaran**

Martel732 wrote:
I'm sick of war games sucking the Germans' you-know-what. They lost. For a reason.

Overconfidence and because they decided to fight 300 armies at once. The German probably had the best soldiers in average. They are one of the elite armies in history. But they fought vastly superior numbers, even if it wasn't always at the same time.

Try doing two 40K game in a row, but the casualties of the first aren't there in the 2nd game. Chances are you'll lose the 2nd one, even if the first went well.

**Martel732**

Addaran wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I'm sick of war games sucking the Germans' you-know-what. They lost. For a reason.

Overconfidence and because they decided to fight 300 armies at once. The German probably had the best soldiers in average. They are one of the elite armies in history. But they fought vastly superior numbers, even if it wasn't always at the same time.

Try doing two 40K game in a row, but the casualties of the first aren't there in the 2nd game. Chances are you'll lose the 2nd one, even if the first went well.

Even assuming what you say is true, that's the perfect storm for the ultimate tactical-level force in a game. Since the Germans are weak only on the strategic level, they become gods on a table top tactical-level game. Boring. I get enough practice picking up models against Eldar. There is no reason to repeat the same exercise in a different system against Germans.

**TheCustomLime**

Addaran wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I'm sick of war games sucking the Germans' you-know-what. They lost. For a reason.

Overconfidence and because they decided to fight 300 armies at once. The German probably had the best soldiers in average. They are one of the elite armies in history. But they fought vastly superior numbers, even if it wasn't always at the same time.

Try doing two 40K game in a row, but the casualties of the first aren't there in the 2nd game. Chances are you'll lose the 2nd one, even if the first went well.

Another big factor in their defeat was their lack of resources and their poor management of what little resources they had.

The Germans could not produce a simple item to save their lives. Most of their gear was exceedingly complex and resource heavy compared to their allied equivalents. The Panther was completely overengineered which made repairing them a pain.

They also lacked crucial resources such as brass, fuel and even wool. It got so bad that towards the end of war many tanks were lost simply because they ran out of gas, bullets were made out of lacquered steel and their uniforms were partially tree based.

I could actually make a whole thread about why the Germans lost the war but that's going off topic. Spam in of itself isn't a bad thing. Having a uniform army is simply another way of designing a list which provides a ton of redundancy. What spam provides is paying points for more of the same dice rolls. I also think uniform armies look better on the table top since they feel more fluffy.