Is unit spam healthy for the game?

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.

**Peregrine**

GreaterGood? wrote:
Sure, I agree. 40k players don't actually want a balanced game. But you could take anything you felt like in as many numbers as possible, if the units were balanced between each other, however, that means a space marine is a space marine, is a space marine. Gw isn't interested in making a balanced game, they want a well selling game.

I wish this myth would die. Balance does not mean that everything is the same.

**Eldarain**

Spam is very good for the future of the game... If acted upon.

The reason for spam is improperly priced units for their capability. If the same units are making up the vast majority of forces at major tournaments they should be adjusted in each Chapter Approved.

**Selym**

GreaterGood? wrote:
Sure, I agree. 40k players don't actually want a balanced game. But you could take anything you felt like in as many numbers as possible, if the units were balanced between each other, however, that means a space marine is a space marine, is a space marine. Gw isn't interested in making a balanced game, they want a well selling game.

**EnTyme**

I'm amazed at how many people seem convinced that a month is more than enough time to say "This is the meta. This is what 8th edition is".

**yakface**

I understand that the topic of this thread makes it fun to post spam jokes, or to say that this thread is spam, however it is absolutely a valid topic of discussion, and as such any further joke posts made in this thread purely about spam (posting videos to monty python, etc.) will result in disciplinary action.

**Martel732**

Melissia wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
Any way, can you please list the units that can delete 50 conscripts from the board in a turn or 2?
Berserkers, especially with psyker support. Stormraven kitted out for anti-infantry shooting won't take long either, with how many shots it can dole out. Death Company (with power axes and a sangpriest, they wound on a 2+, amusingly, though most people use power swords over axes, for the AP). Squadron of basilisks with HB/HS, or one of wyverns. A 10+ sized unit of Flayed Ones could potentially do it, given four attacks each hitting fairly often and rerolling 1s on to-wound. 30 boyz teleported in to a charge on the conscript squad could turn it in to bloody paste. 30 hormagaunts getting a charge, or potentially 30 termagants with devourers. A swooping hawk squad that pulled off its grenade drop on the conscripts before opening fire with close range rapid fire (especially including an exarch with sunrifle to make the return fire hit on a pathetic 6+). I hvaen't even bothered to look at some armies that have potential options, as I feel this is more than enough to prove my point-- that there's a number of units that could utterly wipe out a conscript squad well before the game ends.

Yes, I'm aware that most of these cost more than the conscript squad in question, and some are tricky to use. But that's as it should be. The only real use of a conscript squad is its durability, so if you want to be able to erase it, you damn well better have to put some effort in to erasing it. Completely nullifying a unit's core and frankly only strength shouldn't come easy, just ask Orks.

People oversell how powerful conscripts are. They're good to be sure. Probably even need to d6 wounds from a commissar instead of 1 or some other minor nerf. But people are going around acting like they're the end of the world, and that you don't need any units other than conscripts, commissars, and commanders to win every game ez-pz.

And yet I've seen no evidence anyone has managed to pull that off in a tournament setting yet.

I'm kind of in the middle on this topic. I think conscripts need a minor nerf of some kind, such as 6+ armor. Anyway, I don't think most of the things you listed even begin to remove a conscript blob. That's the point people are trying to make about them. You have to play around them in a non-intuitive way. As a BA player, I can tell you that those DC can't do enough; I've already run those numbers. I don't have 10 axe DC anyway. Also, a dakkaraven has 42 shots only, and most of them wound on 3's and allow full saves. That's not cutting it, either. Especially for the pricetag. BA have no reasonable way to get a conscript blob off the table. They will have to be played around.

**GreaterGood?**

Peregrine wrote:
GreaterGood? wrote:
Sure, I agree. 40k players don't actually want a balanced game. But you could take anything you felt like in as many numbers as possible, if the units were balanced between each other, however, that means a space marine is a space marine, is a space marine. Gw isn't interested in making a balanced game, they want a well selling game.

I wish this myth would die. Balance does not mean that everything is the same.

It does, when you remove any restrictions on what models you can bring. If I can bring guardsmen and marines side by side, balance has to be perfect, or something is going to be too good.

**Martel732**

No, doesn't mean that at all. It just means every unit is worth what you pay for it.

**GreaterGood?**

Martel732 wrote:
No, doesn't mean that at all. It just means every unit is worth what you pay for it.

That's what I said.. We agree. However, when you've got 30+ choices they cannot and will not all be worthwhile. There will be one "best" unit at each specific role, and you will take only those.

**Azreal13**

No, you won't. As long as balance is "good enough" only at the very tiniest top end of top competitive tables will it become important.

Basically all people want when they say balance is "don't make my choices actively handicap me beyond the point I can compensate."

**Martel732**

I think that can mitigated a great deal though.

**Selym**

GreaterGood? wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
GreaterGood? wrote:
Sure, I agree. 40k players don't actually want a balanced game. But you could take anything you felt like in as many numbers as possible, if the units were balanced between each other, however, that means a space marine is a space marine, is a space marine. Gw isn't interested in making a balanced game, they want a well selling game.

I wish this myth would die. Balance does not mean that everything is the same.

It does, when you remove any restrictions on what models you can bring. If I can bring guardsmen and marines side by side, balance has to be perfect, or something is going to be too good.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but my takeaway from it is that you are implying that being able to take anything you want from all armies is the definition of balance. Or that simply having multiple choices simpy results in everyone taking the same thing.
And your later post implies that you believe that having multiple choices guarantees that some will never be taken as they are outright worse.

None of these are the same thing as, or even correlate with, balance. Nor are they true.

We do not expect perfect balance, but we do expect a reasonable fighting chance with most armies, and for most armies to have more than one or two viable builds. We're pretty damn aware that it is supremely unlikely we will get perfect balance, and are happy to accept a "close enough" scenario. Further, balance is not synonymous with homogeneity, nor is homogeneity the only way to cause balance.

**Dionysodorus**

I generally like seeing and playing lists that are bringing multiples of only a few non- single model character units. Redundancy means that lists can count on having certain capabilities into turns 3 and 4, whereas one-of-everything lists basically need everything to be standalone good because any one unit can get killed pretty easily. I feel like a good, varied 2k army will generally have maybe 3-6 unique non-character units. It certainly doesn't strike me as a problem for a list to have, say, a few identical Troops picks, a few identical Elites picks, and then a few identical flyers, plus some HQs and maybe transports.

But, yeah, a list that's just 6 flyers plus a token squad is kind of dumb. A list that's just 4 Knights and some token conscripts also strikes me as pretty dumb. Or a list that's a million Brimstones and then a bunch of characters hiding within them. That's the sort of thing that strikes me as un-fun spam.

**gossipmeng**

My current Tau army is comprised of commanders, XV8s, XV25s, XV88s, and drones - now while the weapon loadouts do vary, that is still one 5 different units.

I enjoy having an army of just my favourite models and it also is easier to keep track of unit rules.

**Selym**

Is 2 units of Guardians spam?
Is 3?
Is 4?

We've got to be consistent here.

Also, as noted by others, spam is only bad spam when comprised of lower-than-usual-grade meat. You need the correct mix to make a fun or fluffy list.

**Pancakey**

Azreal13 wrote:
No, you won't. As long as balance is "good enough" only at the very tiniest top end of top competitive tables will it become important.

Basically all people want when they say balance is "don't make my choices actively handicap me beyond the point I can compensate."

This is pretty good way of summing up the issue!

**Selym**

Pancakey wrote:
Azreal13 wrote:
No, you won't. As long as balance is "good enough" only at the very tiniest top end of top competitive tables will it become important.

Basically all people want when they say balance is "don't make my choices actively handicap me beyond the point I can compensate."

This is pretty good way of summing up the issue!

No it really isn't. These kinds of comments imply the two of you are the kind of people who would respond to all Guard units doubling in points costs by saying "You just need to Git Gud Sun".

**Eldarain**

Does it? Not sure how you got that.

**Selym**

Eldarain wrote:
Does it? Not sure how you got that.

I shall elaborate.
With a cynical comment stating that any cries for balance are simply just people saying they want to be protected from bad choices, you are saying the following:

1) When people identify a "weaker" thing they fear they cannot use it with skill and cry for balance.
2) These people have thus identified that their skill is insufficient
3) I feel that 40k is more about skill than army selection
4) These people are therefore bad at 40k
5) If they are bad at 40k, it is not the unit that is the problem. The problem is weak crybabies trying to get easy wins.
6) The correct solution is therefore to change the players, not the rules when anyone cries for balance. They must Git Gud.
7) If IG players were to recieve a "double all points costs" rule, they would cry for balance.
8) Refer to point 1 and proceed through to 6.

Spoiler:

**Azreal13**

No, I didn't say "protected from bad choices." Balance doesn't automatically mean you should run whatever you want and have precisely the same chance of winning. If you make bad strategic choices in list building then you should be punished, such as incorporating insufficienct units to fulfill the various roles needed (too much/too little anti tank, etc.)

What you shouldn't be punished for, at least not excessively, is wanting to run, say, Terminator heavy lists purely because Terminators are fundamentally a poor choice. Running Termie heavy lists and suffer a bit through lack of mobility? Fine. Choose insufficient weapon load out options across your units to handle multiple threats? Absolutely. But not simply because the basic unit you've built your concept around isn't good enough for its points.

There's room for less unit focused lists to offer a more optimal performance, but balance should be good enough that your average player can build a sensibly balanced list and feel like they can win, or at least compete.

I can't believe I've been on this board for so many years and I still have to explain this repeatedly.

TLDR There's a distinction between a unit being a poor choice and just flat out poor.

**Daedalus81**

EnTyme wrote:
I'm amazed at how many people seem convinced that a month is more than enough time to say "This is the meta. This is what 8th edition is".

Wait until next month! Primaris will be OP! And then Death Guard!

**jeff white**

Spam is a symptom of a general lack of intelligence. Spammers who spam units to make an auto win button for themselves are unable to understand that winning at all costs including excessive reflexive financial costs is not the aim of the game hobby or LIFE for that matter. Mostly I blame the collapse of culture around the worship of Mammon but this is beside the point. I would refuse to play with anyone with a netlist of X units and would rather sit at a table and paint while listening to someone else suffer the bad decision to engage with such.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:
GreaterGood? wrote:
Sure, I agree. 40k players don't actually want a balanced game. But you could take anything you felt like in as many numbers as possible, if the units were balanced between each other, however, that means a space marine is a space marine, is a space marine. Gw isn't interested in making a balanced game, they want a well selling game.

I wish this myth would die. Balance does not mean that everything is the same.

Exactly. And not something that is easy to understand if people are always expecting external forces to shape their own internal grasp of fairness.

**admironheart**

Highlander Rules. There Can Be ONLY ONE.

**Selym**

jeff white wrote:
Spam is a symptom of a general lack of intelligence.

Erm... No. Firstly, define spam. Secondly, realise that you'd need to be a genius to win certain spam-based battles. 100-grot army, anyone? Thirdly, sometimes spam is fun and/or fluffy. See 1st Company lists, see Infantry battles, see Tank Companies.

Spammers who spam units to make an auto win button for themselves are unable to understand that winning at all costs including excessive reflexive financial costs is not the aim of the game hobby or LIFE for that matter.

Lots of people think that the point of 40k is to win, regardless of how your opponent feels. These people are generally bad people.

Mostly I blame the collapse of culture around the worship of Mammon but this is beside the point.

Collapse of culture... What culture was there? Ancient Greek philosophers decried the invention of books as culture-destroying. The British Empire took book-keeping as a motto. And worship of who? I don't worship anything, afaik, and have never heard of Mammon.

I would refuse to play with anyone with a netlist of X units and would rather sit at a table and paint while listening to someone else suffer the bad decision to engage with such.

Can't deny that 40k is co-operative and that both players should get something out of the game.

**Actinium**

Spam is fine, even fun in some cases. Just a matter of continuing to update the point values as we go to make sure that unit A is in line with unit B, you just happen to take all unit As because you like the model or unit A is better close range then unit B and you want to use a couple tank Cs for your long range power so they cover each other's weaknesses. That kind of thing.

It's also still a very young edition. Maybe flyer lists are doing well not because they are too cheap for their firepower and durability, but because tables aren't using enough area terrain to give infantry cover bonuses yet and that's just a conclusion we come to naturally over the course of months without the need for GW intervention. Let's wait for more then a half dozen events occurring before the first codex release before we decide something like a sweeping change to enforced army compositions needs to be made.

**Galas**

Pancakey wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
People just complain. Of course people are going to use as many of their best unit as possible.

Why wouldn't you? .

With an army that has say, 20 different units to choose from you would HOPE that there is some choice as to what is "best". GW did insist all units would be "viable"; is this the case?

And the more important question is , will this easy access to spam for ALL armies be HEALTHY for the warhammer community?

This is the problem. Theres really nothing you can do to 100% erase spam. People will spam the most competitive thing. Even in a very and near perfectly balanced game, many players will spam that unit or combo that allows them a 5% mathematical advantage. But if the game is well enough balanced that a player can even taking units that are slithgly worse than the most efficient one and win if they are better players (and have average rolls), then thats totally fine.

**GreaterGood?**

Whoa.... I'm out of this thread. I forgot how prevalent the anti-competitive mindset was within the 40k community.

There's no point in even discussing issues when people think:

jeff white wrote:
Spam is a symptom of a general lack of intelligence. Spammers who spam units to make an auto win button for themselves are unable to understand that winning at all costs including excessive reflexive financial costs is not the aim of the game hobby or LIFE for that matter. Mostly I blame the collapse of culture around the worship of Mammon but this is beside the point. I would refuse to play with anyone with a netlist of X units and would rather sit at a table and paint while listening to someone else suffer the bad decision to engage with such.

**Melissia**

admironheart wrote:
Highlander Rules. There Can Be ONLY ONE.

Some armies can't even build a list with anything more than a patrol detachment using highlander rules.

Highlander rules are garbage.

**Seerpath**

Pancakey wrote:
Is it healthy for the community?

I am wondering if codecies will change this course or just double down on the spam hammer?

It's healthy for GW's business model, but in light of recent price hikes and the prospect of improvements in 3D printing and casting, I expect that a decent enough number of players will respond negatively to it. Veterans who already have large collections and are not price adverse won't really mind, but new players won't appreciate the sticker shock (troops) for long.

**Blackie**

Spam is absolutely fine. Many armies focussed on their background spam the same units.

The spam concept is fine, spamming overpowered units isn't.

A list with stormravens only is not even 40k. That flyers detachment is the biggest mistake of 8th edition.