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.

Mannahnin wrote:Polonius: Why are you growing that paunch, Mannahnin?
Mannahnin: Because every time I make love to your wife, she gives me a cookie.
(with credit to Eddo Brandes)

If you can't work off a single cookie while having sex, you're Doing It Wrong.

Spam=You only have one gun or one unit type, reitterated over and over again (within the FOC) to fill your army up

Redundancy= You have more than one of a critical unit so that if one critical unit dies the others can pick up it's slack.

In some cases it's true that these can be combined a little (Seer Council and/or Nob Bikers anyone?) but most of the time, if you try to spam you will eventually be owned. Lets take the case of Vulkan meltagun spam.

Ok, you have tons of meltaguns, so your good at dealing with AV14, but what if you fight an army with lots of fast skimmers (ala Dark Eldar) who don't care that your marines all have bolters for anti-troop, and guess what! You can't auto fall back out of CC (because of Vulkan), you will be stuck in there until the assault pulls you down.

"This is why you bring TH/SS terminators with that list you git" "AHAH! See! Not meltagun spam anymore!"

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Demogerg wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Troop choices don't count towards the spammage.

G

Bloodcrushers are not troops.

HA! HA! HA!

I run one squad. That is not spam by a long shot.

I won't call you any nasty names. : )

G

So I just imagined those 14 bloodcrushers, gotcha.

I think a major part of the advantage to "spam" lists is being omitted here. A good spam lists renders a large portion of the enemy's army completely ineffective. For example, when facing a traditional "balanced" composition army, everything under strength 8 is pretty much worthless against a land raider spam list (and with glancing being so weak, even str 8 is pushing it). Likewise, horde-style armies reduce the effectiveness of expensive AT weapons (although they aren't completely ineffective).

This is another reason why mechanized builds are so successful in 5th. Not only are vehicles cheaper, tougher and safer than in 4th, but the ability to spam them, overpower/eliminate the opponent's AT capabilities and then rampage freely ignoring AP/horde weapons is tough to beat.

I seem to think there are two styles of very competitive/effective armies. Some spam incredible points-efficient units, some (like MM/HF landspeeders) are effective against anything, while others (vendettas) may be a little more specialized, but are so points-efficient you can't afford to pass them up. These armies have enough tools to effectively counter anything they meet.

Other lists choose very powerful units, and force the opponent to play into their gameplan. Land Raiders with TH/SS termies is an example, or lash chaos. They don't really adjust much to the enemy...they have a very powerful gameplan and execute it pretty much the same way against any opponent.

The line between these two types blurs quite a bit, but it seems to me the most successful lists fall in here somewhere.

Still waiting for Demojerk it chip up again... and yeah you must have imagined 14 seeing I only run eight total in one rank including two heralds. You got a case of the potty mouf.

G

Grimaldi wrote:I think a major part of the advantage to "spam" lists is being omitted here. A good spam lists renders a large portion of the enemy's army completely ineffective. For example, when facing a traditional "balanced" composition army, everything under strength 8 is pretty much worthless against a land raider spam list (and with glancing being so weak, even str 8 is pushing it). Likewise, horde-style armies reduce the effectiveness of expensive AT weapons (although they aren't completely ineffective).

This is another reason why mechanized builds are so successful in 5th. Not only are vehicles cheaper, tougher and safer than in 4th, but the ability to spam them, overpower/eliminate the opponent's AT capabilities and then rampage freely ignoring AP/horde weapons is tough to beat.

Is that really spam though? If someone is fielding an Ork horde army, all their models may have a toughness, but it does not mean they are all fielding the same unit. There could be shootas, sluggas, lootas, etc... On the same token, a 'mech eldar may be fielding all armor but his tanks identical. There could be fire prisms, vypers, falcons, and wave serpents.

Going all infantry or all armor is part of a strategy. Spam is using one effective unit choice (or combo) multiple times. This would be lash-oblits, or LRs.

Elessar wrote:Where does player ability come in? Or luck? Or rules knowledge? Or concentration on the mission?

Those parts come in during the game. I was talking about principles for building lists, of strategy. That said, stuff like knowledge of the rules, ability to focus on the mission, and luck are all simply assumed if you're planning on playing the game. Player ability is, naturally, the ability to implement tactics within their chosen strategy, compute strategic and tactical pay-offs, and deal with contingencies.

labmouse42 wrote:
Going all infantry or all armor is part of a strategy. Spam is using one effective unit choice (or combo) multiple times. This would be lash-oblits, or LRs.

I think it's just different levels of the same theme. You take all armor units because it denies the ability of your opponent's AP weapons. You take all land raiders (or demolishers, vets in chimeras, whatever) because they are the most effective type of armor to spam.

Then don't use the word spam use multiple of the same type or duo or whatever.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Still waiting for Demojerk it chip up again,

G

Ouch, that burned me hard. At least I dont burn my own "crew" at 'ard boyz semifinals.

Hollismason:

Trying to stem the tide of Internet gamer jargon may result in loss of faith in humanity...

Hollismason wrote:Then don't use the word spam use multiple of the same type or duo or whatever.

Arguing semantics doesnt help here.

Demogerg wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Still waiting for Demojerk it chip up again,

G

Ouch, that burned me hard. At least I dont burn my own "crew" at 'ard boyz semifinals.

Your word means nothing. You can continue to remain among the anonymous shirking in your abject fear.

G

I didn't know the semantics of the word spam and redundancy was important in tactics and strategy. Perhaps this thread should be moved to 40k discussion where it belongs.

I agree most with GeneralRetreat.

I'm not going to agrue with anyone whether their list is spam or not but it is an easier way to play. This game is pretty complicated since each race has so many special rules. I think "spam" lists are actually easier to play against since they inherantly have less flexibilty.

I play Orks because I love the army, I used to lose almost every game but that's the Ork Mantra, you never truly lose as long as you come back for another go. A "player" should pick the race he/she likes and then pcik the type of army he/she is going to enjoy.

If all you're into is winning there are other games more "broken" than 40K. If you guys want to try a broken game play Star Wars:CCG from Decipher. That was the worst written game ever.

There is nothing wrong with a new codex coming out and lots of people start playing that race or a particuliar unit of that race. That's why GW writes the codices the way they do - to sell more stuff. The fun part is trying to find counters, which there always are. It's called evolution!!

Oblts are great I'll admit but for the points I still think a Shoota Boy is still the best bargin in the game. I use Burnas, Skorchas, and BikerBoyz in ever list not because they're the best unit but because I enjoy the idea of them the most.

Play for fun!!!

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Demogerg wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Still waiting for Demojerk it chip up again,

G

Ouch, that burned me hard. At least I dont burn my own "crew" at 'ard boyz semifinals.

Your word means nothing. You can continue to remain among the anonymous shirking in your abject fear.

G

this is very OT to the OP, I am sorry that you cannot deduce who I am, but I am not afraid of you in the least.

If you would like to continue this discussion, we should take it out of this thread.

Okay send me a PM stating your identity. I see that you do wish to remain anonymous here at Dakka, which confirms my suspicions regarding your character and lack of terpitude.

G

It just goes to basic army composition ad purpose. before you put your models on the field will allow you to play a better game.

Let's look at a redundant Spam list or whatever and see what it calls for

Let's look at a bike list for marines and play one of these things is not like the other.

One of these things is not like the other.

Space Marine Bike Captain
Bike Squad
Devastator Squad
Predator

It doesnt make your list "balanced" it makes your list adhoc and unfocused.

Compared to
Bike Captain
Bike Squad
Attack bike

Just because you take more than one of something doesn't make it spam it means your army has focus and purpose.


Play how you like to play but in a competitive enviroment lists that have clear multiples ; redundancies are always going to be the most dominant.

Polonius wrote:I have a question for you. Your post seems to be mostly aimed at the morals of the situation, what a player should do in trying to do the best for the hobby, not simply to win. Yet there is, as there often is in these things, a not so subtle dig at idea that it's possible to build a better list. When you speak of "generic web lists that only feature spam of what's widely regarded as the 'best' unit.", are you implying that the consensus is wrong, and the strongest lists are different? Or are you saying that while they are the best, players should use other stuff?

Ok. Well, first, let's clarify 'better'. I think the 'better' unit is the more fun one with the theme, and a lot of people here disagree with me. However, I can certainly see that there are more competitive units around, and therefore more competitive lists. Forums such as Dakka spend a lot of time figuring out these 'uber-competitive' lists. For the most part, they're right. These lists really are the most competitive. You can choose to take them, or you can choose not to. Since these lists are well-known on internet forums, choosing to take them does not make you a 'master strategist' or a 'better list builder' - it just means you chose to take the Dakka advice. I know what the good lists are, but i choose not to take them, because i prefer to have a weird army. This doesn't make me a worse general - I have the models to take the uberlist if i so choose, but i prefer playing this way.

(As an aside, I also thinks that all units can be good in the right army. As i said in another thread, I'm sure those Repentia CAN win the game for me, I just have to learn how best to use them. This might take a while, but will be rewarding if it pays off)

I certainly think that people should play to win - that's part of the fun. But playing the game of 40k to win is not the entirety of the hobby. Because you play the game with another person, inevitably a moral situation arises. For (hypothetical) example, I'm playing my friend, who is bringing his Kroot Mercenary army. Not the most competitive army, but he loves them. We certainly have no right to call him a 'soft-target' or imply that he's a bad general, because he likes a particular model range. Now i COULD choose my best, most uber-competitive list (maybe LR spam or Termy spam or something) and (probably) table him. Or i could choose a fluffy, weird army, and have a balanced game. In this case, you DO have a moral choice, and in my opinion you'd be acting wrongly to take your most competitive build, even if it means you're more likely to win.

Of course the exception to this is certain tournaments, in which taking your most competitive builds is the whole point. I'd certainly not have a problem with people taking uber-competitive lists to a tournament. Neither do i have a problem with someone who only wants to play uber-competitive games. As long as they understand that other people may not want to play this way, and therefore may not want to play them. We must remember that tournaments account for a tiny minority of all the 40k games in the world, once you factor in all the kids in basements.

I start to have problems when people imply that playing in an uber-competitive manner is the ONLY right way to play, and that they're disgusted at anyone who doesn't. The OP implies that his advice should always be taken, and anyone playing another way is not as 'englightened' as him. Thanks, but I know how to build a competitive list, and I know which lists are top tier, and i know about the theories of spamming and redundancy. I may choose to use this knowledge, if I consider it appropriate for the game. For most games, I don't. For this reason, I also have a problem with competitive players who imply that anyone not playing like this 'has no balls', is a 'soft target' or not as good a general. These comments are banded around quite often, and are (IMO) the reason why competitive players get such a bad rep.

Lastly, a lot of (possibly new) players post things such as "I don't know why everyone doesn't just use the most competitive builds, that way everyone would be on the same level and generalship would be the only thing that matters". In this situation, my answer is the one you reference - that we would end up playing the same 12 armies again and again.

So yes, there are more competitive builds. Everyone knows what they are, so choosing to use them doesn't make a player any better a general. But you have a moral responsibility to choose how competitive to build your list, depending on the type of game you're playing.


EDIT - Wow, that's incredibly long and rambling, and goes off topic. Apologies!!

Ok, I was just asking if you saw the internet consensus as more powerful or not. Believe it or not, sometimes you see a sort of mealy mouthed argument that goes "WWAC army selection is bad, and anyway the consensus stuff isn't the most powerful anyway." The other place I've seen it, oddly, is in feminist reaction to the modern Seduction Movement (in which I am no way connected, btw). You see writers saying things like "these techniques can't possibly work, but they shouldn't be taught." Well, if they don't work, who cares?

Anyway, I read your ramblings, and I agree with the principle that the right army for the context is a better policy than "strongest army always", but you seem to be operating under a misconception I just can't possibly relate to: that all competitive gamers are these bloodthirsty monsters that mock the weak. Usually, as long as you don't give them a lecture on how their armies are cheesy/boring/whatever, they dont' care how you play.

The best armies do not rely upon spam. They are difficult to play and rarely seen. The metagamer is stupified by this style of play and typically loses due to any lack of real experience.

G

Didn't you play at ardboyz with 14 bloodcrushers?

ArbitorIan - Good post. You should never have to apologize for length I wish everyones' posts were as thoughful.

To all I say again, feel free to "spam" or play any legal list regardless of people calling you cheesy or whatever. I'd rather lose 10 out of 10 games to people who have invested $1,000.00's and bought 5 LR than to have to play a cheater or bad sport, which unfortunalty I have:( The more you lose, the more you learn. I have 5 older brothers who have taught me that again and again, now I can beat them all on Halo!!

No I have been playing BA all along.

Hulk take another hit on your glass piep... must be soem strong stuff ya got in the bowl.

G

Much as I actually agree completely with you ArbitorIan, let's see if we can forge some peace on both sides the Tweed here.

Let's stop thinking of "best" or even "better", and replace that concept with DIFFERENT. Spam, redundancy, taking multiples, whatever, it's a theme of commonality, overlapping or identical units. "Wierd" lists or variant lists or theme lists tend to be discounted as less effective somehow. I would argue that they are differently effective.

Aside from the moral argument, I post this in the hopes of just demonstrating the pros and cons of these approaches as they apply to 40K. However, the argument is a timeless one that goes well beyond 40K; flexibility versus resilience.

The concept of spam lists is to do something enough to overwhelm the counter. LR spam overwhelms a balanced opponent by making all his anti-horde weapons null. A horde list makes anti-vehicle weapons null due to low rate of fire.

Neither are wrong, nor is a balanced list of both wrong. They are just different ideas of how to go about winning, and I think we all have a right to play and build however we see fit. Winning is a byproduct of many factors, calling it dependant on a list alone is narrow, to be charitable.

But back to the academic debate of diversity vs hemogeny in a context of martial force --

Spam is what Musashi would have described as an Earth and Fire approach, a "Go" strategy. The goal of a "Go" strategy, much like kickboxing or juijutsu, is to create an attack plan so formidable that even a knowing opponent is overwhelmed and unable to defend. Seeing it coming doesn't do an enemy any good if the attack is so well executed that escape is impossible. Plenty of times we see this work; the playground bully, income taxes, carpet bombing. They attack along a known vector, but there's just no good way to avoid it. You just deal with it, weather the blows, and hope to give back as good as you got.

The problem Miyamoto Musashi (and plenty of others) see with this strategic philosophy is that NO attack is so powerful as to be above counter, especially in a duel of equally skilled foes.

Musashi believed in a fighting style that embraces Water and Void. When an enemy attacks with force, you react with withdrawl, which leaves him reeling. Seeing his falter, you calculate a strike that will finish him from his exposed flank. Heady stuff, huh?

This is the core of a "soft" fighting style, like Aikido. When the battle starts, the fighter is not forming an attack plan. He is reading and calculating his enemy's attack plan. If the enemy uses a Go strategy, his attack vector is usually plainly written in his stance. Now, as Water would do, the fighter "flows" around the attack, and simply waits for the opportunity to counter-attack.

Musashi developed Aikido specifically to counter popular hard styles, like Juijutsu and Kenjutsu. Everyone can see that a Juijutsu frontal leg strike is a powerful attack, but an Aikido practitioner sees that it is telegraphed and easily turned into a fatal mistake.

As a matter of fact, Japanese tacticians have understood the difference between these Earth and Water approaches for a long time. Any art you hear of with the suffix "-jutsu" indicates a "hard" style; one of indomitable practiced attacks. The prefix "-do" is applied to a "soft" style; one that reacts to an attacker with the design of winning through effective counter. Thus, Juijutsu is comprised of kicks and punches, while Judo is comprised of blocks, throws, and holds, but both are based on the same concepts of body positioning and manipulation. Debates rage to this day as to which is "better".

All that rambling is my way of demonstrating that both styles of 40K list building have validity and a place. You as the player must decide if you wish to design a force around creating one devestating attack vector, or a force able to counter an enemy strategy. Both styles can make use of redundancy, or could eschew it, but a reactive force makes the most benefit of a diverse unit selection, as the enemy will be confused by the lack of a telegraphed attack stance. A "hammer" force, based around creating an unstoppable attack, benefits most from redundancy because while your stance is unmistakable and you know you will take losses on the way to completing your objective, you need to make sure you still have your hammer when you get to the target.

I would venture to say that neither are better or worse. They are different, and all Winning is relative to skill and luck of the player. It is far easier to use a Go strategy. You learn it and it's done. It's far harder to develop a reactive strategy, as it requires a lot of foresight and knowledge and creative use of resources.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Okay send me a PM stating your identity. I see that you do wish to remain anonymous here at Dakka, which confirms my suspicions regarding your character and lack of terpitude.

G

What you want my social?

I am sorry, the information is there if you want to figure out who I am, but you obviously dont, so please drop the subject.

Don't deny it i am not wrong you play bloodcrushers Im just messing with you.


The point isnt to make a list that just spams its just to make a list that has some cohesion and purpose.

I think peoples definitions of spam etc.. are different than that of others so we will leave it at the fact you need to have multiples of things able to accomplish either the same thing or be good at accomplishing multiple things.

As I just finished preparing for two audits I realize I am Captain Cranky and despite my desire to wield Buffy the wonder Banhammer in dsicriminantly, I am going to put out a public warning to all, including Demogerg and GBF.

1. Lets cease and desist the personal stuff. NOW.
2. Lets quit trying to find each other's personal information unless it is freely given. NOW.

Less bickering in the thread, please!

Well Hell, I'll chime in too.

Stop it. Take it to PMs, and keep the thread on-topic.

Mannahnin-style red-letter warning deleted