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.

Howdy all,


So I just don't get why spam pisses off the masses. Sure spamming an OP unit like wave serpants or something can be a bit much, but what about the concept of spamming decent units... Like say... Venoms. They're not OP by any standards, sure they're good but why is taking 5 of them a crime? No one bitches about 5 drop pods... Or say 5 chimeras etc etc. Just looking for your thoughts community.

I think it depends on what army you are playing against. For example, if I played tau and faced a eldar wraithknight spam I wouldn't be too concerned due to the high strength/ignore cover weapons the tau have. On the other hand, if I played orks who don't have that much high strength/low AP weaponry I'd find it boring as hell as you are going to have a tough time killing one, nevermind 3.

Scouse-cat wrote:
I think it depends on what army you are playing against. For example, if I played tau and faced a eldar wraithknight spam I wouldn't be too concerned due to the high strength/ignore cover weapons the tau have. On the other hand, if I played orks who don't have that much high strength/low AP weaponry I'd find it boring as hell as you are going to have a tough time killing one, nevermind 3.

I see this philosophy, but honestly man, I've just been told from different venues, players with different armies etc that 5 venoms is cheese. I try reminding them that it's a 2 Hull Point AV10 transport with T3 5+ guys inside but no one listens...

I run 9 venoms, 3 ravagers and a beastpack at 1850.

I've never really heard anyone complain about it at tournaments these days.

Of course I don't play this list in casual games.....

What about spamming units that aren't that good? I like to have 4-5 dreadnaughts in my SM army sometimes. Each one is armed differently and they're hardly frightening.

But yes, spamming is generally not cool. It's boring and usually done to win and not for fun.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:

Scouse-cat wrote:
I think it depends on what army you are playing against. For example, if I played tau and faced a eldar wraithknight spam I wouldn't be too concerned due to the high strength/ignore cover weapons the tau have. On the other hand, if I played orks who don't have that much high strength/low AP weaponry I'd find it boring as hell as you are going to have a tough time killing one, nevermind 3.

I see this philosophy, but honestly man, I've just been told from different venues, players with different armies etc that 5 venoms is cheese. I try reminding them that it's a 2 Hull Point AV10 transport with T3 5+ guys inside but no one listens...

You really under rate the venom, it is a solid choice with a very high damage output. Especially against infantry, moreso armies that rely on toughness for durability. Sure spam itself isn't OP, you could spam pyrovores or Rhinos and largely no one would care. But when you spam good units like the venom...outside of competitive gaming it can lead to some very unfun games (Nids against Venom spam, or Daemons against Venom Spam largely are bad games for those players).

Yeah I don't get the hate, especially if you have a themed list.

Hey man, you're spamming bikers!

Um, yeah... I play Ravenwing.

Dude you're spamming rangers!

Yeah.... it's called Alatioc

Breng77 wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:

Scouse-cat wrote:
I think it depends on what army you are playing against. For example, if I played tau and faced a eldar wraithknight spam I wouldn't be too concerned due to the high strength/ignore cover weapons the tau have. On the other hand, if I played orks who don't have that much high strength/low AP weaponry I'd find it boring as hell as you are going to have a tough time killing one, nevermind 3.

I see this philosophy, but honestly man, I've just been told from different venues, players with different armies etc that 5 venoms is cheese. I try reminding them that it's a 2 Hull Point AV10 transport with T3 5+ guys inside but no one listens...

You really under rate the venom, it is a solid choice with a very high damage output. Especially against infantry, moreso armies that rely on toughness for durability. Sure spam itself isn't OP, you could spam pyrovores or Rhinos and largely no one would care. But when you spam good units like the venom...outside of competitive gaming it can lead to some very unfun games (Nids against Venom spam, or Daemons against Venom Spam largely are bad games for those players).

I think the venom's great, but it doesn't have the staying power other transports have. Also, the venom was an example. I just think often playing alot of one unit is often looked at unjustifiably as bad.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:



I think the venom's great, but it doesn't have the staying power other transports have. Also, the venom was an example. I just think often playing alot of one unit is often looked at unjustifiably as bad.

A venom's staying power comes from "Night Shields" and its ability to remove threats when used "en-masse". I used to use a mix of venoms and raiders but in the current environment, raiders are next to useless on the top tables.

Of course spam isn't OP, it's just a term of reference.

The reason spam exists, in the negative sense, once again leads back to rules imbalance, spam is a symptom of internal imbalance within a codex making one particular selection objectively and demonstrably better than anything else in that slot.

If the rules and effectiveness for units in a book were more even, spam itself would then become far less prevalent. It is a symptom, not the disease.

Sure, there are crossovers where spam and theme blur a little, but often I suspect a list is "spammy" if its good and "themed" if it isn't as effective, but again, better rules and this distinction goes away.

I got accused of spamming with my white scars list.

Spamming is really just taking the most cost-effective/best-performing unit and running with it.
<edit> Rightly said, spam done with the above intent is what gets people shouting out SPAM! in condemnation.

I think you would also be putting 3 "trueborn" with their big guns to make a gunship possibly the "night shields" as well so it also depends what you add to it for min/max of effectiveness.

If the load-out for these do not vary for different purposes it IS Spam! Embrace the Spam!

If you cannot find a footslogger army player with a sufficiently developed amount of masochism to play you, try out the Steel Legion guy and it might be close enough for you both to enjoy the game.

You cannot browbeat your opponent into believing what you are playing is not your go-to beatstick so it is up to you to decide if throttling back will give you a challenge and your opponent a chance at a win.

azreal13 wrote:The reason spam exists, in the negative sense, once again leads back to rules imbalance, spam is a symptom of internal imbalance within a codex making one particular selection objectively and demonstrably better than anything else in that slot.

Woah, woah. That's A reason spam armies exist. And it's only a reason for WAAC players.

And that's what people are complaining about when they complain about spam. They're complaining about WAAC players, but instead of having the courage or clarity to blame the player, they choose to blame one of the attributes of the list they brought. If you don't play WAAC, then instantly all problems with spam seem to vanish. No one will complain about a guard player who spams ogryn or a CSM player that spams mutilators or an eldar list that spams striking scorpions.

It's just people whining about other people who brought more powerful lists than they did. Instead of bringing a stronger list themselves, or playing people with a different attitude to the game, it's much more people trying to defer the fact that they're losing games away from anything that could look like personal responsibility.

With one exception.

There is a small number of people I've come across who genuinely think spam lists are unfluffy, which I've always found very strange. Eldar may show up with a variety of aspect warriors, but an imperial guard army that's nothing but a giant wave of infantry platoons doesn't.

But on the other side, of course, there's people like me. The reason spam armies exist for me is because I like spam armies. I like the aesthetic of a bunch of goobers doing one thing in one way, and the regimented formality of a cohesive, uniform fighting force. One-of-everything armies strike me as silly and unrealistic. In any case, it has nothing to do with codex imbalance and powergaming, as anyone who has seen my stormtrooper spam or exterminator spam armies can easily attest.

I think you'll find I addressed what I felt constitutes the difference between "spam" and "themed" in the rest of my post?

Basically, it still all boils down to the same thing, the rules as is allow WAAC to be a playstyle rather than an attitude.

Spam being the result of WAAC, though, is only true in the world of WAAC.

You said that there might be the idea of a "themed" list, but really, it's just spam, and it's because of bad rules.

Sounds more like an excuse to hate on 40k than anything else. Because I can tell you for a certainty that the reason I take lots of copies of similar units has nothing to do with how bad I think the 40k rules are.

 azreal13 wrote:
I think you'll find I addressed what I felt constitutes the difference between "spam" and "themed" in the rest of my post?
Basically, it still all boils down to the same thing, the rules as is allow WAAC to be a playstyle rather than an attitude.

The rules are not a proper competitive format.
If you min/max, it all boils down to army list/selection for a (usually) rock-paper-scissors result.
It is typically suggested that the use of scenarios or some "fluff bunny" armies can create a closer game outcome.

The only way you can balance two army lists is to select them like you will roll-off on who gets to play them.

Nobody wants to bring a knife to a gun fight.

 Talizvar wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
I think you'll find I addressed what I felt constitutes the difference between "spam" and "themed" in the rest of my post?
Basically, it still all boils down to the same thing, the rules as is allow WAAC to be a playstyle rather than an attitude.

The rules are not a proper competitive format.
If you min/max, it all boils down to army list/selection for a (usually) rock-paper-scissors result.
It is typically suggested that the use of scenarios or some "fluff bunny" armies can create a closer game outcome.

The only way you can balance two army lists is to select them like you will roll-off on who gets to play them.

Nobody wants to bring a knife to a gun fight.

Khorne does...

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Nobody wants to bring a knife to a gun fight.

Khorne does...

Because he does not care from where the blood flows...
<edit> Am I to assume you share his viewpoint that being a sacrifice in the field of battle is fine with you?

 Talizvar wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Nobody wants to bring a knife to a gun fight.

Khorne does...

Because he does not care from where the blood flows...
<edit> Am I to assume you share his viewpoint that being a sacrifice in the field of battle is fine with you?

Also, Khorne would totally bring a gun to a gun fight. He will make sure his is the biggest with explosive rounds, to make sure the general vicinity is a nice shade of crimson by the end of the fight.

Talizvar wrote:

Dalymiddleboro wrote:

Talizvar wrote:Nobody wants to bring a knife to a gun fight.

Khorne does...

Because he does not care from where the blood flows...
<edit> Am I to assume you share his viewpoint that being a sacrifice in the field of battle is fine with you?

Khorne cares very much where blood flows from. It's why there are flesh hounds. Khorne is the god of victory and triumph, not the god of slaughtering weaklings and innocents.

Anyways, something else I'd pitch in here is that if there is genuinely a difference between a spam army and a themed army, then what's the difference between a wave serpent spam army and a wave serpent themed army? What's the difference between a riptide spam army and a riptide themed army? What's the difference between a deathwing spam army and a deathwing themed army?

I would argue that there isn't one, and the distinction is a false one perpetrated by people who don't like losing.

 Ailaros wrote:
Spam being the result of WAAC, though, is only true in the world of WAAC.

You said that there might be the idea of a "themed" list, but really, it's just spam, and it's because of bad rules.

Sounds more like an excuse to hate on 40k than anything else. Because I can tell you for a certainty that the reason I take lots of copies of similar units has nothing to do with how bad I think the 40k rules are.

Stop using the H word. It isn't appropriate, nor is it accurate in this context.

The fact that "spam" has negative connotations is ONLY a result of rules imbalance. Otherwise it would just be a term to describe a list that relies on multiples of the same unit. Like I say, WAAC should be an attitude, but not a playstyle.

In this case, spam only has meaning because player decision does. As you say, if there were no stronger or weaker units, then the fact that you brought more or fewer of them wouldn't matter. No one complains that you spam pawns in chess.

But 40k isn't chess. It's a game where player decisions before the game has meaning. For combinations to have meaning, you need to have stronger and weaker combinations.

As such, spam is only a problem in a game where which pieces you bring to the table doesn't matter - like choosing which color in Sorry or which piece in Monopoly.

But that's not 40k. Nor should it be.

Therefore, by your definition of the word, 40k needs spam as much as spam needs 40k.

 Ailaros wrote:
In this case, spam only has meaning because player decision does. As you say, if there were no stronger or weaker units, then the fact that you brought more or fewer of them wouldn't matter. No one complains that you spam pawns in chess.

But 40k isn't chess. It's a game where player decisions before the game has meaning. For combinations to have meaning, you need to have stronger and weaker combinations.

As such, spam is only a problem in a game where which pieces you bring to the table doesn't matter - like choosing which color in Sorry or which piece in Monopoly.

But that's not 40k. Nor should it be.

Therefore, by your definition of the word, 40k needs spam as much as spam needs 40k.

Exalted

Spam on its own isn't OP. Mostly because that makes no sense.
Spamming a strong unit can make a list powerful (Maybe overpowered?)
Spamming a weak unit, no one really cares.
Most people dislike spam because it is usually featured on tourney lists where winning is all that matters. It's also usually not that fun to play.
Now there's nothing wrong with a highly competitive list but it has its place.

I personally like my lists to be cohesive and when I build a list I set out to achieve a goal.

In my aggressive Tyranid list I run 3 Mawlocs and 4 fliers, and some barebones troops. I used to run a combination of Flyrants, Zoanthropes, Tyrgon, Doom, and Devilgants in a pod. But with most of that inexplicably removed in this edition, it leaves me very low on options for a play style I did quite enjoy. Is this cheese? Doubtful. Plus, who is to say where the line is drawn. If I change a Mawloc to a Trygon its now just "T6 spam". If I wiggle my entire list around to have a fully varied team of aggressive units, then I got told my "deepstrike" spam is cheese. I've learned to basically just ignore what other people dub as cheese and play lists how I will enjoy them.




And to the guy insinuating that anything spammed is indeed cheese just because 40k does not have the balance issues of chess, that is beyond ridiculous. Part of playing 40k is list building. If you want a game where decisions made before the game do not affect the opening deployment, play chess. If you want a game where you can deliberate over unit choices for your plan of attack that you can deploy strategically, then play 40k.

Heh how long till this one goes?

I predict much trolling in your immediate future.

(I'm assuming Daly isn't trolling, but I'm well aware I could be wrong.)

Daly,
I think you need to re-read the previous threads. Just about everything that needs to be said was already said there. I really think you would benefit from understanding what the more rational people were trying to say.

Back on topic:

Venoms:
By some standards the Venom is, in fact, OP. Most people wouldn't place it very high on a list of broken units, but certain army builds that focus on them are clearly OP with regard to casual play.
Those builds aren't as bad as Serpent Spam, but a kick in the shin isn't fine just because it's not as bad as a kick to the head.
An individual Venom isn't usually much of a problem, but it can create a concentrated firepower issue when enough of them are used.
For a sample non-competative army, lets consider a basic Codex Marine army. Something like 2xTac squads, 1xDev, 1xAssault, and a vehicle or transport. Every time you face it, first round you poison the devs and lance the transport. Game over already, basically, as you can keep them from putting any meaninful hurt on Venoms once those are dead. Why is that fun from the SM player? Obviously, it's not.

Some players simply want to play those style armies (my SM armies almost always have that core), as games where they match up similar 'non-spamy' armies tend to have a lot of twists and turns. Those players will always be shut down by things like your Venom-Spam list. Once again, you're playing a different game than they are.

Other players want to adapt and succeed. Some of these simply aren't very good at it. If these are the type of players you play against, and your win record is as absurd as you seem to claim, then you either need to find a better challenge to make games interesting, or you need to change up your list to make games interesting. Perhaps throw in a beastpack or some Haemunculi.

Continually stomping players you know you can beat who aren't looking for competitive games is just the 40k version of pubstomping, and is ugly.

If you are pubstomping because your opponents can't adapt to your list, then the problem is you're too big a fish for that pond. If you're pubstomping because you're playing a different game than your opponent, then you're just being mean.

(Oh, and some people do bitch about 5 drop pods, because just like spamming Venoms, spamming Pods takes a lot out of the game)

 Ailaros wrote:
In this case, spam only has meaning because player decision does. As you say, if there were no stronger or weaker units, then the fact that you brought more or fewer of them wouldn't matter. No one complains that you spam pawns in chess.

But 40k isn't chess. It's a game where player decisions before the game has meaning. For combinations to have meaning, you need to have stronger and weaker combinations.

As such, spam is only a problem in a game where which pieces you bring to the table doesn't matter - like choosing which color in Sorry or which piece in Monopoly.

But that's not 40k. Nor should it be.

Therefore, by your definition of the word, 40k needs spam as much as spam needs 40k.

I think we're largely talking past one another here and suspect we're actually closer to agreeing than not. I would perhaps take issue with the fact that you say 40K needs spam. I would argue that 40K needs spam to be just another thing, along with not spam, which is neither a stronger or weaker way of approaching the game, rather than a result of someone going all out to win and taking advantage of an objectively better choice.

I think we perhaps need another term to describe lists which repeat units for non-WAAC purposes. This should be a term that isn't mutually exclusive with spam, as both are possible (if one were to genuinely wish to run a WS heavy Eldar list for reasons other than it is an extremely good choice for winning games for instance, doesn't mean it still isn't a spammy WAAC style list) but allows a delineation between the negative connoted, rules exploiting "spam" and the more narrative, love of the game and background related "other term"

Maybe bacon?

 azreal13 wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
In this case, spam only has meaning because player decision does. As you say, if there were no stronger or weaker units, then the fact that you brought more or fewer of them wouldn't matter. No one complains that you spam pawns in chess.

But 40k isn't chess. It's a game where player decisions before the game has meaning. For combinations to have meaning, you need to have stronger and weaker combinations.

As such, spam is only a problem in a game where which pieces you bring to the table doesn't matter - like choosing which color in Sorry or which piece in Monopoly.

But that's not 40k. Nor should it be.

Therefore, by your definition of the word, 40k needs spam as much as spam needs 40k.

I think we're largely talking past one another here and suspect we're actually closer to agreeing than not. I would perhaps take issue with the fact that you say 40K needs spam. I would argue that 40K needs spam to be just another thing, along with not spam, which is neither a stronger or weaker way of approaching the game, rather than a result of someone going all out to win and taking advantage of an objectively better choice.

I think we perhaps need another term to describe lists which repeat units for non-WAAC purposes. This should be a term that isn't mutually exclusive with spam, as both are possible (if one were to genuinely wish to run a WS heavy Eldar list for reasons other than it is an extremely good choice for winning games for instance, doesn't mean it still isn't a spammy WAAC style list) but allows a delineation between the negative connoted, rules exploiting "spam" and the more narrative, love of the game and background related "other term"

Maybe bacon?

I do approve of bacon. Not so much spam though. I have a friend who loves it. When we go out for breakfast he always orders the Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Baked Beans, Spam, Spam, Spam and Spam. I would get the Eggs, Bacon and Spam (it doesn't have much Spam in it) but I don't want any Spam.