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.

Would you guys complain about fighting a SM Battle Company?

Sure its themed, a standard Space Marine fighting formation that almost every chapter runs multiples of.

Sure its got copies: 6 Tac, 2 Des, and 2 ASM squads, with a captain.

Is it powerful, MAYBE (if you run RG, where you can outflank 50 marines, and the other 50 have stealth).

Considering the above, would you consider a Battle Company SPAM?

Because I often enjoy opening my e-mail and finding stuff I want to read in there. But noooooo, every time I open my e-mail I find at least 1-2 things from Facebook in there asking if I know these 5-6 people it thinks I know for some damned reason.

If I didn't add any of the people I DO know, why would I want to add people whose names don't even seem familiar!?

(And if you're wondering why I have a Facebook account at all, it's because sometimes I like to pop in and see the stuff on GW's Facebook pages, but of course browsing Facebook requires an account...

 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.

I agree. Obviously spam exists one way or another, that's not a question, but the reason it has a negative connotation is because of the way the rules work and because the rules are unbalanced.

No one cares if you spam a sucky unit, the only time they might care is if they don't understand the rules and perceive it to be a powerful unit.

Also, one reason people don't like spam is the inherent rock-paper-scissors of it. A lot of people prefer the idea that if you build a good list it's a good list regardless of who you play against. But whether we like it or not, 40k is a rock paper scissors game, and spamming a certain unit almost always increases the rock paper scissors-ness of it. Of course, one of the spammiest things in 40k is the fact GW gave Space Marines and MEQs a 3+ save.

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.

One of the reasons this creates wonkiness as well is that if derision of spam is nothing more than people complaining that they lost to powerful units, then part of the problem is agreeing on those powerful units that are spam, because they made you lose a couple of games.

The above post is a good example. Helldrakes are a niche weapon whose role is duplicated by almost the entire rest of the CSM codex, rather than the best unit in the game, while venom/raider spam armies is capable of comprehensively shutting down their opponents with little more than a few scratches unless their opponents play a gunline.

With disagreement on what constitutes higher and lower power units (and the entire 40k tactics board is a testament to the fact that there's rampant disagreement), then spam can't be defined as taking lots of good units, because there is no common agreement on what a good unit is.

Therefore, a person can only be upset with spam subjectively. Because THEY lost games to THOSE units which were taken in duplicate. Which is another reason that whining about spam is just that - whining.

brings up a good point though- what is cheese? Is it redundancy and smart list building, which our lists need to be in order to compete against all comers, or is that considered spam? Is it seriously game-balance shifting codwardexes that get broken further by devious minded uni-dimensional players? Or is it all good cheddar?

I consider "cheese" the spirit in which you build and manner in which you play your army; spinning skimmers for extra movement, taking obvious power units solely for their internet potential, and generally arguing to do things specifically because quote "the rules don't say I can't,

4 or 5 warrior squads in venoms are "cheese"? but I look at as providing redundancy and enough troops to compete with marines; just 2 tac squads are 4 troop choices in combat squads and 5/6 games require objectives. Is that cheese?

The fastest race in the galaxy has fliers that can't deepstrike, can't out maneuver flying mon-keigh tanks and can't out shoot interstellar undead, That's cheese!

 Talizvar wrote:

Nobody wants to bring a knife to a gun fight.

What if you're standing within 10 feet of each other? (As mythbusters and others have noted within a certain range the knife wielder wins)

On topic:

Spam wouldn't be a concern if the game was balanced, its not, and so some spam is op

I remember as a brand new player. First game ever. I was super excited to bring my new painted Grey Knights to the table.

Got tabled quickly by venom spam. It was pretty demoralizing.

Avinash_Tyagi wrote:Spam wouldn't be a concern if the game was balanced, its not, and so some spam is op

What about the 99% of spam armies that aren't overpowered? For every wave serpent spam list there is a dozen ways of spamming low-powered units that make UNDER-powered lists, not overpowered ones.

 Ailaros wrote:

Avinash_Tyagi wrote:Spam wouldn't be a concern if the game was balanced, its not, and so some spam is op

What about the 99% of spam armies that aren't overpowered? For every wave serpent spam list there is a dozen ways of spamming low-powered units that make UNDER-powered lists, not overpowered ones.

Note where I said "some spam is op"


And good rules and balance would sole the "underpowered" issue as well

Unit spamming usually shows a lack of creativity in list building. "oh, this unit is good? how many can I jam into my army?"

viewfinder wrote:
Unit spamming usually shows a lack of creativity in list building. "oh, this unit is good? how many can I jam into my army?"

Only if you define "creativity" as "making things more complicated just for the sake of making them complicated".

viewfinder wrote:
Unit spamming usually shows a lack of creativity in list building. "oh, this unit is good? how many can I jam into my army?"

Or sometimes cheap.
Oh? Imperial dreadnaughts are $20 on Ebay? Dread Spam! LOL! (That's actually how I started my Imperial Fist army. I've since expanded.)

 Peregrine wrote:

viewfinder wrote:
Unit spamming usually shows a lack of creativity in list building. "oh, this unit is good? how many can I jam into my army?"

Only if you define "creativity" as "making things more complicated just for the sake of making them complicated".

if GW had wanted only one build for any codex, they wouldn't have included all those stupid other units, now would they?

 Ailaros wrote:


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.

Because the thousands of hours and books devoted to chess opening theory are totally meaningless.

Pre-Game decisions of variations to play are pivotal. Vladimir Kramnik, a previous world champion is noted for the extreme depth of his preparation.

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:


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.

Because the thousands of hours and books devoted to chess opening theory are totally meaningless.

Pre-Game decisions of variations to play are pivotal. Vladimir Kramnik, a previous world champion is noted for the extreme depth of his preparation.

Oh, are we still pretending that 'game balance' = 'sameness?' Because it doesn't. Stop using the chess analogy. It's not at all what is meant by game balance.
Units will be different. Fast units that hit hard but little armor vs slow units that are tough...or whatever. The thing is, each should be a viable choice, it would just depend on what tactics you use. Maybe that fast weak one is really good against infantry, but crap vs tanks. This would also end spamming because if you spammed the fast weak guy and run up against a tank heavy army, you'd be hosed. Instead you'd want a good balanced mixed...I can't believe I actually have to explain this. So, maybe one army is slow and tough but within that style, there are CC units, long range AT units, etc. So, each army would play different with own strengths and weaknesses and style of play. =/= sameness.

Stop equating balance to chess, unless you play chess where white had twice as many pawns but black pawns could only be taken by two or more white pawns and the rooks can also...

I think it has a lot to do with the context of play. If you are playing friendly games some might find it too competitive or too "OP". I have IG and play with platoons and Chimeras, but I never take it against my brother because he does not have enough AP to take it on.

I however do not think spamming small infantry like Guants, Boyz, and IG to be OP when alone, any blast template will have a hayday. My rule is unless I know the guy I dont not take my 7 Chimeras, some of the AP options of the game cost so money that new player may not have yet.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:


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.

Because the thousands of hours and books devoted to chess opening theory are totally meaningless.

Pre-Game decisions of variations to play are pivotal. Vladimir Kramnik, a previous world champion is noted for the extreme depth of his preparation.

Oh, are we still pretending that 'game balance' = 'sameness?' Because it doesn't. Stop using the chess analogy. It's not at all what is meant by game balance.
Units will be different. Fast units that hit hard but little armor vs slow units that are tough...or whatever. The thing is, each should be a viable choice, it would just depend on what tactics you use. Maybe that fast weak one is really good against infantry, but crap vs tanks. This would also end spamming because if you spammed the fast weak guy and run up against a tank heavy army, you'd be hosed. Instead you'd want a good balanced mixed...I can't believe I actually have to explain this. So, maybe one army is slow and tough but within that style, there are CC units, long range AT units, etc. So, each army would play different with own strengths and weaknesses and style of play. =/= sameness.

Stop equating balance to chess, unless you play chess where white had twice as many pawns but black pawns could only be taken by two or more white pawns and the rooks can also...

The problem with 40k is that not all armies have access to the same options, for example nids lack good long range anti tank and will suffer against venom spam no matter what they do.
And there is also a lot of crappy units.

 Tyran wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:


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.

Because the thousands of hours and books devoted to chess opening theory are totally meaningless.

Pre-Game decisions of variations to play are pivotal. Vladimir Kramnik, a previous world champion is noted for the extreme depth of his preparation.

Oh, are we still pretending that 'game balance' = 'sameness?' Because it doesn't. Stop using the chess analogy. It's not at all what is meant by game balance.
Units will be different. Fast units that hit hard but little armor vs slow units that are tough...or whatever. The thing is, each should be a viable choice, it would just depend on what tactics you use. Maybe that fast weak one is really good against infantry, but crap vs tanks. This would also end spamming because if you spammed the fast weak guy and run up against a tank heavy army, you'd be hosed. Instead you'd want a good balanced mixed...I can't believe I actually have to explain this. So, maybe one army is slow and tough but within that style, there are CC units, long range AT units, etc. So, each army would play different with own strengths and weaknesses and style of play. =/= sameness.

Stop equating balance to chess, unless you play chess where white had twice as many pawns but black pawns could only be taken by two or more white pawns and the rooks can also...

The problem with 40k is that not all armies have access to the same options, for example nids lack good long range anti tank and will suffer against venom spam no matter what they do.
And there is also a lot of crappy units.

Granted, i don't think i've played against venom.... but they really don't look that horrible. They are AV 10 vehicules. My devgaunts can hurt them! So everthing in my army aside from hormagaunts can. It's the 11+ AV vehicules that start hurting nids, if the enemie have multiple of them. Specialy landraiders. Of course, i could prepare by bringing 9 zoan and 3 rupture tyranofexes, but in most normal nid armies, it's easy to target the 2-3 things that can even hurt strong vehicules. =/

 Happyjew wrote:

 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.

Exalted for Monty Python reference

Repetition works.

I like spam.
It gives armies a distinctive theme and simplifies the game.

Since the game lacks balance, spamming a powerful unit breaks the game. But this is a problem caused by the game lacking balance. Not a problem caused by spam. Few people complain if you spam, say, Khorne Berserkers with Rhinos.

Loved the MP reference too.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
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.

Well... i think this is a real bad comparison.

The RB has 1 more AV at front and side, but thats just a small advantage most of the times cause weapons designed to hurt vehicles really dont care whether it is AV 10 or 11. Sure a Venom can be glanced to death by bolters, but therefore it gets a lot of other advantages:

First of all its a fast scimmer. It can move 12 and shoot its weapons at full BS. I wont go into detail about the advantages of speed.

Smoke launchers are one use only and you just get a cover save of 5+. Not too good with all those cover ignoring weapons out there. If you use it, you cant fire youre weapons. Flickerfield gives you a 5+ invulnerable, which also works in CC and you can still fire your weapons. In Addition you can get a 4+ coversave while turboboosting.

Searchlights... well you loose the advantages of nightfighting if you use them. DE dont care about nightfight due to night vision. So a venom can shoot everything without loosing the advantages of night fighting.

A venom is open topped, so everbody in it can shoot. A squad in a Razorback cant fire a single shot.

Units disembarking from a venom can assault in the same turn, while Marines are still busy getting out of their Metal BAWKSES.

So... yes the venom is less durable as a razorback but has a lot of other benefits which make it the better choice.


The venom is a real good unit and absolutely worth its points. I dont think just spamming venoms alone isnt the real problem with them. It depends on which unit you put into them. 3 Trueborn with 2 splintercannons doubles its firepower. Add in some nightshields and youve got a highly mobile unit with 24 poisoned shots at 36" which reduces enemy fire by 6" for 130 points. This is when spamming them starts to smell like cheese.

Think nobody would care about 4-5 venoms filled with suicide wyches, cause they have to get close to deliver their cargo, so they are easy to destroy. But if they can stay in the backfield and dish out their nasty Anti Infantry/MC fire... thats another story.

I don't have a problem with spamming from a tactical viewpoint. 'If one is good, more is better' is frequently a pretty sound philosophy, especially in wargames. Not absolute, but still pretty effective. I especially use it myself whenever I want to see how good/bad a unit is.

I tend to hold in low regard the practice of doing it habitually. If EVERY list you build spams multiples of the units YOU consider good, then you're a spammer. It isn't that it's unfair, it's that it represents a fundamental lack of originality in thought. If you want to play a wargame where, like in WoW, there is only one right build, and only one right way to play, then you should just go play Axis and Allies. It'd be cheaper, you'd be among peers, and you wouldn't have to listen to anyone whine about your spam anymore.

And while you may not agree, Daly, the community consensus is that Venoms are one of the best things to happen to the Dark Eldar since the invention of pvc pants. In its optimal configuration, It's got twelve poisoned shots, a cover save, an invulnerable save, AND a transport capacity, all for under a hundred points. It synergizes with certain lists well (the Duke can let it Deep Strike for free) and can perform in multiple roles. All for under eighty points. It's sex on a flight stick, and that's a fact.

I find that more varied lists produce more interesting games. Different units require different strategies to defeat, and it just makes the tactics much more involved .

I suppose there is a difference between spam and spam spam spam spam spam on spam with spam on the sides.

There will be a point where your need to spam affects your list, and that is when you have begun to over spam. Heldrakes are cool, but when you need to shave points off your troops, elite, heavy support and HQ in order to fit your 7th one in, maybe you have gone a little bit too far with it.

Is spamming wraiths wrong?
Anyways, even though I play crons, so naturally wraithspam is a clear choice if ya wanna win. But I think I'm going to avoid the game and stick to variety.

The problem seems rather obvious to me. As other posters have pointed out, when people are complaining about duplication, they are complaining about the duplication of overpowered units, not the duplication of units in general.

There are certain units in this game, that when taken, provide the player with a distinct gameplay advantage independent of the consideration of any particular set of tactics or opponents. The game is full of such units, and we can probably all agree that the usual suspects, wave serpents, heldrakes, riptides, vendettas, night scythes, etc. provide the player with a clear gameplay advantage well out of proportion to their points cost or competing FOC options. If a single one of these units can provide someone with a clear gameplay advantage, then the logical extension of this principle is that three of said units will provide three times said advantage.

This advantage is further compounded by another quirk of 40k, which is that homogeneous army builds tend to be far more resilient than rainbow builds, as a TAC build can make use of all its units effectively against the latter while only a fraction of its units/weapons are useful against the former. For example, a parking lot army will render all small arms and anti-infantry guns useless, and a TAC army will be required to defeat a parking lot army solely through the strength of its anti-armor units. So while taking out a single Wave Serpent might be trivial, neutralizing 6 wave serpents can be downright impossible. Also, some sets of units making natural pairings when taxing a particular kind of firepower, such as venoms and ravagers.

When taken together, these two separate advantages can lead to a geometric scaling of army power by duplicating the correct units. Having to go against 3 copies of a particular unit can be daunting, but many armies can replicate strong choices well beyond force org limits. Some of the strongest units in the game, namely Wave Serpents and Night Scythes, are dedicated transports that can be duplicated almost without limit. Then you have the natural pairing of strong unit types from two separate FOC charts, such as a Tau army fielding 3 Riptides and 3 Broadside squads. And then there are ally Shenanigans: Tau can ally with the Farsight enclaves to field up to 5 Riptides in a single FOC, while Chaos can ally with Guard to field 3 heldrakes and a squad of 3 Vendettas. Once you hit 2000 points, double FOC enables the player to double all the above silliness.

When people complain about spam, this is what they are talking about. They are not complaining that your White Scars are fielding 4 bike squads or your Imperial Guard are fielding 5 platoons are what have you. To insist otherwise is to lose oneself in semantics and miss the point entirely.

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.

Addaran wrote:

Granted, i don't think i've played against venom.... but they really don't look that horrible. They are AV 10 vehicules. My devgaunts can hurt them! So everthing in my army aside from hormagaunts can. It's the 11+ AV vehicules that start hurting nids, if the enemie have multiple of them. Specialy landraiders. Of course, i could prepare by bringing 9 zoan and 3 rupture tyranofexes, but in most normal nid armies, it's easy to target the 2-3 things that can even hurt strong vehicules. =/

If you can catch a venom then you can kill it, the problem is catching it. Most of the nid weapons are short ranged, meanwhile the Venom has a 36" weapon. And don't forget its weapons are poisonous, so they will hurt anything with a 4+. Tyranid MC aren't more resistant that a bunch of space marines against it.