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.

I simply wanted an uber-elite force. In all my other armies I avoid Grav like the plague. Somehow for admech, it just seems right.

While my friend's Centurion/Terminator army gets hosed pretty hard, I often face other armies that would DESTROY this list. Anything with a flier is basically immune. Horde Imperial Guard and Orks laugh at this list. Heaven forbid I ever face a multi-Basilisk army that gets the first turn. Dark Eldar can simply range-poison me off the board on turn one.

 Peregrine wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Unit spam, unless the spammed unit is a bad one, is usually seen as a sign of min-maxing, which is generally a sign of power gaming. That doesn't necessarily mean you intentionally power game, but it does leave a bad taste in other people's mouths.

Only in 40k is "making good unit choices to execute a sensible strategy" labeled "power gaming" and shunned as inappropriate behavior.

Every game labels it as power gaming (it's the same in MTG). Only 40k shun it as inappropriate behaviour due to the hilarious imbalance in the actual game.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I simply wanted an uber-elite force. In all my other armies I avoid Grav like the plague. Somehow for admech, it just seems right.

While my friend's Centurion/Terminator army gets hosed pretty hard, I often face other armies that would DESTROY this list. Anything with a flier is basically immune. Horde Imperial Guard and Orks laugh at this list. Heaven forbid I ever face a multi-Basilisk army that gets the first turn. Dark Eldar can simply range-poison me off the board on turn one.

I agree...that's a list the boyz would love to fight.

To me if you spam a lot of the same thing, the list becomes very rock-paper-scissors-y...meaning you should expect a lot of lopsided games, one way or the other. In my view, doesn't this kind of defeat the purpose of actually playing the game...to see who wins? To each his own, I guess, but you might consider saving this list until your friends field a similar one, and go rocks - vs - rocks.

 JimOnMars wrote:
In my view, doesn't this kind of defeat the purpose of actually playing the game...to see who wins?

Building an effective list (including understanding the metagame and bringing an appropriate counter) is part of the game. Your question is like asking whether the shooting phase defeats the purpose of "actually playing the game", since it lets you gain an advantage over your opponent before the assault phase happens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Every game labels it as power gaming (it's the same in MTG).

No, most games label it "playing the game". If I bring a well-optimized list in X-Wing (almost) everyone understands that making good list-building choices is part of the game and there's no need for a special label to describe making those good choices. And the few people who whine about well-optimized lists are generally recognized as obnoxious TFGs that nobody really enjoys playing with.

 Peregrine wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Every game labels it as power gaming (it's the same in MTG).

No, most games label it "playing the game". If I bring a well-optimized list in X-Wing (almost) everyone understands that making good list-building choices is part of the game and there's no need for a special label to describe making those good choices. And the few people who whine about well-optimized lists are generally recognized as obnoxious TFGs that nobody really enjoys playing with.

It is still refered to as Power Gaming, and had you not sliced off the rest of my quote, you would have seen that I also said that most other games don't actually care.

Because they're boring to look at, boring to play against, and require little in the way of skill to use effectively.

Cindis wrote:
Because they're boring to look at, boring to play against, and require little in the way of skill to use effectively.

That's an awfully big brush.

Having multiple identical units doesn't automatically make an army overpowered. Way back in the mists of previous editions, I used to use an all-tactical squad marine army that very rarely actually won me a battle.

Grav weapons rub people a lot of people the wrong way. Especially when taken en mass. While they do thematically work for the Adeptus Mechanicus (if anyone should have it.. it is them) the truth is that marine armies of all sorts now spam it to such an extent that it loses its rare and arcane moniker. It has simply become the standard across the board.

Try taking some Breachers or Plasma Culverins to shake things up. It is not so much the spammed unit in this case. It is the spammed upgrade.

 Peregrine wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Unit spam, unless the spammed unit is a bad one, is usually seen as a sign of min-maxing, which is generally a sign of power gaming. That doesn't necessarily mean you intentionally power game, but it does leave a bad taste in other people's mouths.

Only in 40k is "making good unit choices to execute a sensible strategy" labeled "power gaming" and shunned as inappropriate behavior.

That is because only in 40K are there such great imbalances between combat value and points cost of various units, and a force selection mechanism that let's the player only select their very best units, include stuff from other armies to cover up their weaknesses, then write a fluffy explanation to justify it.

In other words, modern 40K is a huge smorgasbord of min-maxing leading to paper-scissors-stone battles, if players want to play that way. I'm not saying it's an invalid way to play, there is room for many types of games in the wonderful world of wargames, but actually a lot of players don't want to play that way.

@OP, it seems to me that the AdMech codex is not designed to make a balanced army. It was created like the Knights codex to justify the release of some cool models to use as Allies in other imperial armies. I would see if your pals would accept this and let you make an IG force with AdMech support units, or the other way round, something like that.

Because without the background and making an army look cool, 40k has very little going for it.

If youre playing purely to win games, with no other consideration, there are better games that are actually fun to play in that style.

To the OP: You should have no concerns about spamming those units, if your opponents don't like it I'd politely like to inform them this is the result of their own self imposed restrictions...It needs allies.

Secondly I'd like to argue that there is nothing wrong with redundancy in your lists; this may result in 'spam' but also contributes to a theme and as such should not be demonised. I may be the only one but I'd like to see spam that looks like a unified army a following a theme than a random collection of mixed units that doesn’t.
Just my two cents…

 ionusx wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Why are multiple, repeat units looked down upon?

 cuda1179 wrote:

Heck, if I managed to get the first turn, got all my units in range, and activated the right abilities, I could easily remove half his army before he got to do anything.

You just answered your own question.

Replace your army with Eldar Bikes and you'll have a similar outcome, I bet.

and yet marines cant do the same thing with a troops choice

What magical space marine troops choice can remove half of another side's army in the first turn of shooting? What SM troop spam can pump out the same amount of fire power as:

3 Kataphron Destroyers with Heavy Grav Cannons
3 Kataphron Destroyers with Heavy Grav Cannons
3 Kataphron Destroyers with Heavy Grav Cannons
4 Kataphron Destroyers with Plasma Culvrens
4 Kataphron Destroyers with Heavy Grav Cannons
3 Kastelan Robots (carapace phosphor blasters) with 2 Datasmiths
3 Kastelan Robots (carapace phosphor blasters, one with twin linked phosphor blasters) with 2 Datasmiths


Don't get me wrong, OP. I'd play the above list and we'd have a fun game (unless you're an donkey-cave in person), but don't fall into the trap that all codecies have the same firepower. Limiting the players to no allies is not putting everyone's army on the same footing.

 Peregrine wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Unit spam, unless the spammed unit is a bad one, is usually seen as a sign of min-maxing, which is generally a sign of power gaming. That doesn't necessarily mean you intentionally power game, but it does leave a bad taste in other people's mouths.

Only in 40k is "making good unit choices to execute a sensible strategy" labeled "power gaming" and shunned as inappropriate behavior.

From what I've seen, power gaming in itself isn't shunned, only lists that spam the BEST a codex has to offer, and turns out so much stronger than anything else. Spamming Hive Tyrants on the ground? No problem, they can be shot to death. FHT with TL devourers? Naw son, you're TFG, even though a lot of the community sees them as the only competitive unit in the Tyranids codex.

To the OP, nothing is wrong with spam, as long as its moderate and you aren't being TFG.

Its certainly not just 40k.

I've seen TFG complaints in *StarCraft* and *Counterstrike*, among certain groups.

Its huge in D&D.

Whether or not spam is a problem is meta-dependant. 40k has it worse than most games, sure, but its not the only game to develop some communities that don't like bleeding-edge meta strategies.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Because without the background and making an army look cool, 40k has very little going for it.

If youre playing purely to win games, with no other consideration, there are better games that are actually fun to play in that style.

In my view there is an argument that a certain type of player prefers 40K to historical tournament rules such as WRG because the historical rules don't contain the kind of exploits that keep coming up in 40K.

Certainly I have seen people on DakkaDakka jump quickly to the latest codex release because it offers a new kind of min-max that most people won't have got a handle on yet.

This isn't necessarily an invalid way to play. It's looking at the game as a system to be explored for its own sake rather than a simulation of real world tactics.

(Blah blah blah, simulation versus game, blah blah, realism in science fantasy, etc.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well, this forum is about tabletop wargames so maybe we ought to confine our discussions to those and keep video games and RPGs for their own forums.

I mean, there is an element of psychology that is common, but practically speaking the examples of RPGs are not useful because they don't show a way to resolving the problem in miniature wargames.

Never mind.

The point of the RPG comparison is to show that WH40K isn't unique in this regard.

Even amongst Wargames, as a noob in WarMachine I got called cheesy when I first got eHaley. Calls of cheese are actually very, very common in some metas for other games. It can be a lot worse in 40k, but its not unique.

A big part is that different people play for different reasons. Heck, even within an individual, he/she often has several competing interests at one time, in addition to changing interests over time.

Where this impacts this conversation is that there are different ways to optimize fun in a game (such as 40k) based on the interests. And those interests don't necessarily line up.

Some want a no-holds-barred challenge from the book. Any permissible strategy is part of the game (not inherently a TFG). To these, min/maxxing during list building is a big part of the game. Peregrine and Martel are exemplars of this style. If they play against each other, they'll be on good terms. But take one of their optimized lists, and throw my typical Footdar at it, and we have a "why bother" game that isn't fun for anyone.

Others love modeling, and seeing a dynamic game unfold on the tabletop. Overly optimising a list in this group makes the game shorter and less dynamic.

Others want to see a narrative unfold. Bringing a powrrlist into this group is like bringing a munchkin into an RPG. Effective, but defeats the point.

Still others want to throw dice and chat. Beer & pretzels. Having the game decided before they deploy kinda ruins it.

Its not so much that one style is better than another. There are simply a lot of different options. And skill levels. So each meta needs to find its place independently.

Its difficult to keep all the concerns balanced, but recognizing that not every 40k player is playing the same game helps.

This does mean that it typically means get with the (local meta) program or be TFG. I'm sorry, Peregrine, that sucks for the odd one out. And for the fluffbunny who can't get a casual game in a competitive meta.

Calls of cheese might be common locally for you in wmh, but that's certainly not the norm for the game. Go to the forums and you'll see people taking bradigus, EE, MMM, or Row and people aren't surprised or calling anyone TFG, unlike 40k forums. Even when body and soul was a thing, people were trying to beat it rather than call everyone TFG.

It's expected that you'll bring your A game in WMH. You'll get complaints about factions, especially after a errata, but it's nothing like you see in 40k. TFG is usually reserved for people who do...dodgy moves in those types of games or just throw a tantrum.

Dnd is different, it's a co op game. Everyone should be working together to create the same power level so no one has a bad time and a story can be told. It's not equivalent to mini war gaming at all in that regard. People use TFG in that community for different reasons.

I've never heard TFG in any shooter, moba, or rts. The gaming community uses a lot stronger language than TFG

 insaniak wrote:

Cindis wrote:
Because they're boring to look at, boring to play against, and require little in the way of skill to use effectively.

That's an awfully big brush.

Having multiple identical units doesn't automatically make an army overpowered. Way back in the mists of previous editions, I used to use an all-tactical squad marine army that very rarely actually won me a battle.

The units that get spammed generally aren't the bad ones, your special snowflake army aside.

I wish I had $5 for every marine tac spam army I've pac-maned up with BA. So many people have tried to show me tacs are okay over the years and so many have failed. It took Gladius to make tacs winners.

Back in 3rd I spammed tacs. Worked OK then. While I’ve kept them as the core of many of my lists, I can’t say I’ve spammed them much recently.

Of course, with the right HQ SM bikes can be troops. So you can make a pretty nasty troop spam list with codex marines. Just not tacs.

Well, 3rd was a different game. Las/plas and the rhino rush were kings, so tacticals were good. Eldar had the only real deathstar (might be 4th) and spammed star cannons. Tau weren't even a thing. Nids had a lot of variance and Ig did too.

The game was very different back then.

.

Removed for relevance.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Given that Ad mech has only what 6 units, two of which are garbage I wouldn't begrudge that list. Your basically using a book that is meant to be an ally force as a stand alone due to your group not allowing allies.

what 2 units of ad mech are garbage?

 Dtox wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Given that Ad mech has only what 6 units, two of which are garbage I wouldn't begrudge that list. Your basically using a book that is meant to be an ally force as a stand alone due to your group not allowing allies.

what 2 units of ad mech are garbage?

Fairly certain he's referring to the electo-priests, who are cool, have decent rules, but suffer from being a tad bit expensive and slow moving. I personally would love to build and paint up a bunch of them, but I'll admit they're the worst selection(s) in the codex.

Considering the limitations of the rules imposed by your local area, I don't really blame you for that list, especially since you're playing admech. I'd at LEAST allow ad mech to include units of skitarii, if that's something you'd be open to.

But DAMN, look at all of that firepower...Is that kind of list allowed in a normal game of warhammer? I'm still pretty new so I'm not always sure of what I'm looking at.

Mmm, I'd only say it's a tad repetitive. That said, so is my Sternguard army *shrugs*.


People like the give their opinion down the gaming hall because they feel 'in the know' stating them.

 Voidwraith wrote:

 Dtox wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Given that Ad mech has only what 6 units, two of which are garbage I wouldn't begrudge that list. Your basically using a book that is meant to be an ally force as a stand alone due to your group not allowing allies.

what 2 units of ad mech are garbage?

Fairly certain he's referring to the electo-priests, who are cool, have decent rules, but suffer from being a tad bit expensive and slow moving. I personally would love to build and paint up a bunch of them, but I'll admit they're the worst selection(s) in the codex.

I was thinking he was talking about the electro-priests, and yeah I can see why. It's unfortunate, they look like they have pretty good killing potential, but having no dedicated transport, no armor save, low toughness value, AND abysmal attack range with a point cost higher than tac marines? Yeah I'd be apprehensive to take them as well. Shame, really.

 Voidwraith wrote:

 Dtox wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Given that Ad mech has only what 6 units, two of which are garbage I wouldn't begrudge that list. Your basically using a book that is meant to be an ally force as a stand alone due to your group not allowing allies.

what 2 units of ad mech are garbage?

Fairly certain he's referring to the electo-priests, who are cool, have decent rules, but suffer from being a tad bit expensive and slow moving. I personally would love to build and paint up a bunch of them, but I'll admit they're the worst selection(s) in the codex.

I was indeed talking about the priest. They are a very meh unit, doubly so since Ad mech don't have transports which means they need to walk across the board slowly. Footslogging melee troops almost never work out.

If half of your army can be removed by one turn of enemy shooting, you either need to improve your deployment or play with a lot more terrain.

Grav-spam falls apart when facing Daemons/Daemonkin/Renegades/Green Tides/anything with a Void Shield, so it's, imo, far from a "top tier spam list" anyways.

House-imposed limitations like what OP is talking about usually end up creating a lot more problems then they "solve". In my experience, people who try to comp the game too hard are not fun to play against.