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.

3 units of Cultists, 3 Predators, 3 units of Bloodletters, 3 units of Obliterators, 3 Helbrutes, 3 Berzerker squads, etc.

Every list I have run in 8th edition is a spam list, according to this survey. Would not call it a problem, each case is a different variety of CSMs.

Again I am not saying there is anything wrong with spamming.

Depends on what I'm running. My Custodes armies usually include 3 Troop units of 3 Custodian Guard each. I suppose those 9 infantry models count as spam by this specific definition.

Yes, I spam dominions+immolators, guardsmen+tanks, and wolf guard.


In fact, it's nearly impossible to have an army that doesn't have at least 3 of one kind of unit [and as I said, I wouldn't want to play with or against the codex kitchen sink anyway].

I mean, if I look at how I can build a list: I have 1 [pretty bad] troop choice, 1.5 HQ choices, and 2 choices in every other slot of which three are actually usable and one is only effectively usable once. If I tried to be as not-spam as I possibly could, I would still need to have at least duplicates if not triplicates.

 Marmatag wrote:
Again I am not saying there is anything wrong with spamming.

Definitely nothing wrong with it or if its even considered spamming considering 3 is an arbitrary requirement to be considered spam.

 Asmodai wrote:
Depends on what I'm running. My Custodes armies usually include 3 Troop units of 3 Custodian Guard each. I suppose those 9 infantry models count as spam by this specific definition.

Would you agree that a "Spam" army is entirely subjective?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:
Depends on what I'm running. My Custodes armies usually include 3 Troop units of 3 Custodian Guard each. I suppose those 9 infantry models count as spam by this specific definition.

Would you agree that a "Spam" army is entirely subjective?

I would agree that an army consisting of only one of the same unit is probably spamming

 Marmatag wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:
Not really sure if bringing multiple of the same Troop choices (and transports) constitutes as spam.

If so, I do spam. If not, I don't spamm.
At most I take two of the same (non-troop) units, regardless of army.

So, if I were to bring 5 units of genestealers would that be spam?

You probably answered yes.

But what if they were minimum sized? I can accomplish that same thing with 2 units.

Or consider Farseer who brings a blob of 40 cultists, and then 4 small blobs of 10. he could accomplish this with 2 units. Is it spam based on model count?

If that's the case, bringing 3 storm ravens would never be considered spam, because it's only 3 models!

Spam is mostly subjective. It's like trying to differentiate between "art" and "porn." The purpose of this discussion is to simply set a control point, gather data, and then have a discussion in regards to spam, from there.

For those of you who find this too restrictive: Are you surprised that less than half - 40% (at the time of this posting) - qualify as spam for the purpose of this experiment?

No, because spam in 40k is a morally charged and subjective term, and people are going to rate themselves as "not guilty" of spamming. See the multiple replies to the post of people going "I don't consider 3+ of the same troops unit/transport as spam" - those people probably do that, but still listed themselves as "don't spam."

In the "sexism test" I proposed earlier you'd probably see a surprisingly significant number of people stating that they had never had a disagreement with a woman, simply because they didn't want to categorize themselves as "sexist" based on the poll.

you can set up the poll with no moral judgement all you like, but you've used a term that to the majority of 40k players has a morally charged and highly subjective meaning, and in most cases if you are the kind of person who regularly uses the term "spam" you've PROBABLY defined spam as something that other players do.

The real definition of spam is probably closer to "A sub-category I can apply to any list I dislike that seems to have a lot of one thing" than "Any list which contains more than two of the same named unit".

There's no one BA unit worth spamming. I'll take two attack bikes to fill a brigade. But I don't think that's spamming. I also take 3 scouts and 3 tacs a lot.

It's an anonymous poll. It's not like you get "heaven points" for voting "no" in this poll.

Just because its charged to you doesn't mean we can't have a discussion. Stop being narcissistic. Should we not discuss things because people might get offended? Well, this is the USA in 2018...

I play casual and nothing appears more than twice in any of my 2000 pt lists, any bigger than that and all bets are off

 Desubot wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:
Depends on what I'm running. My Custodes armies usually include 3 Troop units of 3 Custodian Guard each. I suppose those 9 infantry models count as spam by this specific definition.

Would you agree that a "Spam" army is entirely subjective?

I would agree that an army consisting of only one of the same unit is probably spamming

What about a list that was 1 Chaos Lord and 6 Havoc Squads, where one of the Havoc Squads had autocannons and 5 models, one had Plasma and ten models (with the Mark of Slaanesh), one had melta and seven models (with the Mark of Nurgle), one had flamers and ten men, one had heavy bolters and ten men, and the last had plasma cannons and nine men with the Mark of Tzeench? They're "spamming havocs" but they play so differently I'd hardly consider it spam.

One of the issues is Marmatag is a hard core soup pusher. He believes that if you can mix and match you should. So by his very nature spamming of 3 units is unnecessary. Almost any mono codex player has to spam 3 units just to get to a battalion.

I don't understand what the purpose of this thread is if there is no definition of "spam" (other than a meat product) and whether it should be encouraged or not.

It depends on your fefinition of spam. I run 2 9 man units of tyranid warriors, but that needs to justefy the prime.

I usualy run 2 gaunt unitrs, or 2 zoanthropes in my lists (not always, it depends.)

If I ever take GSC allies into blood brother IG I am gonne grab 3 heavy weapon team units. That would be spam. But with IG you need quantaty because they are a bit unreliable. I want some lascannons vs those darn T8 models!

But no I do not spam.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
One of the issues is Marmatag is a hard core soup pusher. He believes that if you can mix and match you should. So by his very nature spamming of 3 units is unnecessary. Almost any mono codex player has to spam 3 units just to get to a battalion.

I don't understand what the purpose of this thread is if there is no definition of "spam" (other than a meat product) and whether it should be encouraged or not.

My personal character nonwithdstanding, I did not create this definition. This is the general consensus i've seen come from players other than myself. You can disagree with it if you want, but I don't really care, because i'm not emotionally attached to this discussion.

I'm not sure I push soup, but can we agree that it has *never* been easier to construct a more varied force?

When framing a competitive discussion - yes, I'll bring up soup, because that's an option some people have and others don't. There are situations where in a competitive army, souping is the absolute best decision without debate.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:
Depends on what I'm running. My Custodes armies usually include 3 Troop units of 3 Custodian Guard each. I suppose those 9 infantry models count as spam by this specific definition.

Would you agree that a "Spam" army is entirely subjective?

I would agree that an army consisting of only one of the same unit is probably spamming

What about a list that was 1 Chaos Lord and 6 Havoc Squads, where one of the Havoc Squads had autocannons and 5 models, one had Plasma and ten models (with the Mark of Slaanesh), one had melta and seven models (with the Mark of Nurgle), one had flamers and ten men, one had heavy bolters and ten men, and the last had plasma cannons and nine men with the Mark of Tzeench? They're "spamming havocs" but they play so differently I'd hardly consider it spam.

That list would be against the rules, as Havocs can't get Plasma cannons.
But I agree with your point. My plague marine squads usually all have different load outs and are used in different ways, that's why I wouldn't call it spam necessarily.

Nick Nanavati has a good blog post about spam recently. It might have prompted this thread?

https://thebrownmagic.com/2018/03/06/why-spam-should-stay-in-the-can/

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:
Depends on what I'm running. My Custodes armies usually include 3 Troop units of 3 Custodian Guard each. I suppose those 9 infantry models count as spam by this specific definition.

Would you agree that a "Spam" army is entirely subjective?

I would agree that an army consisting of only one of the same unit is probably spamming

What about a list that was 1 Chaos Lord and 6 Havoc Squads, where one of the Havoc Squads had autocannons and 5 models, one had Plasma and ten models (with the Mark of Slaanesh), one had melta and seven models (with the Mark of Nurgle), one had flamers and ten men, one had heavy bolters and ten men, and the last had plasma cannons and nine men with the Mark of Tzeench? They're "spamming havocs" but they play so differently I'd hardly consider it spam.

That list would be against the rules, as Havocs can't get Plasma cannons.
But I agree with your point. My plague marine squads usually all have different load outs and are used in different ways, that's why I wouldn't call it spam necessarily.

Sorry about the plasma cannon flub... but yes. I generally ask "does this army play all the same" rather than "are all the units the same (or similar) datasheets."

A Tau Farsight Enclaves army with a ton of Crysis Bodyguards is not meaningfully less spammed by bringing troops Crysis Squads and some Crysis Special Characters, but a Imperial Guard Leman Russ tank company can be vastly improved simply by including different main weapon options on the tanks (the Demolisher plays very differently from the Vanquisher, which acts differently than the Punisher).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:
Depends on what I'm running. My Custodes armies usually include 3 Troop units of 3 Custodian Guard each. I suppose those 9 infantry models count as spam by this specific definition.

Would you agree that a "Spam" army is entirely subjective?

I would agree that an army consisting of only one of the same unit is probably spamming

What about a list that was 1 Chaos Lord and 6 Havoc Squads, where one of the Havoc Squads had autocannons and 5 models, one had Plasma and ten models (with the Mark of Slaanesh), one had melta and seven models (with the Mark of Nurgle), one had flamers and ten men, one had heavy bolters and ten men, and the last had plasma cannons and nine men with the Mark of Tzeench? They're "spamming havocs" but they play so differently I'd hardly consider it spam.

That list would be against the rules, as Havocs can't get Plasma cannons.
But I agree with your point. My plague marine squads usually all have different load outs and are used in different ways, that's why I wouldn't call it spam necessarily.

Sorry about the plasma cannon flub... but yes. I generally ask "does this army play all the same" rather than "are all the units the same (or similar) datasheets."

A Tau Farsight Enclaves army with a ton of Crysis Bodyguards is not meaningfully less spammed by bringing troops Crysis Squads and some Crysis Special Characters, but a Imperial Guard Leman Russ tank company can be vastly improved simply by including different main weapon options on the tanks (the Demolisher plays very differently from the Vanquisher, which acts differently than the Punisher).

Well twas a stab at the whole 3 bane blade thing

but yeah you can have the same unit act wildly different depending on load outs too. but it all depends on some individuals concept of spam to be considered spam

 Marmatag wrote:
It's an anonymous poll. It's not like you get "heaven points" for voting "no" in this poll.

Just because its charged to you doesn't mean we can't have a discussion. Stop being narcissistic. Should we not discuss things because people might get offended? Well, this is the USA in 2018...

...he said, to someone who is actively participating in a discussion?

I am responding, directly, to your question regarding whether it surprises me that even with the strict definition of Spam listed, many people are ranking themselves as "Do not spam."

It does not. The reason it does not is because people have a very strong tendency to ignore or only partially abide by the rules set up by a poll when they personally have an emotional rather than logical investment in one of the terms presented.

Look at Martel's response, as an example. I'm assuming (admittedly, this is an assumption, and maybe Martel can confirm) that in the poll, Martel listed himself in one of the "Do not spam" categories, based on his response of "nothing the BA have is worth spamming." Then he immediately goes on to say "I might take 3+ of an attack bike or a scout squad or something, but I don't see that as spamming."

If he had responded PURELY based on a strict reading of a poll, then he would have listed himself as someone who uses spam. He did not, and we can see from the second half of his response that he likely categorized himself based on his own definition of the term itself and there was an internal inconsistency in his definition of the term and the one presented by you.

See Niiai's response below as well. The options in the poll are "Do spam" or "Do not spam" and they make it clear that they DO NOT spam at the bottom of a post where they say they occasionally do the exact thing you list as the definition of spam.

I mean... I GUESS I run spam because I have 3 neurothropes, 3 single model units of biovores, and 3 batches of 3/4 Raveners in my Jormundgandr list

But it's largely irrelevant.

If we can assume that people actually answered honestly, the vast majority of players do not spam, even with what we can agree is a fairly strong boundary to qualify as non-spam.

It also doesn't reflect that some armies simply have to spam, due to limited troop choices, or overall limited variety in their unit counts. This is more true - probably - for casual players than competitive players, because competitive players are more open to souping.

meleti wrote:Nick Nanavati has a good blog post about spam recently. It might have prompted this thread?

https://thebrownmagic.com/2018/03/06/why-spam-should-stay-in-the-can/

I really enjoyed that read.

Desubot wrote:Well twas a stab at the whole 3 bane blade thing

but yeah you can have the same unit act wildly different depending on load outs too. but it all depends on some individuals concept of spam to be considered spam

Oh, lol. Yeah, the 3-Baneblade thing has worked itself out in my local meta (I found opponents who enjoy the game as much as me) so I'm confident in the list now. So yes, I spam, for sure. I even earlier brought up counting the Baneblades differently, but if anyone ever looked at my Concordiat Super Heavy Armoured Regiment list they'd realize my companies are mono-type because of logistical concerns. But yes, I admit it, I'm a spammer. I do it for the fluff though, in my defense and because I like playing with big tanks more than I like playing with little tanks or little duders.
you could also argue I was compensating

And yes, that's all I was trying to prove. Even the same unit times six isn't spam, at least according to my definition.

Progressive scoring, and objective based games with selectable secondaries, make playing against 3x Baneblade chasis models actually way more engaging and interesting. Because the game becomes "how can i score," rather than, "how can i actually kill these baneblades?"

 Marmatag wrote:
But it's largely irrelevant.

If we can assume that people actually answered honestly, the vast majority of players do not spam, even with what we can agree is a fairly strong boundary to qualify as non-spam.

It also doesn't reflect that some armies simply have to spam, due to limited troop choices, or overall limited variety in their unit counts. This is more true - probably - for casual players than competitive players, because competitive players are more open to souping.

This is my point. We cannot assume that people answered honestly according to the definition you've set up for spam. I can point to multiple posts where people (at least seem to) have answered on the poll that they do not spam, but state in the post that they do the exact thing you lay down as the definition of spam.

my "sexism" example is similar here. When people have a strong, emotionally charged definition of a term that is dissimilar to that set up by the poll, you will get vastly different results.

If you ask the question:

"Have you ever had a disagreement with a woman"

And your answers are "no" and "Yes" then you'll get nearly 100% yes, because...of course everyone has had a disagreement with a woman at some point. When you were a baby, you probably disagreed as to whether you needed food or your diaper was full.

If you ask the same question, and have the answers set to "No, I have never had a disagreement with a woman" and "Yes, I am a sexist" then you will get a MUCH larger percentage of people who are, I think we can agree, pretty much lying and answering no. And the reason they do that has everything to do with the term "Sexist" and how they themselves are defining the term in their head and not by the flawed definition set up by the poll.

The weird thing to me about your definition of "spam" is that it becomes easier or harder depending on what army you're running, and spamming one unit three times doesn't make your list stronger/weaker, it depends on what the unit is. My Space Marines scrabbled on for a few months of 8th with wildly ineffectual lists that used four Razorbacks with veterans, which by your definition is spam, yet my competitive Custodes lists don't run more than two instances of anything, Troops or not. And if you're playing (for instance) Guard it becomes difficult to build a list without three instances of the same non-Troops unit simply because everything is so cheap.

 Marmatag wrote:
I see a lot of people talking about spam.

Curious where the community breaks down in this regard.

Spam would be considered adding the same unit more than 2 times.

I play Astra Militarum, and I try to do so according to the background, so apparently I "spam". As opposed to fielding an organised, ordered military force rather than a rabble of warbands.

 Marmatag wrote:
But it's largely irrelevant.

If we can assume that people actually answered honestly, the vast majority of players do not spam, even with what we can agree is a fairly strong boundary to qualify as non-spam.

It also doesn't reflect that some armies simply have to spam, due to limited troop choices, or overall limited variety in their unit counts. This is more true - probably - for casual players than competitive players, because competitive players are more open to souping.

I don't think you can assume people answered "honestly". I think quite a few people will have either not read your overly restrictive definition of spam before they voted or read it and voted that they don't spam anyway because they disagree with the definition you gave.

 Marmatag wrote:


Note that I am not also attaching a value judgment to people in this thread.

Yes you are, because just about every use of "spam" in this context (and almost every other, for that matter") is derogatory. "Do you routinely field more than two of the same unit in your army" would be a more neutral question, I would think.

 roflmajog wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
But it's largely irrelevant.

If we can assume that people actually answered honestly, the vast majority of players do not spam, even with what we can agree is a fairly strong boundary to qualify as non-spam.

It also doesn't reflect that some armies simply have to spam, due to limited troop choices, or overall limited variety in their unit counts. This is more true - probably - for casual players than competitive players, because competitive players are more open to souping.

I don't think you can assume people answered "honestly". I think quite a few people will have either not read your overly restrictive definition of spam before they voted or read it and voted that they don't spam anyway because they disagree with the definition you gave.

Confession: I voted "no" before reading his ridiculous definition of "spam." Apparently that time I ran 3 units of 5 DE Warriors in a 1500 pt list is considered "spamming."