# Spamming Units ... Why?



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Hey everyone

I'm just curious if someone can explain why people seem to spam units in their various armies?

Personally, I hate the practice.

Now, I'm not talking about things like, ' Oh he took 3 Tactical Squads what a spammer'.

Intead here are a few perfect examples from my own Chaos Codex.


For HQ people like to spam 4 Heralds of Tzeentch and ignore the fact that Chariots of Slaanesh and Khorne as well as the MC's and some Special Characters can be solid and deadly units as well.

For Elites people spam x3 6 Fiends and ignore the excellent Bloodcrushers and Flamers

Then for Heavy Support rather than build multiple types of Daemon Prince from all the options we have, they build one (albiet probably useful) build and then just have 3 of those.


The reason I think this is ironic is that (as a former Chaos Marine player) I know how horrible it is to have a codex stripped of all its bells and whistles were you are forced to do nothing but choose one unit; thats actually partly why I moved to Daemons.

Then I move onto this flavourful codex where you can actually choose different units in different slots and still remain competitive ... and ... head over to the army list section and basically cry. 

This always takes me back to the point of, the way the game is being played.

Some might say, that in order to combat a competitive but unknown list, in a tournament for example, you have to spam the best unit at multi-tasking in order to be prepared.

I say thats a load of unthinking, untactical hogwash. So one of your units can't defeat vehicles AND infantry, tactically position it so it can maximize its strengths and minimize its weaknesses.

Finally, dont give me that people can play as they like crap. This is a social game, you play it with friends, your local GW crowd or complete strangers at the various tournaments held throughout the world. 

How some people decide to play, by default, has an effect on how the others have to play as well. If everyone takes spammed powerful lists, you have to take less risks with your own army and you can see this is becoming more and more the norm by the lists posted in the Army List Section and the advice being given to newer players.

Since when can you not have one unit? You have to have two Daemon Princes, two Vindicators, two Land Raiders etc etc. 

Thats called redundancy dumb*ss! 

Yeah well, why the hell do peoples strategies rely on one unit making it through. If I lose multiple units to deepstrike mishaps, sometimes even my best units, I just shrug and say whoops, I don't think I need to bring four next time.

Anyway, this may sound like a rant, but I actually want to have a discussion about it, and maybe get some other opinions.

Do you agree with me, or disagree and why?

(I'll also include a simple poll at the top)


----------



## aboytervigon (Jul 6, 2010)

Well for my favourite Tyranid list I do do a bit of spamming with just using monstrous creatures. Does that count?


----------



## docgeo (Jan 8, 2010)

I don't do that...wait...maybe that is why I don't win often...lol

Doc


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

aboytervigon said:


> Well for my favourite Tyranid list I do do a bit of spamming with just using monstrous creatures. Does that count?


Without seeing the list, I would be inclined to say probably not.

MC list is a theme, so your choices are being built around a theme.

At the same time though, if you purposely left out viable MC units in order to have as many of the best one as you could, that would probably count as spamming.

Oh, tis a fine line isn't it?

3 Units of Obliterators in an Iron Warriors list ... I can live with that.

3 Units of Obliterators in an Emperor's Children list ... you spammer!!!

I'm joking, but you get the point.


----------



## moo (Aug 12, 2008)

In some respects surely the argument would be are you a competitive player or not? since those who spam certain units are attempting to have a super competitive lists. For me i've always tried to maintain a relatively fluffy army so my armies are usually not very competitive at all. 

Then again would it be GW's intention to do away with fluffyness as such and much more individual army lists and have a more vanilla feel? I think your question in my mind opens more up than any single answer.


----------



## Scathainn (Feb 21, 2010)

If a unit is considerably better than everything else in its FOC slot and you like it, why not spam it?


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

moo said:


> In some respects surely the argument would be are you a competitive player or not? since those who spam certain units are attempting to have a super competitive lists. For me i've always tried to maintain a relatively fluffy army so my armies are usually not very competitive at all.
> 
> Then again would it be GW's intention to do away with fluffyness as such and much more individual army lists and have a more vanilla feel? I think your question in my mind opens more up than any single answer.


That's actually a really, really good point.

I think that it is not unlinked to competitive gaming, but I would still argue that it is slightly different.

If you have to choose a unit because the other units in its category are useless or are awful in comparison, then you can be somehwat let off the hook over calls of spamming.

Spamming for me is when you are given various decent options and choose the best one and just take that, without considering the usefullness of the others.

You think to yourself, 'well that's the best one in 9/10 situations so why take anything else?'.

As I said, spamming is more about lazyness and the unwillingness to actually play the game tactically.

Think of it like this, if you could choose the pieces you used in chess, how many people would spam as many Queens as possible, even though Castles, Bishops, Knights and even the humble pawn are usefull in other situations as well?

Excellent point though ... so +rep on the way.


----------



## aboytervigon (Jul 6, 2010)

Well I don't think I spam then. As i could have 3 Trygons in my 1000 point list but instead have 2 Trygons and 2 Carnifex's. 



EDIT: THIS WAS MY 2000th POST!


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

Does nothing else than maxed out Paladin Squads and Draigo count as spam?


----------



## yshabash (Apr 11, 2010)

Scathainn said:


> If a unit is considerably better than everything else in its FOC slot and you like it, why not spam it?


If this is a tourney then no problem but otherwise having super competitive lists can leave your opponent annoyed and no-one will play you.


We always have this one guy in our club who also plays guard and he doesn't understand the meaning of a fun list. Sentinels with heavy weapons everywhere, leman ruse vindicator spam, and all his troops just hide in cover or in a chimera and then in cover to take an object, he doesn't even use them! He just spams the cheapest tanks he can, and gives them the best weapons he can to give them to create a super competitive firing range list where if you don't get the first turn and destroy half his vehicles in that turn your dead.

The first time I played him I just told him in turn 4 that I really didn't like his list because it was his same tournament list and I asked him that next time we play he had a better list, an walked away. We have never played again since.

So I played him twice, the first time and the last :biggrin:


----------



## Hurricane (Feb 27, 2010)

D-A-C said:


> Hey everyone
> 
> I'm just curious if someone can explain why people seem to spam units in their various armies?
> 
> ...


Sorry but there really is no argument here. You don't really provide any evidence as to why I should not create redundancy in my lists by taking more than one of a unit. I play how I want to play and despite what you say here, it really just sounds like a rant. Why deny my enjoyment of the game just so that YOU can have more fun?

Just a quick note however, newer codices have multiple competitive builds since almost all units in a codex are viable. Perhaps what you are experiencing can just be blamed on poor codex writing?

P.S. Just having gone to read your last post, spamming is not laziness or my own supposed inflexibility. I can clearly see that some units are better than others in more situations and when creating a balanced all-comers list I will take what I perceive to be the best. By the way, don't make the chess analogy again because clearly taking all queens over any other unit would allow you to destroy your opponent. Why take a biship when you can take queen who can move diagonally AND other directions?


----------



## hells (Mar 11, 2011)

yshabash said:


> If this is a tourney then no problem but otherwise having super competitive lists can leave your opponent annoyed and no-one will play you.
> 
> 
> We always have this one guy in our club who also plays guard and he doesn't understand the meaning of a fun list. Sentinels with heavy weapons everywhere, leman ruse vindicator spam, and all his troops just hide in cover or in a chimera and then in cover to take an object, he doesn't even use them! He just spams the cheapest tanks he can, and gives them the best weapons he can to give them to create a super competitive firing range list where if you don't get the first turn and destroy half his vehicles in that turn your dead.
> ...


today i vs'ed guard list tailored to destroy space marines, 2k points as i really brought 1500 points i used seraphim and living saint to make last 500 points of models i love but do horrible with. he outnumbered my sisters severly, 90% of his troops had plasma guns or hot shot las rifles that denied me amour saves while they had a 4+ save against my guns. he would be a spammer.

i enjoyed and would go back to beat him, after i tweak my list a lot, more tanks and anti tank and life should be swell, i enjoyed the challange, its a tough list but thats half the fun .




as for spamming yep i spam, 3 exorcists is lovely fun, 3D6 krak missiles is more fun the a heavy weapon squad or a tank thats more useull as transport then a heavy slot waste, plus the tanks are pretty, actually on sisters you tend to spam atm, very few choices to take. one HQ type, 2 elites, one is overpriced and dies fast, 1 troops choice, 2 fast and 3 heavy but ones just a waste of a slot.

other people spamming, well how can you tell why they spam it? could they like the model? like the rules? want a good unit? personaly it whouldnt matter whats in the list, its a game for fun, sure you can vs a list designed to kill you but if you have fun your still winning, if you didnt enjoy the list then yeah talk to the guy see if he can tone it down a bit before youll vs him again for friendly. but if someone wants to take 9 oblits in a ts army then yep they can, its thier army and they can field what they want for watever reasons they want.


----------



## Hurricane (Feb 27, 2010)

Your opponent may have been spamming units but he just sounds like a dick. Tailoring is not equal to spamming and I am completely against tailoring lists to certain opponents. I try to make a list to take on the myriad lists I may encounter, and if that involves spamming certain units then so be it.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Hurricane said:


> Sorry but there really is no argument here. You don't really provide any evidence as to why I should not create redundancy in my lists by taking more than one of a unit. I play how I want to play and despite what you say here, it really just sounds like a rant. Why deny my enjoyment of the game just so that YOU can have more fun?
> 
> Because as I said, its a social game. It takes two people to play and if the majority of potential opponents are playing in an incredibly uninteresting and overly-competitive way then that impacts the way I in turn have to play.
> 
> ...


From your post your clearly not the type of opponent that I would enjoy playing against, and to be honest I wouldn't be the only one.

You basically said, I play how I want to play and others be damned.

I on the other hand prefer the social aspects of the game, and the backstory to the little plastic models we are moving about the tabletop.

But equally I can guess that you probably would hate playing against me as well as I use a list which isn't designed to necessarily beat other peoples armies, and is instead supposed to be fun for me, and as much as possible for my opponent.

But each to their own.

Oh, and I wasn't ranting, I was discussing, there is a difference; which is that I am interested in other peoples opinions.

So even though I have disagreed, I enjoyed reading your differing point of view.


----------



## gally912 (Jan 31, 2009)

D-A-C said:


> From your post your clearly not the type of opponent that I would enjoy playing against, and to be honest I wouldn't be the only one.
> 
> You basically said, *I play how I want to play and others be damned.*






> I on the other hand prefer the social aspects of the game, and the backstory to the little plastic models we are moving about the tabletop.
> 
> But equally I can guess that you probably would hate playing against me as well as* I use a list which isn't designed to necessarily beat other peoples armies, and is instead supposed to be fun for me, and as much as possible for my opponent.*


Emphasis mine.

If you can't see the irony and hypocrisy in these statements, then you should probably stop. Full stop. Right here.


----------



## Hurricane (Feb 27, 2010)

Spot on D-A-C. You're right in that I really enjoy taking on the most brutal lists I can as it helps me improve further. That does not mean I'm not into the social aspect of the game however, everyone in my gaming group plays the exact same way and we always have an awesome time.

I do want to address that my armies are actually meant to be fun for me as well though, but there are many different aspects of me that I balance within my list. Will the list be competitive? Yes. Will the list be fun for me? Yes. Perhaps this just is not as big a deal for me since my entire gaming group plays just as I do. To each his own I suppose.


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

Doelago said:


> Does nothing else than maxed out Paladin Squads and Draigo count as spam?


That's like, 4 units at 3k.

so, nah, I don't think so


----------



## Ashkore08 (Feb 12, 2011)

Well. On some points i can agree and disagree. Also, i dont know if your writing from the standpoint of competetive gameplay or casual gameplay.

I do agree on the point that spamming multi-purpose units is lame. In marines, we can specialize our troops something fierce, and STILL have some kind of leeway with target priority.

And, im sorry, how is "I can play as I like" not a response? If this is a social game, like you say, and the point is to have fun, im going to damn well have fun my way. Of course, bieng a prick while you have that fun isn't fun for everyone else though. So its a fine line between having fun, or having fun at other peoples expense, and sometimes some overlap happens.

And the whole "HAVE TO FIELD TWO X" argument is from other players personal experience. E.G. When i ran one land speeder against a Eldar list, he got smacked. When i ran three, they made their total points back. So when i see someone making a BA list, naturally im going to voice my opinion. Whether someone takes that advice and makes it a standard thing cant be helped.

If everyone started taking powerful spammed list, it will take a week for some guy to tailor his list to beat the crap out of it. There is a way to counter other lists in every codex, some more apparent than others.

Now to the core of spamming powerful units: There cant really be an argument here. If i decided to spam max terminator squads, i wont have points for ANYTHING else, and my list will inevitably fail. Naturally, some units are better than others. But only for unknown lists. If i dont know what youre fielding, i may decide to spam some powerful unit so that i can counter whatever you have. If i know youre playing a footslogging IG list, i can field other more specialized troops, without having to resort to spamming.

Lastly, if positioning your units to maximize strengths and minimize weaknesses were so easy, then we wouldnt need to spam.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

do I spam powerful units? possibly... but I HAVE to with my DE or id get crushed.


----------



## DestroyerHive (Dec 22, 2009)

Yeah, I love spamming Grey Hunters and Long Fangs. Winning isn;t everything to me, but the LF have saved my arse countless times .


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Ashkore08 said:


> Well. On some points i can agree and disagree. Also, i dont know if your writing from the standpoint of competetive gameplay or casual gameplay.


I'm not really trying to advocate either. 

As I acknowledged there is a certain degree of overlap as regard to competitive vs casual, and unit spamming, but it is more a different argument about the same subject, if that makes sense.

For example, when people ask for advice about which models to buy or units to use, they are often told buy multiples of one unit, when in fact they could take two or three different types and not lost that much competitiveness.

By taking a mix of 1 unit if fiends, flamers and Bloodcrushers I haven't doomed myself to losing a battle before I begin.

But equally I haven't pigeon holed my army into looking all the same, and playing the same either.

By taking a diverse group of units I can be prepared for multiple situations and scenarios, with the only problem that I'll never excel at any one type of situation either.

This means that my army plays out differently and in interesting ways.

I.E.

The flamers can attempt to drop right beside you, while the fiends drop a medium distance away and can tank hunt, and then the Bloodcrushers can deny an objective, by dropping near it and daring something to come close.

Whereas x3 fiends, would be the same unit trying to do three different things.

Is it possible, of course, is it fun, diverse and interesting, IMO ... no.

But as I said, that's my opinion. I have brought up the subject because I'm curious about other peoples opinions about that subject.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Im struggling to see the issue here?

Now before I explain let me get one thing straight - I play FLUFFY armies only - my wolves have no tanks, just hordes of screaming space wolves. My crimson fists are a full half battle company, including rhinos for my devisators, my imperial guard is either a full infantry company (no tanks) or a mixed infantry and shed loads of leman russes.

So, now I have that out of the way - my point is I have utterly no issue with playing a tooled up tornament list, I dont give a crap if I lose every single time I play. If winning is what is important to you, then I suggest you start making a very tight tornament army and playing that, or, if like me winning is secondary to having a fun and great looking army (which like mine are picked by the units I want to paint, as apposed to the units I think are best), then get used to losing and not caring about it.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Do I? Hell yes I do. Why? Because I like to play competitively and I happen to like thunderwolves. Who the fuck is anyone else to tell me how I should play with the things that I pay for?


----------



## Tyrannus (Sep 19, 2010)

gen.ahab said:


> Do I? Hell yes I do. Why? Because I like to play competitively and I happen to like thunderwolves. *Who the fuck is anyone else to tell me how I should play with the things that I pay for?*


This. Especially the stuff in bold.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

I don't because I don't know what's good in a Marine list... need more experience...

It might be the fact that I'm very hesitant to buy stuff that I've never used. Never seen Sternguard in action, should I buy them, they're expensive, what if they suck, what if I find that Hammernators would have been a better buy etc.

My brain gives me hell.

Midnight


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

Orochi said:


> That's like, 4 units at 3k.
> 
> so, nah, I don't think so


Exactly... :crazy:


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

gen.ahab said:


> Do I? Hell yes I do. Why? Because I like to play competitively and I happen to like thunderwolves. Who the fuck is anyone else to tell me how I should play with the things that I pay for?





Tyrannus said:


> This. Especially the stuff in bold.


Yeah, because having a discussion is TELLING you what to do.

In fact, I have a sneaky suspicion that I was advocating socialism, and that people should no longer buy their own models, but they should collectivise their local GW.


The whole mentality of, because I bought them, they are mine and I can do what I want with them is completely correct.

But ... having a discussion about the state of the 40k community and the current trends amongst its players should be fine as well.

If I advocate a particular gaming style, I'm not a dictator who makes other people play by my rules, but equally as a Warhammer 40k player, and consumer, I am perfectly entitled to give my opinion.

As I said, you turn up at my local GW with your spam army and tell me that they are your models and you can do what you want, then I'll refuse to play you as it won't be fun for me.

Chances are though, that if I use my list against a spam player, they will be happy to play me because of the assumption that they will win.

So again, we are back to the point that, is this a competitive vs casual thing?

My answer, again, is that its a smaller aspect of that larger debate.

But I would recommend to new players that they enjoy their army for what it is, rather than its win/loss ratio and in the long run I argue, my strategy would create more long term players, than people who play the game for a year then leave.

If all you do is play to win, why not play a proper sport, play your army because its enjoyable and has an interesting story and you enjoy making/painting the models.

Then again, isn't that me telling people how to play or am I just giving an opinion?


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

Being a casual player myself I know how you mean about genuinely enjoying the hobby. However even so I think that there should be more tolerance for those who llike to spam units.

In a lot of sense whether you spam or not does depend on whether you are competitive or casual. However like all rules in life there are exceptions. Some competitive players might refuse to spam because they find it might be a better challenge. Conversely there are some casual players who mght spam stuff because they think it is cool or good for painting (as an example I use 5 razorbacks in 1500 points. Mainly because as well as the other tanks I use I like to have a large model that I can paint tiger stripes all over).

It just depends on the person. Would Warhammer be more challenging and more fun if spamming was not allowed, yes. But will it ever happen? No because at the end of the day GW are a business and what some people spam are in fact some of their most expensive kits and they are not going to pass that up anytime soon.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

D-A-C said:


> As I said, you turn up at my local GW with your spam army and tell me that they are your models and you can do what you want, then I'll refuse to play you as it won't be fun for me.
> 
> Then again, isn't that me telling people how to play or am I just giving an opinion?


 
The thing is you ARE telling people what to do - you are saying on the one hand 'go ahead, do whatever you want' and on the other hand you are saying 'well because I dont like your army list, then I wont play you'.

Why isnt it fun for you? If other people play to win, but you play for fun, then why are you complaining if you lose?

Honestly, sorry if this comes across wrong, but you sound just like a lot of players who get beaten and then complain that it was someone elses fault.

When I get beaten (9/10) I dont blame anyone, there isnt anyone to blame because I am not playing to win (well im not trying to lose, but I am playing effectively with 1 arm tied behind my back).

For me, playing 'TO WIN' would involve doing things like painting models I hate, or painting lots of models that are merely 'ok' or fishing around for a plasma gun when I only have a melta gun and I really cannot be bothered to do any of those things.

So, I think you really need to decide - are you playing to win, playing for fun, or pretending to play for fun, but infact playing to win by picking your fights against people who dont have tornament style armies?


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

I spam units.

In competitive games I spam to win.

In casual ones I spam what I like to use for fun.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

@ D-A-C,
You are an extremely defensive person, aren't you? :laugh: I never said you did, I simply stated my view on it. Also, did I say you couldn't speak your opinion? No, I didn't. Calm down. :laugh:

Anywho, winning is fun to me. I like to win. However, does that mean I like to take a fluffy player and beat them like a red headed step child? Not really. Well, if they are a little shit, then yes, but that's usually not the case. 

Listen, spam players tend to be competitive players and most competitive players don't like to just beat the shit out of fluffy player. Just beating people isn't fun for the vast majority of competitive players; a win isn't really worth anything if there was no challenge in it. I can challenge a two year old to a game of chess as much as I want, but eventually winning in 4 or 5 moves is going to get a bit dull. 

SO, in all probability, I would want to play you about as much as you would want to play me. IOW, I wouldn't. See? Now everyone is happy.

However, that is not to say that I wouldn't play a fluffy player, just that it probably wouldn't be a whole hell of a lot of fun to do it.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Maidel said:


> The thing is you ARE telling people what to do - you are saying on the one hand 'go ahead, do whatever you want' and on the other hand you are saying 'well because I dont like your army list, then I wont play you'.
> 
> Why isnt it fun for you? If other people play to win, but you play for fun, then why are you complaining if you lose?
> 
> ...


Why is it someone has to lose in order to make a point of discussion.

I win games, I lose games, I don't bother keeping track. I instead remember fun moments, like when my friends Emperors Champion stopped my Slaanesh Keeper of Secrets at a bridge for three whole Turns and influenced the outcome of the game in his favour. The reason being that narrative is awesome IMO.

I'm not complaining if I lose, but if the other player plays to win, 9/10 that denies both of us those kinds of epic moments, as those types of players rarely acknowledge tabletop events from a fluff perspective and only talk about how statistically the Keeper of Secrets should have slain the EC two turns ago etc etc.

Who's blaming anyone? If I don't like how my opponent plays ... guess who I tell? It aint Heresy thats for sure.

What I'm talking about with regard to Heresy is the endless lists of Spam and suggesting of spamming units in the Army List Section and that this indicates a wider trend amongst Warhammer players.

A trend which I am acknowledging, highlighting and then challenging with my own opinion on the subject.

Since when do you have to lose to discuss something?


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

D-A-C said:


> What I'm talking about with regard to Heresy is the endless lists of Spam and suggesting of spamming units in the Army List Section and that this indicates a wider trend amongst Warhammer players.


Many of those entries are about "how to make this list better/more competitive" so they are answered in that ethos. Now if people were putting up a list and saying "comment on my fluffy Black Guardian list" they probably would get different advice to "1750 competitive Eldar for tournament" and rightly so.

Oh and back on topic, My name is Chris, and I spam tanks. IG FTW :laugh:


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

D-A-C said:


> Why is it someone has to lose in order to make a point of discussion.


Who said you have to lose? Seriously - think of it like a football match. Many 'purists' think that football should be played 4-4-2, however there is a great prevalence of teams now playing 4-3-2-1 (or 4-3-3). Now, like you, some managers refuse to change (Cough-capello!-cough) and lose games they should win, others will adapt and play the new system.

Now, unlike highly payed football managers, no one gives a crap if you win or lose a game, however you cannot sit there and say that people shouldnt spam units because its 'unfluffy' or 'overly competative'.



> I win games, I lose games, I don't bother keeping track. I instead remember fun moments, like when my friends Emperors Champion stopped my Slaanesh Keeper of Secrets at a bridge for three whole Turns and influenced the outcome of the game in his favour. The reason being that narrative is awesome IMO.
> 
> I'm not complaining if I lose, but if the other player plays to win, 9/10 that denies both of us those kinds of epic moments, as those types of players rarely acknowledge tabletop events from a fluff perspective and only talk about how statistically the Keeper of Secrets should have slain the EC two turns ago etc etc.


So, in fact, your entire arguement is that you want 'intelligent' gamers, ones who see beyond the little men and bits of plastic and get into the background and truely engage in the whole hobby. Fantastic, I would love that too - While on that track I would also like every army I play to be painted to an extremely high standard because that helps with the immersion - however thats not going to happen either.



> Who's blaming anyone? If I don't like how my opponent plays ... guess who I tell? It aint Heresy thats for sure.


Im not sure where to start with that - basically, that just makes you a really unpleasant person to game against - if they play by the rules and the spirit of the game, no cheating or bending of the rules, what right do you have to tell them that you dont like how they put their army together?



> A trend which I am acknowledging, highlighting and then challenging with my own opinion on the subject.


The thing is I AGREE with you - I also prefer to use armies that are not min-maxed based on the current edition or current codex (not to mention the fact that I cant even finish an army before the next codex comes out anyway!) but that doesnt mean I think its ok to shun other gamers simply because they dont agree with you.


----------



## SlamHammer (Mar 28, 2011)

I am a very competitive player and I enjoy the part of game that is Generalship and Army Design. So I make a extremely powerful list and get really excited about the face crushing I am about to bring to my enemy. I smile and then begin cutting stuff out of it. 

Why? Because in my play group, not everyone likes playing that competitvely. So I choose being able to play next week over being able to make someone pack up their shit and leave. It's the concesions we make as players and as human beings that keep us playing every week. 

And let me tell you, there is nothing like proving to yourself how good you are at the game until win with a "dull sword".


----------



## yshabash (Apr 11, 2010)

gen.ahab said:


> @ D-A-C,
> You are an extremely defensive person, aren't you? :laugh: I never said you did, I simply stated my view on it. Also, did I say you couldn't speak your opinion? No, I didn't. Calm down. :laugh:
> 
> Anywho, winning is fun to me. I like to win. However, does that mean I like to take a fluffy player and beat them like a red headed step child? Not really. Well, if they are a little shit, then yes, but that's usually not the case.
> ...




Although your points are completely viable if you were to play a game against me I would ask you to tone down your list, in fact I would even let you borrow or proxy stuff so that we can try out new things and have a fun time. A leman russ spam would win, a manticore and deathstrike missle spam is lulz. I only mind spam when its tournament I'll spam the best unit in my army spam, and if its not in a tourney. If its casual spam then I wouldn't really mind. I just think you should have some models so that if you meet non-competitive players you can sue those models that you use less instead of your tournament list. If not then I'm pulling out MY competitive list *cough* kreigmedicandvehiclespam *cough*

imagine this: I pull out a mechanized infantry force, with artillery, with an artillery strike on every single one of your squads before the game even begins, with superheavies, with every squad having medic and save spam, with ten bajillion drills and engineers. I also spam leman russes and cyclops demo in my competitive list. Sound like fun? :laugh:


I only really use that list when I'm going to tourneys that allow those or when I'm playing really competitive players that need a lesson taught about using a competitive list all the time :biggrin:


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

There are many ways to play this game, be it for fun and/or for the competitive side, and for the fluff/theme of a particular army....the only truly bad way to partake of this hobby is to be a WAAC'er - pretty much anything else is perfectly fine.

I myself, and the other few dozen guys I know well and play often, get a lot of fun out of playing games that range from fluffy uncompetitive lists with poor units, to powergamer lists that are super efficient at slaughtering any other list out there...all are equally entertaining. 



> What I'm talking about with regard to Heresy is the endless lists of Spam and suggesting of spamming units in the Army List Section and that this indicates a wider trend amongst Warhammer players.
> 
> A trend which I am acknowledging, highlighting and then challenging with my own opinion on the subject.


The general concensus when posting armylists is that the poster wants to improve on the build, usually to make it more efficient at performing it's role on the battlefield, which requires making it more competitive....so that's the advice they receive. Taking multiples of one build is a great way to achieve this goal, and makes perfect sense.

IF they want a fun and fluffy list where efficiency/competitiveness isn't a requirement, they should say so from the get-go.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

just remember, SOME ARMIES NEED to spam to win, period.

DE come to mind, practically NEEDING 3 ravagers, and multiples of Venoms or raiders.

DE are cheap and fragile, so they need to out number their enemy, and/or have multiples of the same 'unit' in order to not have them picked off.


----------



## yshabash (Apr 11, 2010)

KhainiteAssassin said:


> just remember, SOME ARMIES NEED to spam to win, period.
> 
> DE come to mind, practically NEEDING 3 ravagers, and multiples of Venoms or raiders.
> 
> DE are cheap and fragile, so they need to out number their enemy, and/or have multiples of the same 'unit' in order to not have them picked off.


I would add guard, orks and nids to that list as well. To some extent eldar and tau as well.

EDIT: inquisition armies as well as they don't have enough options to not spam


----------



## Scathainn (Feb 21, 2010)

You must hate Deathwing, then.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

he still didnt reply to my PM on my thoughts of a 1k list he asked me to send him Comments on. XD


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

I should add though, that I would never (not even in a tourney) spam a unit I am repulsed by in terms of design even if that unit is the very best thing in the codex. If I were a Chaos player I would for example not ever field ANY Obliterators, ever.

And DE don't need 3 Ravagers, they need 2 and a half. Problem is it's hard to make up for the other half.

Completely unimaginative players playing DE forget that Raiders have Dark Lances, but they still go for the Venom even if there is no logical point to do so (nowhere does it say you MUST use a Venom for low model count units, and it's more expensive in the default kit)

Getting in a Talos or Cronos, which is exactly what the DE need on the table for a well rounded force is worth jumping through a small hoop for.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

the venom is 5 points cheaper then the raider, and the venom COMES with a flicker field. yes with the setup it becomes 5 points more, but you have to account for the FF, and the fact that the venom, though it does not have AT capibilities, it does give you, minus the dark lance, the same fire power as a 10 man squad in a raider, at 12 inches, and MUCH more fire power at a 36" range.

and your right, you do not 'need' 3 ravagers, until those annoying razorspam SW lists with 3 long fang squads all with MLs that pelt both Ravagers with so much AT fire that they die horribly and your left wondering how your going to deal with 5+ razorbacks.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Honestly, if you play against parking lot lists, that's the perfect space for a Talos to rip through, as they'll have a hard time escaping, if you put the Webway Portal in a good spot. It is essentially a meltagun minus one strength with 4-7 attacks in CC. Not saying that makes it better than a Ravager for Anti Tank, but it's more well rounded and can take more focus to kill.


----------



## Hurricane (Feb 27, 2010)

Completely disagree MetalHandkerchief. Any razorspam list fielded by a player in my area would never let a talos within assault distance and it wouldn't survive for more than one turn. Just shift all your ranks back 6" or if you have a fast element then surround the WWP asap and not allow your opponent to come out of them. 3 wounds, if I remember correctly, and a 3+ armor save will get smoked off the table by plasma, melta, missiles, and lascannons as well. 

Talos are not part of a balanced DE list outside of WWB lists. Since they have no way to move quickly across the board (WWB won't get you into CC with a fast BA razor force) they will be annihilated quickly.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Oh yeah, I totally forgot to mention, put the webway portal RIGHT IN THE OPEN, but hey, Hurricane already assumed that's what I meant. Jokes aside, the entire point of a Talos is herding your opponent around. TL Haywire blaster also ensures closing in on at least one target per match.

And if you manage to lose a Talos in one turn after the second turn (when it arrives) go ahead and blame the dice gods or your tactics, because there shouldn't be enough weapons left on the table to do that.


----------



## Hurricane (Feb 27, 2010)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Oh yeah, I totally forgot to mention, put the webway portal RIGHT IN THE OPEN, but hey, Hurricane already assumed that's what I meant. Jokes aside, the entire point of a Talos is herding your opponent around. TL Haywire blaster also ensures closing in on at least one target per match.
> 
> And if you manage to lose a Talos in one turn after the second turn (when it arrives) go ahead and blame the dice gods or your tactics, because there shouldn't be enough weapons left on the table to do that.


Ya so...you put it behind cover and are left 6" to move it out in the open and try to assault the enemy. Who is going to let that happen? Most razorspam lists I face include 9 razor + HS in preds or long fangs. There will be plenty of firepower left on the opponents side of the field to handle a 3W/3+ creature (a floating one at that hence getting cover should be slightly harder). I'm certainly not saying they are bad, but compared to the ravager they fall flat.

Oh and just want to throw out there that I really do love the models and when I start DE I will probably buy a couple just for kicks.


----------



## Lucio (Aug 10, 2009)

I spam, but they're also my troops so... but why would I take Tactical Squads when Terminators do both the long range and close combat better? I give it up in medium range firepower. They're both troops for me so it fills that slot as well.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

I swear, most people talk like the typical competitive game has 4 ruins on it or less, the way they make it sound like getting cover is a challenge. Where I'm at, Cities of Death or other thick boards are the norm, and I can't see why anyone else would play on a naked table, ESPECIALLY competitively, makes me wonder.

I should go hunt for pictures from those fabled Briton tournaments of myth. Always wanted to trek across the North Sea in my longboat and play at a tourney there, but it's gonna sap my will playing on a bare ass ping pong table.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

I don`t spam top notch units. 

So gaunts? They`re fine, I run eighty of them and nobody cares except deathwing players. 

But if I were to run fifteen destroyers in my necron list, I would consider that spamming. It`s only a problem if the unit in question is powerful. 

Tournaments in Australia have a army composition score, usually peer based but sometimes panel judged. As a result, spam heavy lists are surprisingly rare. And I like it that way. It makes the lists more creative and makes the tourneys far more enjoyable.


----------



## Hurricane (Feb 27, 2010)

We play with 25% cover, but not all of it is large LOS blocking buildings. We often use large hills and other pieces of terrain.

That should not effect the outcome of a talos surviving volleys of fire though. It can only move 6" and it must leave cover to provide any CC value to the army.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Would it be okay if we took the "Why Dark Eldar shouldn't use Talos except in this sort of list" and the Terrain Coverage discussion to its own thread(s)?

Not... that I have anything to actually contribute to the topic at hand. Maidel handled it perfectly and in an entertaining fashion.


----------



## Abomination (Jul 6, 2008)

Going by the op it seems Katie is playing this game on a higher level than any of us. To be fair I've never had a problem with people spamming as in some ways it's actually easier to beat a spam list, although it doesn't do much for variety on the tabletop.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Abomination said:


> Going by the op it seems Katie is playing this game on a higher level than any of us.


He's not. D-A-C just has his own ideas of how the game should be played and expresses them on the forums.


----------



## the-ad-man (Jan 22, 2010)

i pick units i think are fun, my lists tend to be fairly competant, but not very competative.

this leads me to almost never have duplicate units, even in a 1500pt guard list! (ruling out infantry squads, naturally)


----------



## docgeo (Jan 8, 2010)

@the-ad-man--This is exactly how I play...to have fun. I try to make a solid list but can't help putting in units I just like even if it isn't the smartest tactical move. I thinking Spamming units like say...Terminators would be okay if both players agreed to a made up secene...like the reenactment of the Ultramarine's 1st Company at the polar fortress vs Nids.


Doc


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Do you know what's better than 1 really good unit? Two of them!

Your argument falls completely flat as soon as you mention the Army list section, the assumption is if you're posting in that section you're looking for a competitive army. So that is what people post. As a Daemon player you must know what Daemons suffer from, Deep striking and anti-tank both of these are thorns on our side. Guess which HQ gets around both things in the most points efficient way? Herald of Tzeentch on a Chariot, it's fast an efficient, gives you something to ding tanks with as it can catch them, giving the rest of your army time to catch up. In the Elites slot Fiends are flat out the best unit in the Codex, so if you're building a competitive army then choose them. If you want multiple Daemons princes and your first build was good, then guess what taking another of them is also good. 

If you don't want to help out in the Army list section then cool don't. If you do then be constructive, post lists and say why your list is good.


----------



## the-ad-man (Jan 22, 2010)

docgeo said:


> @the-ad-man--This is exactly how I play...to have fun. I try to make a solid list but can't help putting in units I just like even if it isn't the smartest tactical move. I thinking Spamming units like say...Terminators would be okay if both players agreed to a made up secene...like the reenactment of the Ultramarine's 1st Company at the polar fortress vs Nids.
> 
> 
> Doc


yer damn right thats how i play! haha
i dont win that often, but i always have more fun than the guy who playes a competative list.



Aramoro said:


> Do you know what's better than 1 really good unit? Two of them!
> 
> Your argument falls completely flat as soon as you mention the Army list section, the assumption is if you're posting in that section you're looking for a competitive army. So that is what people post. As a Daemon player you must know what Daemons suffer from, Deep striking and anti-tank both of these are thorns on our side. Guess which HQ gets around both things in the most points efficient way? Herald of Tzeentch on a Chariot, it's fast an efficient, gives you something to ding tanks with as it can catch them, giving the rest of your army time to catch up. In the Elites slot Fiends are flat out the best unit in the Codex, so if you're building a competitive army then choose them. If you want multiple Daemons princes and your first build was good, then guess what taking another of them is also good.
> 
> If you don't want to help out in the Army list section then cool don't. If you do then be constructive, post lists and say why your list is good.


thats quite an assumption


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

the-ad-man said:


> thats quite an assumption


Tis not an assumption. There's a reason that lists tend towards uniformity.


----------



## the-ad-man (Jan 22, 2010)

when i post a list in there, its not normaly to make it more competative, but to show others what ive put together, see what they think and see if i've made any stupid desicions


----------



## docgeo (Jan 8, 2010)

the-ad-man said:


> yer damn right thats how i play! haha
> i dont win that often, but i always have more fun than the guy who playes a competative list.
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

the-ad-man said:


> when i post a list in there, its not normaly to make it more competative, but to show others what ive put together, see what they think and see if i've made any stupid desicions


But unless you say otherwise people will always assume you want something competitive and good for want of a better word.


----------



## jaws900 (May 26, 2010)

Do i spam powerful units....no!
Do i spam some units...yes. Every one of my armys will have one certain unit always. Imperial fists ALWAYS need terminators. Blood angels need Landraider etc. I don't spam them becuase they are good. I spam them becuase i love using them


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Have some Spamalot.


----------



## Groedius (May 9, 2011)

Spamming just the same unit throughout an army I find generally is not as fun to play against i.e I know a guy who used to run an all tank space marines list.

Anyhow I think that spamming the same unit doesnt give your army the same feel about it personally with my eldar i only really ever take 1 squad of the aspects except for DA's.

Also I would not say that an spamming list makes the list considerably better then those who dont do it or makes it easier to beat people. 

When i used to play with Ulthwe Strike Force I found that people did not want to play me imo.


----------



## Malferion (Mar 9, 2011)

Does occasionally using three ten man TH/SS termies count as spamming? lol
Notice i said occassionally, so don't go all "Oh the humanity" on me. I only do it to combat something equally nasty


----------



## C'Tan Chimera (Aug 16, 2008)

Bah, unit spams. Do not want. Now to be fair I had amassed over 60 Necron Warriors using my general craftiness, but never once did I actually field such a heretical amount of spam on the board, mainly because it would make everyone's brain explode. I've always been amused by the idea of using 3 monoliths as well, but I will not.

I think variety is the spice of life, and almost all of my lists are designed to be a bunch of diverse units functioning together so I have the challenge of strategy to dwell on. To be fair I often max out all three elite slots with 3 man squads of Crisis Suits, but again I experiment and diversify all their wargear. Keeps the game more fun and unpredictable.


----------



## Malferion (Mar 9, 2011)

Oh I almost forgot, I used to spam a total of 21 crisis suits as tau using farsight and battlesuit commander for the bodyguards. I eventually stopped this because I like to keep my friends.


----------



## Partybear (Dec 16, 2010)

If your opponent has spammed a unit multiple times you shouldn't worry yes it makes him strong in one way but what they may not realise is that where you devise a simple strategy to kill one type of unit ie. vehicles, your opponent has multiple unit types to deal with which used correctly can become a brain minefield! 
If you play a lot of 40k( or collect most armies in your time!  ) You will realise that like previously mentioned most codexs have a couple of standard competitive lists and so you will be able immedietly have a strategy ready for the game, if you field an uncommon force then the opponent may have a harder time figuring out a plan and can give you the edge.
For example i field an eldar army with no vehicles and the most spam is 2 units of dire avengers, It works competitive and is fluffy so best of both worlds!


----------



## Hellados (Sep 16, 2009)

ok so when i play guard i take a couple of Hellhounds cos they're fun, a couple of chimeras with men hiding in them and the last squad in a Valk, then lastly lemons. . . lots and lots of them. . . my mate plays ultra competitive lists and out of 20+ games we think i may of won once. . . i don't see it as spamming i see it as a themed army and the only way i may win!!


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Has anyone yet brought up the fact that some armies have more of a need to spam to stay competitive then others?


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

LukeValantine said:


> Has anyone yet brought up the fact that some armies have more of a need to spam to stay competitive then others?


All good armies "spam" in that they take multiples of units for the sake of redundancy. Some armies have to "spam" more than others because they have less good units. Chaos, Tyranids, Tau and Necrons are just a few examples.


----------



## HatingYou (Oct 10, 2010)

Don't see why you wouldn't spam the units you like.....
not like you can tell the other person what to buy or anything :/ I find too many people complain about spam. dunno why though is it more powerful? maybe if you spam good units but then again why would you spam shit units? (unless you're a fluff player ofc)

Think it's just a case of some people can't handle spam :/ 

either way I think it doesn't really matter it's all a game in the end and everyone has their own style and some like to play their best all of the time.....why does that have to be a bad thing?

just my opinion anyway.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

What is counted as spam? Is it spam when it becomes using them for duality/redundancy in a competitive army list? Is it spam when they're shit units? I don't remember people complaining about Spammed Chaos Spawn, Spammed Penal Legion, or Spammed Scouts.


----------



## Hammer49 (Feb 12, 2011)

I spam units that I like. I also spam units that are effective, because the alternatives arent any better, and its always nice to win occasionally.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Vaz said:


> What is counted as spam? Is it spam when it becomes using them for duality/redundancy in a competitive army list? Is it spam when they're shit units? I don't remember people complaining about Spammed Chaos Spawn, Spammed Penal Legion, or Spammed Scouts.


That's just it, it depends entirely on who you're asking. For some people taking more than one of anything is spamming, for others they don't care unless the unit is a powerful one. It's another one of those things that most people don't even necessarily agree on the definition most of the time and thus it's very difficult to quantify. Hence why I don't take it seriously.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Katie Drake said:


> He's not. D-A-C just has his own ideas of how the game should be played and expresses them on the forums.


Considering all the disagreements we've had about how the game should be player with regards to competitive vs casual, I think that counts as the nicest thing you've ever said about me.



Katie Drake said:


> That's just it, it depends entirely on who you're asking. For some people taking more than one of anything is spamming, for others they don't care unless the unit is a powerful one. It's another one of those things that most people don't even necessarily agree on the definition most of the time and thus it's very difficult to quantify. Hence why I don't take it seriously.


I think spam is spam, when a person is using a particular unit as a kind of crutch for his army.

'Oh this is the best unit, in terms of how easy it is to use and its overall stats ... spam, spam, spam.'

This is most notable in codices were there are viable alternatives to the model being spammed.

In the Chaos Codex spamming Obliterators and Daemon Princes (in some peoples view) is necessary to win.

But when codices like Blood Angels, Space Wolves and Daemons come out, and have multiple choices of very decent units, and people spam, Razorbacks, Long Fangs and Heralds of Tzeentch then this becomes a problem IMO.

Now everyone says that I complain because I lose ... not so.

Once you find the weakness of the spam, in terms of better units against them, or their tactical flaws, they are actually pretty straightforward to beat.

But ... I have to change my army to play such opponents, I can't take chances with some marginal but fun units.

I have to drop things like the 30pt Boon of Mutation power, which is incredibly fun but very unreliable. So because more and more opponents are spamming in their armies, in order to stand a chance, I often have to alter how my army is set-up.

Also how these armies tactically play out is always the same, because they are based on spamming the same units, so the whole army has the same strengths and weaknesses, so these games in general always play the same every time, with few real changes.

No fun unexpected twists and turns because when you beat one unit, their is two more of the same. Whereas when my Seekers are wiped off the bored, they are gone, and I now rely on Blood Hounds, and IMO from a narrative side of things, this is actually really enjoyable. Whats more fun that killing a HQ in an epic showdown? But if there are two of them ala Daemon Princes or Heralds, wheres the fun in that?

So other peoples choices end up limiting MY choices. That's why I keep pointing out that its a social hobby, what other people do, effects me, thats why I raise issues such as competitive vs casual, unit spamming etc.

Now maybe the answer is, now when to have super awesome competitive battles and more fun and casual battles.

Most people though don't like one style or are unwilling to adjust when necessary and to some extent this even includes me.

But its still necessary and important to discuss all the major styles, attitudes and trends of how people are playing the game of 40k because it is a social hobby.


----------



## laviathan13089 (Apr 21, 2011)

hmmmm... this discussion brings up some interesting points and questions... I am a Chaos Space Marine player, i only play with my older brother (black templars/grey knights...). i play for fun obviously and im not interested in "compettetive lists", i pick the units i like and i play. we play assasination/annihilation missions with an unlimited turn count with roughly 2500-3000 points. its a good saturday of fun. back to the point, we dont tailor our lists to beat eachother, nor do we have to worry about objectives and crap, we play to kill and win, in our own way. now, i have found that, at least with csm, that some units are absolute garbage (posessed, spawn, raptors) or cost way to much (bikes, raptors, thousand sons) to use effectively and match my brother model for model, or unit for unit. there are some units that balance points cost with combat effectiveness (plague marines, terminators, vindicator/defiler, etc.) i like having variety and i believe that theres the perfect tool (unit) for every job (combat situation) so id like to have the wide variety of options that other armies have (skimmers or even fast vehicles, cheaper bikes, 3+ inv on someone, drop pods, controllable dreadnoughts, etc). but i dont so i use the best available units in my army to suit my playstyle and the nature of our games. i use terminators, plague marines, land raiders, vindicators, defilers, rhinos, things that i enjoy playing with and that i've found that make it easier for me to pull off a victory. ultimately i play for fun above anything else, but in order to compete with black templars i have to spam certain units because there arent any other viable choices. i blame the csm codex for that, but its the army i chose because i like the fluff, appearance, and method of play. im not going to chose outright garbage units because i want variety, you have to match entertainment with combat effectiveness.


----------



## KhainiteAssassin (Mar 18, 2009)

as i have said before, some armies rely on 'spamming' to be effective, IE: Venom warriors or raider wytches for DE.

both of those lists are competitive because they spam, and fully intend on losing half of the groups early.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Spamming chosen is my thing, don't like it then eat white hot plasma.


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

I Spam Guardsman....


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

D-A-C said:


> Considering all the disagreements we've had about how the game should be player with regards to competitive vs casual, I think that counts as the nicest thing you've ever said about me.


We disagree on lots of stuff and I think you're kind of a whiner, but I don't dislike you.



> I think spam is spam, when a person is using a particular unit as a kind of crutch for his army.


You say crutch, I say 'focus'.



> 'Oh this is the best unit, in terms of how easy it is to use and its overall stats ... spam, spam, spam.'


"This is the best unit for what I'm trying to do in terms of points cost to effectiveness ratio, I'll take it over the other choices. Since I don't want to be crippled by the loss of one unit, I'll take multiples."



> This is most notable in codices were there are viable alternatives to the model being spammed.


Viable in casual games maybe. You've mentioned in the past many times that people ignore other units to focus on one, but the reason is that those other choices are _less_ viable than the one that we choose to focus on. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're crap, just that they're not as good/efficient.



> In the Chaos Codex spamming Obliterators and Daemon Princes (in some peoples view) is necessary to win.


That's actually wrong, but okay.



> But when codices like Blood Angels, Space Wolves and Daemons come out, and have multiple choices of very decent units, and people spam, Razorbacks, Long Fangs and Heralds of Tzeentch then this becomes a problem IMO.


It's only a problem because you decide to let it bother you. Here's a suggestion: do what you enjoy doing and allow other people to enjoy what they enjoy doing.



> Now everyone says that I complain because I lose ... not so.


I can't comment since I've never played you or seen you play so I'll take your word for it.



> Once you find the weakness of the spam, in terms of better units against them, or their tactical flaws, they are actually pretty straightforward to beat.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're talking about list tailoring.



> But ... I have to change my army to play such opponents, I can't take chances with some marginal but fun units.


Yup. If you want to beat the best, you need to fine tune your play/list.



> I have to drop things like the 30pt Boon of Mutation power, which is incredibly fun but very unreliable. So because more and more opponents are spamming in their armies, in order to stand a chance, I often have to alter how my army is set-up.


So winning is important to you since if it wasn't you'd take whatever you wanted and would have fun regardless of result.



> Also how these armies tactically play out is always the same, because they are based on spamming the same units, so the whole army has the same strengths and weaknesses, so these games in general always play the same every time, with few real changes.


Sometimes this is true, but not always. Some lists are pretty flexible despite taking multiples of the same unit(s). For the record, I find games of the kind you're talking about a bit boring at times as well.



> No fun unexpected twists and turns because when you beat one unit, their is two more of the same. Whereas when my Seekers are wiped off the bored, they are gone, and I now rely on Blood Hounds, and IMO from a narrative side of things, this is actually really enjoyable. Whats more fun that killing a HQ in an epic showdown? But if there are two of them ala Daemon Princes or Heralds, wheres the fun in that?


That's right, yes. When your Seekers get wiped out and you're relying on your Flesh Hounds then you've just been crippled (to a point of course, Seekers are not the be all end all of the Daemon army, but you get my meaning. Your army has been noticeably weakened by the loss of the Seekers).

What's more fun than killing an HQ in an epic showdown? An intense (within reason), tactical, challenging game against an intelligent opponent and the sharing of drinks afterward.



> So other peoples choices end up limiting MY choices. That's why I keep pointing out that its a social hobby, what other people do, effects me, thats why I raise issues such as competitive vs casual, unit spamming etc.


Naw, you _choose to allow_ what other people do to limit _your choices_. You're perfectly capable of using whatever list you want with whichever units you want, you just don't because you want to win. There's no shame in this.



> Now maybe the answer is, now when to have super awesome competitive battles and more fun and casual battles.


I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.



> Most people though don't like one style or are unwilling to adjust when necessary and to some extent this even includes me.


Of course. Everyone has their own preferences and not everyone is willing to be flexible.



> But its still necessary and important to discuss all the major styles, attitudes and trends of how people are playing the game of 40k because it is a social hobby.


Of course, there's nothing wrong with discussion. I do have a problem with calling out people that prefer a different way of playing the game, though.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

So in short do what you want, and let others do as they will? My god don't let this info reach the rest of the form or it will somehow cause a forum destroying paradox!


----------



## Keith (Jul 26, 2010)

the-ad-man said:


> i always have more fun than the guy who playes a competative list.
> 
> Lots of people like to make this idiotic comment, but the hypocrisy of the last part of your post makes it pretty funny.
> 
> thats quite an assumption


Derp. 

You're probably right though, most competitive opponents probably aren't enjoying their game against you if it isn't a challenge. You should change your list/playstyle to make sure they have fun too...does that sound like a stupid idea?


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Keith said:


> Derp.
> 
> You're probably right though, most competitive opponents probably aren't enjoying their game against you if it isn't a challenge. You should change your list/playstyle to make sure they have fun too...does that sound like a stupid idea?


Ahahahahaha

Oh wow. Well said.


----------



## jfvz (Oct 23, 2010)

I use units because i like the look of them or the fluff behind them. I dont generally play that often and when i do its against friends who i havent seen for months. The last game i tried to make a semi competive list (1 lash sorc, 1 lash daemon prince, 2 vindicators 2 oblits, etc) cause i thought he had gotten a lot better and by the end of it i was hoping he would get lucky rolls to make the game closer, so next game i face him i will take a usual list of mine, and most likely have a hell of a lot more fun.

On the other hand i dont generally enjoy getting steamrolled so i will adapt my list to try and stop that. Through i have found that having fun is more dependent on who im vsing, not if i win or loose. I can get steamrolled and still enjoy it if im vsing an interesting/ good/ etc person, yet i wont have any fun if i win against a realy sulky/ agro/ etc person.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

I'm never really sure where I stand on spamming units... I normally don't like to see lists which have lots of obvious spam, but yet I think that quite a lot of my lists could be accused of doing exactly that... but normally its for different reasons.

I think that there are times when multiple copies of the same unit is spam... and times when it isn't (alternatively- my own self-justifications for spamming). 
Things like:
necrons (any unit with the necron rule needs repeats.. and with no equipment they are all the same).
fluffy armies (eg mono-god daemon lists, bike armies ect).
limited option units (if you have to take a unit, and there is only 1-2 decent ways to build it...)


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Spam pyrovores?


----------



## Hellados (Sep 16, 2009)

How about we start being specific;

Imperial Guard infantry has either flack armour for X points or a tank for 20 points more. . . .

We can take an elites choice of a commander or some Ogryns or one of if not the best tank in 40K the Lemun Russ! ! ! ! ! 

why on earth would i not horde up on a dozen tanks


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

Spam and style are different things- you can run a mech list without spamming. For example you could run a IG list with 1 type of chimera backed up by 1 type of Leman Russ... but that sounds so deathly boring when you could add heaps of variety with different Leman Russes, different chimeras (for vets/command with slightly different equipment and roles), sentinels of vaious types (outflanking units of autocannons, or supporting armoured sentinels with plasmacannons), valks, vendettas, hydras, manticores and basilisks... that's a huge number of different vehicles which can be mutually supporting with loads of redundancy while still providing variety and fun.

... playing overly spammed lists is just incredibly dull, I would much prefer to use, and face, an army which is possibly less effective, but which uses variety to make both sides think about what they need to do, where to move and what to try to kill. Though personally I actually find I am better when I don't spam- having the right tool for the job normally means I can kill the enemy more effectively...

Having said that I do find myself spamming some parts of my lists (especially with necrons/daemons, where I find I am forced down spam lines either because the army works that way or by making fluffy lists).
An example of a the sort of spam I find acceptible were my old space wolves (in their old dex):

I liked blood claws and although I tried using them in an LRC I eventually settled down to rhinos. I liked their powerfists but found power weapons almost totally useless, and I wasn't going to give melta/plasma guns to a BS3 assault unit, so in almost every game I played I took 3*10 blood claws with 2 powerfists and a flamer, in a rhino... but there my spamming ended, the rest of the list looked like:
Ven Dread- multimelta, drop pod
Grey hunters- plasmagun, TLLC razorback
scouts- meltagun, multimelta LS storm
Dreadnought- plasma cannon
Vindicator
whirlwind/multimelta tornado/ attack bikes
... so while a core part of my army was spammed, as a whole the list had massive variety and flexibility. Sure I could have just taken 5 rhinos of blood claws and would probably have done just as well, but I loved this army so much because of its flexibility and because battles were all slightly different... several years later its still my favourite army list (I got rid of my SW when they got their new rules, choosing weaker armies instead).


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

Tim/Steve said:


> Spam and style are different things- you can run a mech list without spamming. For example you could run a IG list with 1 type of chimera backed up by 1 type of Leman Russ... but that sounds so deathly boring when you could add heaps of variety with different Leman Russes, different chimeras (for vets/command with slightly different equipment and roles), sentinels of vaious types (outflanking units of autocannons, or supporting armoured sentinels with plasmacannons), valks, vendettas, hydras, manticores and basilisks... that's a huge number of different vehicles which can be mutually supporting with loads of redundancy while still providing variety and fun..


Looks like 90% of the lists I and many other IG'ers play, although I'll add Paltoon Blobs to your list of units...but then they get tagged as 'leafblower' and the negative vibes start up all over again...on the www anyway.


----------



## Hellados (Sep 16, 2009)

i will concede the point, some of the russ' are SOOOO funny 

heavy 20 and they kill one SM out of ten


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

Yeah, some of them are just gimmicks designed to enthuse people into buying tanks that they'll find don't work so well... I recon only 3 of the 7 Leman Russ are worth a damn: the LRBT, demolisher and executioner. The others might have roles to fulfill in specialised cases, but not in standard battles against all-comers.

@Hobo- yeah, I could have thrown in infantry platoons to give more emphasis... but I was trying to show how you could work with a style of list (in that case pure mech) without resorting to spam... at least when working with some of the newer armies.

I can only think of 1 spam army that I think is better then a mixed alternative: the razorspam SM/SW list... but even then I think it is better if you vary then weapons on the razorbacks and have different weapon set ups on the units inside (for wolves.. not a fat lot you can do with 5 marines). Then again I might be just about the only player in the world that commonly used a razorback with TL-heavy flamers... damn I loved that tank (hell, if you aren't going to slow down before reaching the enemy why give it anything else?).


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Tim/Steve said:


> Then again I might be just about the only player in the world that commonly used a razorback with TL-heavy flamers... damn I loved that tank (hell, if you aren't going to slow down before reaching the enemy why give it anything else?).


Nope, I use one. You're not alone!


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

> Tim/Steve said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, some of them are just gimmicks designed to enthuse people into buying tanks that they'll find don't work so well... I recon only 3 of the 7 Leman Russ are worth a damn: the LRBT, demolisher and executioner. The others might have roles to fulfill in specialised cases, but not in standard battles against all-comers.
> ...


----------



## Grins1878 (May 10, 2010)

So spamming is just using multiples of one unit? I'm still not clear on it.

I've played orks for two years (don't battle too often and I'm certainly no expert), and the only units I have a heap of are boyz and trukks, sometimes boyz in trukks.

I started collecting SW in Feb or so for a change, and I'm building an army up so I can basically drop pod half a battle company if grey hunters/blood claws, the rest being mounted in rhinos, or being sky claws. (Obviously AT and armour in there too...)

So if I had four trukks of boyz, or four drop pods of grey hunters would that be classed as spam?

To me is seems that some people would say yay, others nay. To me, it's the most fitting way of them attacking, and no one would send in 60 blood claws when grey hunters are better. That being said, grey hunters (and indeed boyz) are the standard troops, so surely there would be more of them on any battlefield?

Seems to me spamming for some is just using for others. Replace spam, spammed and spamming with use, used and using and you basically have the same sentence if you ask me. Sounds just a little like whining and some people being vastly defensive in response 

Don't get me wrong, our battles are always more story driven sometimes sending bosses to duke it out (except for Mephiston, he simply gets swamped with grots to tie him up...) or having one objective so there's always bottlenecks, defensive lines or some such  It's all about whatever makes the game for you. :drinks:


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Grins1878 said:


> So spamming is just using multiples of one unit? I'm still not clear on it.
> 
> I've played orks for two years (don't battle too often and I'm certainly no expert), and the only units I have a heap of are boyz and trukks, sometimes boyz in trukks.
> 
> ...


Spamming (usually) involves Elites and Heavy Support, and only in certain instances HQ, Fast Attack and Troops.

Spamming a unit has more to do with the competitive or 'meta' game mentality of the players spamming the unit.

For example, you mentioned that you would mass Ork Boyz in Trukks; firstly this has a certain amount of basis in fluff, but secondly, would you completely remove all your Trukks and Boyz if gretchin mobs become more 'points efficient' for capturing and holding objectives?

Spamming a unit has more to do with a complete disregard for the choices available to the player.

A better example for your Orks would be the Heavy Support slot. You can choose from a Battlewaggon, Def Dread, Killa Kans, Flash Gitz, Big Guns and Looted Waggon's. So 6 choices total.

So what spammers do in such a situation is work out the most 'points efficient' choice for performing a certain task, and the unit which they feel displays the maximum amount of competitiveness vs. the most opponents, and then proceed to immediately take 3 of that unit, ignoring the other 5 choices, even if some of those 5 choices can be 'competitive' aswell.

They justify this by saying that even if another of the 6 units is competitive, its not 'the most' competitive, so why bother taking it. What this means essentially is that each Slot whether it be Troops, Heavy Support, Elites etc is reduced to one single unit. So why bother having other units if players fail to use them?

There is nothing stopping a player massing Killa Kans, but why not take two squads of them and a group of Flash Gitz for variety? Competitive players minds don't work like that, they would simply see Killa Kans as the best and argue why bother with Flash Gitz at all, even if Flash Gitz could be useful in alot of situations. But that isn't good enough, for them it needs to be 'the most situations', otherwise why bother.

The result of this is masses of tabletop armies consisting of around 4-5 units, spammed. No variety, no colour, no fluff, no cool modelling, just the same few types of unit facing the same types of unit.

Its boring as heck and neglects the modelling and story based aspects of the hobby.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

This thread now suffers from a mild case of threadromancy.

Appropiate perhaps with Vampires being released not too long ago.


----------



## GeneralSturnn (Feb 20, 2011)

is having 400+ Orks in my Ork army spamming?

what about 400+ Guardsmen in my Guard army?


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Stephen_Newman said:


> This thread now suffers from a mild case of threadromancy.
> 
> Appropiate perhaps with Vampires being released not too long ago.


Not really. I don't consider 6 months out of line for a revive.

Otherwise we would have to constantly create (or rather recreate) threads over and over to talk about things.



GeneralSturnn said:


> is having 400+ Orks in my Ork army spamming?
> 
> what about 400+ Guardsmen in my Guard army?


Both are thematic and not exactly 'meta' or 'competitive' builds. Tricky to fight against, but not min maxed points wise. 

They are hordes, not spams. There is a subtle difference.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

See its not so threadromancy as casual thread grave digging.


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

yshabash said:


> If this is a tourney then no problem but otherwise having super competitive lists can leave your opponent annoyed and no-one will play you.


people on the forums love to say this all the time, but I have never had anyone say they will not play me because of my list and i've never had anyone leave the game upset with me even though I use lists from the net.

The worst was in the middle of the game people would get mad because of double lash but that's just because people don't like others touching their models, not because it's some uber spam list.

Question to the competitive gamers on this forum, have you ever had someone deny you a game because your list was too competitive? I never have. But maybe it's because I try to be amiable in the game. I also always remind my opponent of things they forget and help them out.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Eleven said:


> people on the forums love to say this all the time, but I have never had anyone say they will not play me because of my list and i've never had anyone leave the game upset with me even though I use lists from the net.
> 
> The worst was in the middle of the game people would get mad because of double lash but that's just because people don't like others touching their models, not because it's some uber spam list.
> 
> Question to the competitive gamers on this forum, have you ever had someone deny you a game because your list was too competitive? I never have. *But maybe it's because I try to be amiable in the game. I also always remind my opponent of things they forget and help them out.*


I don't really consider that last part to be the trait of a 'competitive' gamer to be honest.

If your helping people out and being amiable, your not exactly curb stomping their faces into the ground with your min/maxed uber army list are you?


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

D-A-C said:


> I don't really consider that last part to be the trait of a 'competitive' gamer to be honest.
> 
> If your helping people out and being amiable, your not exactly curb stomping their faces into the ground with your min/maxed uber army list are you?


Being a competitive gamer isn't about stomping people into the ground with a sick army and being an asshole. I'm so incredibly frustrated that this idea still exists on this site after spending literally the last year trying to change that opinion that I can't find words to describe it.

It's about _competing_. Playing your best against an equally skilled opponent, testing yourself, pushing your list tactical know how and skill to the limits to see just how far you can go. Competitive gamers get no satisfaction from winning games because their opponent isn't 100% clear on the rules or forgets to move a unit before he begins his shooting phase. We want to win because we deserve to.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Katie Drake said:


> Being a competitive gamer isn't about stomping people into the ground with a sick army and being an asshole. I'm so incredibly frustrated that this idea still exists on this site after spending literally the last year trying to change that opinion that I can't find words to describe it.
> 
> It's about _competing_. Playing your best against an equally skilled opponent, testing yourself, pushing your list tactical know how and skill to the limits to see just how far you can go. Competitive gamers get no satisfaction of winning games because their opponent isn't 100% clear on the rules or forgets to move a unit before he begins his shooting phase. We want to win because we deserve to.


Hear hear, I hate people that generalize blanket statements that don't even apply to the subgroup in question. Competitive gamer does not equal power gamer, and you have to wounder about the motivation behind people that make such claims.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

LukeValantine said:


> and you have to wounder about the motivation behind people that make such claims.


I don't attribute any motivation to it. I don't think there's any malice or intention behind it, it's just that people simply still don't get it (despite you, myself and others explaining the idea behind competitive gaming countless times). Oh well.


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

I don't spam, to be honest this is more because the cheapest stuff I can afford isn't worth spamming and the good stuff is expensive.
I still try and build the most competative list I can with the models available but if someone spams that's their choice and I'd never refuse to play because of someones army selection.
For me it's all about attitude during the game if you have a fluffy list but act like a dick when I kill stuff or try and cheat then I'll not play you again but the opposite stands you could have the hardest tournie list going and batter my army but if you make the game fun then I'll set up against you whenever possible.
The only thing that really annoys me is the internet cookie cutter lists that on occassion just take over for a while which makes every army repetative and boring to vs but provided the opponents not a tool I'll still play them.


----------



## Samules (Oct 13, 2010)

Katie Drake said:


> I don't attribute any motivation to it. I don't think there's any malice or intention behind it, it's just that people simply still don't get it (despite you, myself and others explaining the idea behind competitive gaming countless times). Oh well.



There's a difference between "competitive" and "power" to be sure. I have no prbolem with people who bring highly optomized lists to a competitive setting as long as it is made clear beforehand in friendly games. I have a problem with people who bring those lists to friendly games and don't mention that they are designed so they will curbstomp anyone who hasn't done the same.


----------



## pathwinder14 (Dec 27, 2006)

People spam units because they lack the creativity (and generalship) to overlap battlefield roles without spamming units. It's the idea of, "If one works, 2 should be better right?" 
Spamming Troops selections is ok...to a certain point. Six 5 man assault squads in razorbacks is SPAM. Two of that unit and tac squad and a unit of scouts is not. 
Spammed units all have the same strength...but they also all have the same weakness. I personally love fighting against a spammed army as it is easier to defeat (once the weakness is found). 
That's why I run Rainbow lists. I have overlapped battlefield roles without the weakness of spammed identical units. For example:

HQ - 1 Dante 
E - 3 Sanguinary Priest - Jump pack, Power Weapon 
T - 5 Sanguinary Guard - Chapter Banner, 1 Power Fist, 2 Infernus Pistols
T - 10 Assault Squad 2 Melta Guns, Sgt - Power Fist, Storm Shield
T - 10 Assault Squad 2 Melta Guns, Sgt - Power Fist, Storm Shield
HS - 1 Predator TLLC, Lascannon Sponsons, Extra Armor, Searchlight
HS - 1 Stormraven TLLC, TLMM, Extra Armor, Searchlight
HS - 10 Devastators 4 Missile Launchers, Razorback, TLLC, Extra armor

Two identical assault squads is the closest I come to spam. However I have overlapping battlefield roles. Melta, lascannons, and Missile Launchers are all anti tank. Close combat and Missile launchers take out units of troops. I also have differrent weaknesses. Some may be similar, but each of my units has subtle differences which require slightly different tactics to take down.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Katie Drake said:


> Being a competitive gamer isn't about stomping people into the ground with a sick army and being an asshole. I'm so incredibly frustrated that this idea still exists on this site after spending literally the last year trying to change that opinion that I can't find words to describe it.
> 
> It's about _competing_. Playing your best against an equally skilled opponent, testing yourself, pushing your list tactical know how and skill to the limits to see just how far you can go. Competitive gamers get no satisfaction from winning games because their opponent isn't 100% clear on the rules or forgets to move a unit before he begins his shooting phase. We want to win because we deserve to.


I suppose I see your point. I guess I was referring to WaaC (win at all costs) players. Those are the kinds of people I associate with bandwagoning onto the latest powerful army and just being all-round pr*cks to play against. I think I sometimes get the two types of player mixed up.

*Still, I think competition and 40k are not comfortable bed fellows.*

As has been mentioned by more knowledgeable people than myself, the actual rules, balancing and style of play of Warhammer does not lend itself well to high level competitive gaming, unlike some of the other tabletop hobbies.

So the problem I have with people such as yourself who want to compete, is that your essentially adding an alien element to the game.

Now, before someone tries to misquote me, I do understand the game is played against an opponent and is 'competitive' in that sense, but it was never meant to be 'only take this unit', 'that unit is x pts more expensive and not as versatile *so why ever take that unit?*' etc etc. 

40k *for me* has always been a modelling hobby which is played in a layed back setting. Sure people play their best against one an other, but they usually should be playing with what models and armies they think are cool, rather than trying to simply compete against another person. Banning the use of entire swathes of the codices because they are 'uncompetitive' isn't something I find particularly productive or enjoyable.

*As I have always said, competitive gaming is like an arms race. You take that, so I have to take this to counter it. You won't take a unit that has marginal effectiveness, I cannot experiment and take a unit with marginal effectiveness. Instead I have to respond to the competitive play style if I want to stand a chance. This is because, despite my 'casual' attitude it is never fun to see the units I've spent time making and painting get removed because they cannot deal with three units of Long Fangs hiding in cover, or the latest meched up spam army.

*Of course that's perhaps a sign that people with competitive, rather than casual attitudes should play others with the same mindset, and vice versa, but that takes away from some of the social aspect of the game IMO.

As a final thought, I'd say alot of this argument stems from the internet, where people tend to come across as prickish when they seek to post lists with 3 types of unit spammed in each organization slot and then ask 'Make this even more competitive!'.

I would say that in a real life game Katie and I would have no problem enjoying a game of 40k.


EDIT 



pathwinder14 said:


> People spam units because they lack the creativity (and generalship) to overlap battlefield roles without spamming units. It's the idea of, "If one works, 2 should be better right?"
> Spamming Troops selections is ok...to a certain point. Six 5 man assault squads in razorbacks is SPAM. Two of that unit and tac squad and a unit of scouts is not.
> Spammed units all have the same strength...but they also all have the same weakness. I personally love fighting against a spammed army as it is easier to defeat (once the weakness is found).
> That's why I run Rainbow lists. I have overlapped battlefield roles without the weakness of spammed identical units.


I agree with everything you say, but unfortunately, alot of the time in order to counter spam, I would be forced to spam.

You bring 6 Razorbacks and assorted vehicles? I can't really bring my Bloodcrushers, Bloodletters, Flamers, etc, Instead I have to max the units than can effectively deal with this such as 3 squads of Fiends, 5 man squads of horrors with Bolt, Daemon Princes with Bolt etc.

I am now forced to adjust my army, and have to rule out choices available to me in order to deal with the latest 'powerbuilds' that I am likely to see on the tabletop.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

D-A-C said:


> I suppose I see your point. I guess I was referring to WaaC (win at all costs) players. Those are the kinds of people I associate with bandwagoning onto the latest powerful army and just being all-round pr*cks to play against. I think I sometimes get the two types of player mixed up.


Lots of people do. It's sort of understandable because there are competitive gamers that are also WAAC so the line can easily become blurred.



> *Still, I think competition and 40k are not comfortable bed fellows.*


Yeah, this is absolutely true.

It took me a while to see it because I was too emotionally invested in the competitive aspect of the hobby but I've realized that myself and other competitive gamers are actually practically driving our heads into a brick wall and trying to force the game to do something that it isn't intended to do. This is why I haven't played a game of 40k since last April and why I moved to playing Starcraft 2, a game which rewards and encourages putting lots of time and effort into constantly improving oneself (which is something I love to do in all aspects of my life personally and professionally).

The reason that I still take exception to people that bash or are misinformed about competitive 40k players is that I still identify as one, even if I'm sort of "inactive" at the time. I still distinctly recall what it was like to be a sort of pariah among the community because of the way that I enjoyed the hobby and I don't want that for those competitive gamers that are still involved in it today.


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

I spam 1ksons does that count! With all the BA, GK, and crons around Ive been having a blast!



> This is why I haven't played a game of 40k since last April and why I moved to playing Starcraft 2, a game which rewards and encourages putting lots of time and effort into constantly improving oneself (which is something I love to do in all aspects of my life personally and professionally)


Hit masters yet? I plateau'd at top 20 diamond and havent moved in months. Sad panda.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Ravner298 said:


> Hit masters yet? I plateau'd at top 20 diamond and havent moved in months. Sad panda.


Naw, platinum. Had no previous RTS experience. The link in my sig is to an alt account.


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

Katie Drake said:


> Naw, platinum. Had no previous RTS experience. The link in my sig is to an alt account.


 
That's still really good for no RTS exp before that. I played the orig sc for years. I just can't step to most of the masters players. They must live eat and breathe SC.

A little note ontopic before I forget.

Leaving waac'rs out of this equasion, casual players don't enjoy playing competative players just as much as competative players don't enjoy playing casual players. That's why I always ask before a game what kind of list they brought or what kind of game they'd like to play. After a few times of doing this, I knew the guys at my club who were wanting a fun game, and the guys who wanted a punch each other in the face back and forth kind of game, and I had lists for both.

It is a social game afterall 

edit; im sitting here trying to think of a 'tournie' quality list that doesnt spam units. Someone help me out


----------



## mynameisgrax (Sep 25, 2009)

Spamming is sometimes unavoidable, depending on what army you're using.

With chaos daemons, you need 3 of the same heavy support choice (either all princes or all grinders) or else you're going to be in a lot of trouble. You also want a lot of pink horrors and heralds of tzeentch on chariots, to get as many bolts as possible.

I like mechanized Orks, but trukks just don't work well anymore. You need battlewagons with deffrollas and 20 boyz (either type) inside them, all within range of a KFF. That's the only mechanized strategy that seems to work anymore with Orks, at least in larger games.


----------



## mcmuffin (Mar 1, 2009)

pathwinder14 said:


> People spam units because they lack the creativity (and generalship) to overlap battlefield roles without spamming units. It's the idea of, "If one works, 2 should be better right?"
> Spamming Troops selections is ok...to a certain point. Six 5 man assault squads in razorbacks is SPAM. Two of that unit and tac squad and a unit of scouts is not.
> Spammed units all have the same strength...but they also all have the same weakness. I personally love fighting against a spammed army as it is easier to defeat (once the weakness is found).


This is just plain wrong. Units are spammed because they are the most effective choice in a certain slot. They fulfil a roll in the army better than any other unit, which is why they are taken. Space wolves: Long fangs are spammed because they are good value for their points and fulfil both anti-tank and anti-horde rolls in the army. Other units can do this, such as predators, but not at the same effectiveness as long fangs. Grey Hunters, they are spammed because well, they are probably the most versatile troop choice available in 40k right now. They are a durable, dangerous troops unit, which many armies lack. Razorbacks are spammed because they provide a mobile support platform.

Chaos: Obliterators provide a very versatile and durable heavy weapons platform, lash princes give huge tactical flexibility. 

Units are spammed because they are effective. Good generals use the most effective units, so spamming units does not necessitate that the player lacks creativity and generalship.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

mcmuffin said:


> This is just plain wrong. Units are spammed because they are the most effective choice in a certain slot. They fulfil a roll in the army better than any other unit, which is why they are taken. Space wolves: Long fangs are spammed because they are good value for their points and fulfil both anti-tank and anti-horde rolls in the army. Other units can do this, such as predators, but not at the same effectiveness as long fangs. Grey Hunters, they are spammed because well, they are probably the most versatile troop choice available in 40k right now. They are a durable, dangerous troops unit, which many armies lack. Razorbacks are spammed because they provide a mobile support platform.
> 
> Chaos: Obliterators provide a very versatile and durable heavy weapons platform, lash princes give huge tactical flexibility.
> 
> Units are spammed because they are effective. Good generals use the most effective units, so spamming units does not necessitate that the player lacks creativity and generalship.



I think your slightly misinterpreting what pathwinder14 is arguing.

Instead of using other completely viable units, (such as in your example of Predator over Long Fangs) they simply spam the most 'effective' unit.

That actually shows a lack of 'in-game' skill, as they are picking a Unit which will hopefully work by itself regardless of how it is used. Players are hoping Long Fangs = auto-wins, because they don't require specific tactical maneuvering due to their 'all-situations' abilities.

Also, your argument throughout is contradictory, you seem to be arguing that pathwinder14 and people like myself are wrong to accuse people of mindlessly spamming, and then go on to recommend spamming as Razorbacks are simply 'a mobile support platform'.

I'm sure that is tactically sound, but do people need to take 6 of them? Are there no other choices in the entire Blood Angels Codex which could fulfill the role of 'mobile support platform'? There clearly are, *but people lack the imagination, tactical guile or ability to make other units work in this role, so they mindlessly spam Razorbacks*.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing that Razorbacks aren't the cheapest, most cost-effective unit to perform the role, I am however suggesting there are plenty of other units in the codex which could still fulfill that role.

You'll no doubt hit back, "well why should a super-duper awesome general ever hamper himself by paying even a few points more for a unit when they can just take the cheaper one and spam it and be as strong?"

My counter to that is, why even bother writing extra units into the codex, why don't we just take all the units that are spammed in each of the various codices and make those the only choices available? ... Oh that's right, I forgot, its boring.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

D-A-C said:


> I'm sure that is tactically sound, but do people need to take 6 of them? Are there no other choices in the entire Blood Angels Codex which could fulfill the role of 'mobile support platform'? There clearly are, *but people lack the imagination, tactical guile or ability to make other units work in this role, so they mindlessly spam Razorbacks*.


Nope, this continues to be wrong no matter how many times it's said or who says it.

It has nothing to do with lack of imagination or mindlessness. There's an entire concept that you appear to be missing known as target oversaturation.

One way to have a really effective army in 40k is to have an army that's largely or even completely made up of a specific "type" of target. All infantry armies, all tank armies, all Terminator armies, armies with tons of Monstrous Creatures etc. While all infantry armies tend to fail in this edition due to the strength of vehicles and transports the concept remains. What you're trying to do is present so many targets of a specific type that you overwhelm your opponent's army's ability to effectively deal with your army. Using the most relevant example of a list with tons of vehicles the goal here is to present so many armored targets that the enemy simply can't hope to deal with them all in the 5-7 turns allowed in the game. The best way to do that is to take multiples of the same unit. Six Razorbacks prevents a veritable wall of AV11 hulls packing scary guns. To further stretch your opponent's anti-tank capabilities you may add in Predators, Dreadnoughts and so on.



> I'm not necessarily disagreeing that Razorbacks aren't the cheapest, most cost-effective unit to perform the role, I am however suggesting there are plenty of other units in the codex which could still fulfill that role.
> 
> You'll no doubt hit back, "well why should a super-duper awesome general ever hamper himself by paying even a few points more for a unit when they can just take the cheaper one and spam it and be as strong?"
> 
> My counter to that is, why even bother writing extra units into the codex, why don't we just take all the units that are spammed in each of the various codices and make those the only choices available? ... Oh that's right, I forgot, its boring.


Boring *to you*. Players all over the planet have Razorspam armies and enjoy the hobby just fine. Don't try to force your ideas of what's fun or interesting on other people choosing to do what they want with the models that they buy, assemble and convert. If you don't like Razorspam armies then don't build one and don't play against people that use them. This applies to any sort of "boring spam list" that irks you.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Katie Drake said:


> Nope, this continues to be wrong no matter how many times it's said or who says it.
> 
> It has nothing to do with lack of imagination or mindlessness. There's an entire concept that you appear to be missing known as target oversaturation.
> 
> One way to have a really effective army in 40k is to have an army that's largely or even completely made up of a specific "type" of target. All infantry armies, all tank armies, all Terminator armies, armies with tons of Monstrous Creatures etc..


Furioso Dreadnought, Death Company Dreadnought, Rhino, Land Raider, Land Raider Crusader, Land Raider Redeemer, Land Speeder, Baal Predator, Dreadnought, Stormraven, Predator, Vindicator, Whirlwind.

All examples of mech, yet Razorbacks are suddenly the only ones being used? I never remember Razorbacks getting spammed much about as little as 2 years ago, yet it is the go to list vehicle for alot of BA players these days. 

I completely understand the valid tactic of target saturation ... but why does there only have to be one unit capable of saturating the enemy?

You could saturate the enemy with Pods and other deep-striking units, Bikes or Land Speeders zipping up the flanks, Death Company in a Stormraven with a DC Dreadnought, Mephiston, x2 Razorbacks with small assault squads and another 1-2 Rhino's with Tactical Squads, and some Baal Predators to round it off etc etc, all rushing and overwhelming the opponent.

What you wiped out the Storrmaven with your Oblit fire? Guess whats deep-struck beside them, Sanguinary Guard or Terminators. Taken out both Razorbacks? Well the Rhino tactical squads have now deployed on the objectives behind cover with Land Speeder or Bikes supporting them etc etc.

The above was written quickly, so don't bother tactically picking it apart, but the point I was getting at is, *why not overwhelm your opponent with multiple supportive but different units, rather than one type of unit spammed?*




> Using the most relevant example of a list with tons of vehicles the goal here is to present so many armored targets that the enemy simply can't hope to deal with them all in the 5-7 turns allowed in the game. The best way to do that is to take multiples of the same unit. Six Razorbacks prevents a veritable wall of AV11 hulls packing scary guns. To further stretch your opponent's anti-tank capabilities you may add in Predators, Dreadnoughts and so on.


Great, now I have to spam Bolt of Tzeentch everywhere and anywhere in my Chaos Daemon army, oh and my Bloodcrushers? Too slow to catch any vehicle if my opponent is sensible, so never take those. Flamers? Drop in and breath, everyone is in tin cans? Great Unclean One? Too slow. Bloodletters? Charge what, everyone is in tin cans? Seekers and Flesh Hounds? More points effective ways of taking out transports called Fiends. Herald of Khorne or Skulltaker? Nope gotta take x4 Heralds of Tzeentch with Bolt to TRY and deal with some of the razorbacks. 

Hurray I've got an Army.

HQ

4 Heralds of Tzeentch

Elites

3x6 Fiends of Slaanesh

TROOPS

4x5 Pink Horrors w/Bolt

2x7 Plaguebearers to hold objectives

FAST ATTACK

No spare points, but even then ... are you kidding me?

HEAVY SUPPORT

3 Daemon Princes, MoT, Bolt, Gaze, Wings 



How interesting an army, I can really see the fluff for this Daemonic Host writing itself, with loads of interesting options and backgrounds, this is going to be so much fun. Oh and modelling? So many interesting choices of colour and model assembling techniques that I can really improve my skills ... might as well stick me on a factory type conveyor belt.



> Boring *to you*. Players all over the planet have Razorspam armies and enjoy the hobby just fine. Don't try to force your ideas of what's fun or interesting on other people choosing to do what they want with the models that they buy, assemble and convert. If you don't like Razorspam armies then don't build one and don't play against people that use them. This applies to any sort of "boring spam list" that irks you.


Yep, they do enjoy the hobby just fine, because they care about winning, and win they probably do.

I'm sure they sit and paint there sixth razorback and smile, not because they are enjoying painting and modelling, but because they are imagining the victories these models will win them.

Of course alot of people with spam don't even bother painting their models and just assemble them and base coat them, because of course, the next power spammable codex is just on the horizon.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

D-A-C said:


> Furioso Dreadnought, Death Company Dreadnought, Rhino, Land Raider, Land Raider Crusader, Land Raider Redeemer, Land Speeder, Baal Predator, Dreadnought, Stormraven, Predator, Vindicator, Whirlwind.
> 
> All examples of mech, yet Razorbacks are suddenly the only ones being used? I never remember Razorbacks getting spammed much about as little as 2 years ago, yet it is the go to list vehicle for alot of BA players these days.


A lot of those units are either extremely expensive or have limited practical application. Furiosos and Death Company Dreads are mech yes, but all they're good at is punching things. Whirlwinds are utter crap since nobody good takes infantry on foot anymore, Stormravens are super soft, Vindicators suffer from one gun syndrome, Land Raiders are absurdly expensive, Land Speeders are only barely vehicles considering they can be brought down with bolters.



> I completely understand the valid tactic of target saturation ... but why does there only have to be one unit capable of saturating the enemy?
> 
> The above was written quickly, so don't bother tactically picking it apart, but the point I was getting at is, *why not overwhelm your opponent with multiple supportive but different units, rather than one type of unit spammed?*


In this example it's because Razorbacks are super cheap and shooty and don't eat into Fast, Elite or Heavy slots. You simply cannot get such a cheap gun platform with any other unit in the Codex. It's not possible.



> Great, now I have to spam Bolt of Tzeentch everywhere and anywhere in my Chaos Daemon army, oh and my Bloodcrushers? Too slow to catch any vehicle if my opponent is sensible, so never take those. Flamers? Drop in and breath, everyone is in tin cans? Great Unclean One? Too slow. Bloodletters? Charge what, everyone is in tin cans? Seekers and Flesh Hounds? More points effective ways of taking out transports called Fiends. Herald of Khorne or Skulltaker? Nope gotta take x4 Heralds of Tzeentch with Bolt to TRY and deal with some of the razorbacks.
> 
> Hurray I've got an Army.
> 
> ...


Now you know why I say Daemons aren't competitive.





> How interesting an army, I can really see the fluff for this Daemonic Host writing itself, with loads of interesting options and backgrounds, this is going to be so much fun. Oh and modelling, so many interesting choices of colour and make I can really improve my skills ... might as well stick me on a factory type conveyor belt.


So don't play against competitive people. I've said this before, you continually ignore it.



> Yep, they do enjoy the hobby just fine, because they care about winning, and win they probably do.


Are we seriously going to go through this again?

On the last page of the thread I explained to you what competitive gamers enjoy and what we get out of the hobby and not even 12 hours later you're right back to the same thinking.



> I'm sure they sit and paint there sixth razorback and smile, not because they are enjoying painting and modelling, but because they are imagining the victories these models will win them.


This matters how? They're enjoying the hobby, what does the motive matter?



> Of course alot of people with spam don't even bother painting their models and just assemble them and base coat them, because of course, the next power spammable codex is just on the horizon.


Or because they simply find painting to be a chore and not a fun thing to engage in, just like there are people that love to paint but don't play the game or aren't interested in the fluff and so on.

Either way, I'm absolutely sick of repeating myself. You're clearly not actually taking in anything I'm saying in this thread or in any other thread that we've discussed stuff in. I'm not seeing any signs of increased understanding despite the fact that I've been explaining our viewpoint and preferences to you for probably about a year in various places on this site. It's clear to me that I'm not going to change your mind so I'll wish you good luck with your hobby.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

My god we gots our selves one of them big old argumentative style things going on in here.

(Gets out a bottle of brandy and watches)


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Katie Drake said:


> A lot of those units are either extremely expensive or have limited practical application. Furiosos and Death Company Dreads are mech yes, but all they're good at is punching things. Whirlwinds are utter crap since nobody good takes infantry on foot anymore, Stormravens are super soft, Vindicators suffer from one gun syndrome, Land Raiders are absurdly expensive, Land Speeders are only barely vehicles considering they can be brought down with bolters.


And you ignore me all the time.

Your right some of them aren't 'cost effective' but that won't tactically put you at a disadvantage if I also take units that aren't 'cost effective'. It will balance out and still create a competitive balanced game, except now with a more diverse grouping of units.





> In this example it's because Razorbacks are super cheap and shooty and don't eat into Fast, Elite or Heavy slots. You simply cannot get such a cheap gun platform with any other unit in the Codex. It's not possible.


Your right, but can't you spend even a few points extra? Sure some are extremely priced, but there are some other options available. As I said above, as long as I don't go 'meta points efficient' it won't ruin your army.




> Now you know why I say Daemons aren't competitive.


Great (should I choose to go) I'm not welcome at tournaments in the sense I'm being set up to fail. Games Workshops fault, but had competitive players not 'meta'ed the f*ck out of every army' it might be more open to other armies.




> So don't play against competitive people. I've said this before, you continually ignore it.


So I turn up at a local GW, see that everyone is playing competitive and go home and forget about socialising with anyone?

That option isn't forced on competitive players, because as I keep mentioning, you can compete with friendlier lists, it doesn't stop you playing the game.

Turning up with an ineffecient list in a 'curbstomping' situation does kind of force your hand, as other members of Heresy have spoken about.





> On the last page of the thread I explained to you what competitive gamers enjoy and what we get out of the hobby and not even 12 hours later you're right back to the same thinking.


And you then agreed 40k isn't designed to be particularly rewarding for competitive players.





> This matters how? They're enjoying the hobby, what does the motive matter?


Afraid it does, because they are adding 'over-competitiveness' to a hobby that isn't built to support competition fairly. It isn't a competitive game, why take it up if you want competition?




> Or because they simply find painting to be a chore and not a fun thing to engage in, just like there are people that love to paint but don't play the game or aren't interested in the fluff and so on.


Its a painting and modelling hobby first IMO, so good for them.

I rank the game as 

1. Painting modelling
2. Narrative story
3. Tabletop FUN in a social setting



> Either way, I'm absolutely sick of repeating myself. You're clearly not actually taking in anything I'm saying in this thread or in any other thread that we've discussed stuff in. I'm not seeing any signs of increased understanding despite the fact that I've been explaining our viewpoint and preferences to you for probably about a year in various places on this site. It's clear to me that I'm not going to change your mind so I'll wish you good luck with your hobby.


Katie, seriously, I'm really not trying to goad you. I thought I was having a conversation/discussion. Sure I'm dogmatic about my point and your dogmatic about yours, but at no point was I intent on 'converting you' to playing more casually, I was just responding to your points, as you were to mine.

Then other people can read both views and comment and join in the discussion.

Also, considering how previous discussions we've had turned out when I first joined heresy, this was practically a civilized tea party atmosphere.




Katie Drake said:


> It took me a while to see it because I was too emotionally invested in the competitive aspect of the hobby but I've realized that myself and other competitive gamers are actually practically driving our heads into a brick wall and trying to force the game to do something that it isn't intended to do. This is why I haven't played a game of 40k since last April and why I moved to playing Starcraft 2, a game which rewards and encourages putting lots of time and effort into constantly improving oneself (which is something I love to do in all aspects of my life personally and professionally)..


Its sad that you haven't played 40k in so long, but by your own admission, you and other competitive players are trying to put the square block in the triangle hole.

It breaks 40k when you powerlist. Both in terms of competitive fairness, as all codices are not created equal and in terms of the game was never designed to be punishingly competitive or intricate.

Sure there are rulebooks, tactics, objectives, but its more to put the models you've spent time assembling and painting into action rather than having them sitting on the shelf collecting dust, as well as then adding narratives and stories to the fluff that surrounds the game. 

That's the problem. Why are you playing 40k to compete? There are so many other avenues for competition, as you say, you play starcraft 2, I play Super Street Fighter 4 AE for competition, not 40k.


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

D-A-C said:


> I'm sure they sit and paint there sixth razorback and smile, not because they are enjoying painting and modelling, but because they are imagining the victories these models will win them.


I "spam" chimeras, leman russ', artillery tanks and infantry (the basic guardsman) in my army lists for the saturation effect Katie mentioned, It kind of annoys me that my nicely converted and painted infantry don't get out of their boxes, but I also like playing with lots of tanks. 

I consider myself to be a competitive gamer.

Now, here's some of my infantry...



















and here's some of my tanks...



















I enjoy painting and modelling, I've had a few people look at some of my models and assume they are forgeworld tanks or upgrade kits. I take an enormous amount of pride in this. I wouldn't go to a tournament unless my models are painted to *my* minimum standard (which is normally in excess of the tournaments minimum)

I also enjoy imagining the victories these models will win me. I use the what I consider to be an effective army, but because of my theme stay away from aircraft, psykers and vets. I play most of my games at tournaments because I live in the middle of nowhere, the closest gaming club is about 80+ miles away as is the "local" GW. I enjoy *competing* against people, not cubbing seals.



D-A-C said:


> Your right some of them aren't 'cost effective' but that won't tactically put you at a disadvantage if I also take units that aren't 'cost effective'. It will balance out and still create a competitive balanced game, except now with a more diverse grouping of units.


It only balances out if we all play the way you want to play. Do I have to ask your permission to use two of the same unit now?



D-A-C said:


> So I turn up at a local GW, see that everyone is playing competitive and go home and forget about socialising with anyone?


When I'm in GW Belfast 95% of my time is spent building and painting, you can still socialise while doing this.



D-A-C said:


> That option isn't forced on competitive players, because as I keep mentioning, you can compete with friendlier lists, it doesn't stop you playing the game.


Really? how often have we heard on this forum "I wouldn't play you if you brought..." If you had a group with an agreement to play non competitive lists and joe bloggs turned up with his golden deamon level painted army which just so happens to be a "leafblower" how many games is he gonna get exactly?



D-A-C said:


> Its a painting and modelling hobby first IMO, so good for them.
> 
> I rank the game as
> 
> ...


I'm sorry I can't find that in the rulebook or any codex I own. I rank the game as

1. A competitive (head to head) wargame which is semi competitive
2. A modelling hobby
3. A narrative story

who's correct me or you?



D-A-C said:


> That's the problem. Why are you playing 40k to compete? There are so many other avenues for competition, as you say, you play starcraft 2, I play Super Street Fighter 4 AE for competition, not 40k.


Why are you playing Super Street Fighter 4 AE to compete? E Honda is so obviously broken, Once a player picks him it breaks the game, why not limit it to just Vega, Dee Jay and Zangief. There are so many other avenues for competition, like 40k.

What it all comes down to for me is *attitude*. If the opponent is a nice guy (or gal) I don't really care what you bring, I'll play you again no problem. If you act like everyone else has to change the way we play or the armies we build and paint for your benefit then we probably won't play again.

But don't let me interrupt your pontifications, please continue to stereotype a group of people you obviously know nothing about, despite Katie's efforts (repeatedly) to try to help you understand our mindset.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

oh, this argument again. 

opcorn:

it seems to have popped up a few times over the past few months.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

btw great looking models.


----------



## mcmuffin (Mar 1, 2009)

Look D-A-C. If you don't like competition, that is fine, but you seem to be attempting to force the idea that competition in 40k (however unfair it may be) is a bad thing. I was a painter mainly, bringing a lovely fluffy list everywhere i went, and you know what, i got curbstomped. That was when i decided i wanted to play this competitively and started running a tournament worthy list. If you don't like getting beaten, optimise your list. If you don't want to do that, you have no justification to complain about competitive players.


----------



## pathwinder14 (Dec 27, 2006)

D-A-C said:


> I agree with everything you say, but unfortunately, alot of the time in order to counter spam, I would be forced to spam.
> 
> You bring 6 Razorbacks and assorted vehicles? I can't really bring my Bloodcrushers, Bloodletters, Flamers, etc, Instead I have to max the units than can effectively deal with this such as 3 squads of Fiends, 5 man squads of horrors with Bolt, Daemon Princes with Bolt etc.
> 
> I am now forced to adjust my army, and have to rule out choices available to me in order to deal with the latest 'powerbuilds' that I am likely to see on the tabletop.


Can't Daemons assault the turn they come in? Don't they DS in 2 waves? Is it not possible to assault those Razorbacks when you come in?


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

pathwinder14 said:


> Can't Daemons assault the turn they come in? Don't they DS in 2 waves? Is it not possible to assault those Razorbacks when you come in?


No they can't

Spamming works because if you find a unit which is good enough to put in your list once, then it's probably good enough to put in your list twice. Simple as that. It is a very competitive way to build a basic list. At the same time we see a lot of tournies won with odd ball lists. Spamming isn't necessary to win, it just makes it easier.


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

> Land Speeders are only barely vehicles considering they can be brought down with bolters.



Don't say that too loud or the dark eldar will hear you. They'll laugh, but in on the inside they're weeping.

No but seriously someone tell me a tournie list that doesnt spam carbon copies of the same unit. The more I think about it the more I feel this is a casual vs. competative question.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

The problem is that if you make a competitive list then you have a plan for how the army works. Every unit has a role, a function, in your army. If you lose that unit then your whole army suffers. 

If you build a list with this awareness then you plan to mitigate any possible weaknesses. The most reliable lists then end up with a number of identical and reliable units to manage different functions.

Logic.

If you don't like playing competitively then don't; but don't bitch about losing either. I can't take you seriously D-A-C, because you come across as quite irrational.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

What the word we are all looking for....oh yah redundancy. You see no one wants to by a car that will stop working if a single fuze stops working so you build in multiple redundancies so losing that one fuze won't cripple your car.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

LukeValantine said:


> What the word we are all looking for....oh yah redundancy. You see no one wants to by a car that will stop working if a single fuze stops working so you build in multiple redundancies so losing that one fuze won't cripple your car.


Oh shit. The similes have broken free. Watch out for runaway metaphors. 

:laugh:

That said, I do spam units and I am a competitive player. However, I do respect the hobbiests, I just don't like playing them because it is not the type of game I am looking for. 

It's like playing powergrid with a monopoly enthusiast. It just isn't fun.

DAC, I get your annoyance. You just need to find other people who play like you. They do exist.


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

Spam is like having an airport, while technically one runway is enough, for reliability and redundancy they often have multiple runways. 
Oh you said run*a*way metaphors... oops my bad. :grin:

All jokes aside if GW didn't want us to spam unit selections they could do what they used to do an put 0-1, 0-2, 1+ next to each unit. They didn't, so its obvious GW want to allow us to use our models how we see fit. 

GW set no arbitraty limits on what we can take bar the FOC and the points value agreed between players. If you want to play with, what for all intents and purposes, is comp then you can play that way but I'll choose to play the game as it was intended to be played.


----------



## Kale Hellas (Aug 26, 2009)

ItsPug said:


> All jokes aside if GW didn't want us to spam unit selections they could do what they used to do an put 0-1, 0-2, 1+ next to each unit. They didn't, so its obvious GW want to allow us to use our models how we see fit.


i think thats because those units models where expensive then games workshop removed it to make more money


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

Kale Hellas said:


> i think thats because those units models where expensive then games workshop removed it to make more money


Like how bikes, assault squads and every other fast attack choice were 0-1 for salamanders, none of which are very pricy. Or the old dark eldar could take 0-1 warp beast packs and hellions, or Necrons having 0-1 pariahs and 0-1 assassins in WH or DH.

Not everything is due to the price, whether you buy 1 assassin or two really isn't going to make much difference to GWs bottom line. Its people playing with more units (and having to buy the models to do so) that will.


----------



## stalarious (Aug 25, 2011)

Well for myself I only do it if your a poor sport and dont understand the difference between a fun game and a tournament game. 

Case and point I played a game between VC and lizardmen when I beat him then on our second game he pulled out all the cheese he could and wondered why he beat a all zombie army (I know I just wanted to try it for kicks)then to top it off he gloats saying he kicked my ass in a serious match. So after that I dont play fair agaiinst him I play to kick his ass.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

D-A-C said:


> Both are thematic and not exactly 'meta' or 'competitive' builds. Tricky to fight against, but not min maxed points wise.
> 
> They are hordes, not spams. There is a subtle difference.


Units are only spam when they are good and don't thematically "go" with the army (even though you could write fluff to explain any type of unit comp)?

:headbutt:



D-A-C said:


> I agree with everything you say, but unfortunately, alot of the time in order to counter spam, I would be forced to spam.
> 
> You bring 6 Razorbacks and assorted vehicles? I can't really bring my Bloodcrushers, Bloodletters, Flamers, etc, Instead I have to max the units than can effectively deal with this such as 3 squads of Fiends, 5 man squads of horrors with Bolt, Daemon Princes with Bolt etc.
> 
> *I am now forced to adjust my army, and have to rule out choices available to me in order to deal with the latest 'powerbuilds' that I am likely to see on the tabletop.*


So your logic is make everyone else change the way they play so I don't have to adjust my play style. :headbutt: :wacko:



D-A-C said:


> That option isn't forced on competitive players, because as I keep mentioning, you can compete with friendlier lists, it doesn't stop you playing the game.


So you want to compete but only on your terms. :suicide:



> Katie, seriously, I'm really not trying to goad you. I thought I was having a conversation/discussion. Sure I'm dogmatic about my point and your dogmatic about yours, but at no point was I intent on 'converting you' to playing more casually, I was just responding to your points, as you were to mine.
> 
> Then other people can read both views and comment and join in the discussion.
> 
> Also, considering how previous discussions we've had turned out when I first joined heresy, this was practically a civilized tea party atmosphere.


You aren't really having a discussion. You say something, people like Katie make statements that have been made a dozen time before refuting your point and you just continue on like they haven't made a point. :headbutt:



> Its sad that you haven't played 40k in so long, but by your own admission, you and other competitive players are trying to put the square block in the triangle hole.
> 
> It breaks 40k when you powerlist. Both in terms of competitive fairness, as all codices are not created equal and in terms of the game was never designed to be punishingly competitive or intricate.


Lets be real here, you can make ANYTHING competitive. Just because 40K isn't specifically geared towards competitive play doesn't mean it can't be played in a competitive fashion.

You can also play competitive games in a casual fashion. MTG has modes that the cards are not really built for (Emperor, Commander, two-headed giant) but they still work. Some combos and decks work better in these types of play then normal games.

And for your "the game was never designed to be intricate," I think older editions of the game (and all the current cries of the game becoming to "streamlined") prove you wrong on that.



> Sure there are rulebooks, tactics, objectives, but its more to put the models you've spent time assembling and painting into action rather than having them sitting on the shelf collecting dust, as well as then adding narratives and stories to the fluff that surrounds the game.


That's your opinion on how the game should be played. You really need to understand that not everyone shares your view, nor is your view the divinely sanctioned "correct" way to play the game. :headbutt:



> That's the problem. Why are you playing 40k to compete? There are so many other avenues for competition, as you say, you play starcraft 2, I play Super Street Fighter 4 AE for competition, not 40k.


I only play custom maps on Starcraft 2 as opposed to playing the "normal" multiplayer. Am I playing the game "wrong" because I'm not playing it in a competitive manner? Or are you allowed to play "competitive" games in a casual manner, but not a "casual" game in a competitive manner?

D-A-C, your logic on the whole competitive vs casual debate is awful. The fact is, the only thing that ruins a game like 40K is when players try to force their play-style on other players. That's all you ever seem to try and do with these threads, so please just stop.


----------



## Durandal (Sep 18, 2011)

I know katie doesnt play competitively anymore, and never really did, but I do, so let me fill you on.



D-A-C said:


> And you ignore me all the time.
> 
> Your right some of them aren't 'cost effective' but that won't tactically put you at a disadvantage if I also take units that aren't 'cost effective'. It will balance out and still create a competitive balanced game, except now with a more diverse grouping of units.


Heres the thing, I can take a goofy 'battleforce' army, a mixed bag list of good and bad and try to do well. Theres 2 issues though to this, the first is you are more susceptible to bad dice rolls. The 2nd is, you lose hard against somebody who did take a 'spam' army. I think that both of these combined mean that, you cant risk it if you plan on regularly doing well in tournament play, so those people routinely have optimized armies. 



> Your right, but can't you spend even a few points extra? Sure some are extremely priced, but there are some other options available. As I said above, as long as I don't go 'meta points efficient' it won't ruin your army.


Well, the 'meta' is determined by a group of players. If the majority of people in a game store want to play competitive optimized armies, thats their right, just as its your right to run battleforce lists. Something else I would try is, ask people if they can tone their lists down. I generally bring 2 armies to my game store, an optimized coteaz list and then either tyranids or dante, something average and goofy. So when my opponent doesnt have a very good list I can tone it back.



> Great (should I choose to go) I'm not welcome at tournaments in the sense I'm being set up to fail. Games Workshops fault, but had competitive players not 'meta'ed the f*ck out of every army' it might be more open to other armies.


Like I said earlier, if you want to compete, bring the best you can. You cant blame competitors for wanting the best chance at winning.



> So I turn up at a local GW, see that everyone is playing competitive and go home and forget about socialising with anyone?
> 
> That option isn't forced on competitive players, because as I keep mentioning, you can compete with friendlier lists, it doesn't stop you playing the game.


Well sure it can, a lot of locals simply wouldnt fight my grey knight or space wolves armies, because the power discrepancy is simply too big. Not only do they not want to autolose, but I enjoy competitive gaming.




> And you then agreed 40k isn't designed to be particularly rewarding for competitive players. Afraid it does, because they are adding 'over-competitiveness' to a hobby that isn't built to support competition fairly. It isn't a competitive game, why take it up if you want competition?


Because its fun, because I want to compete in the 40k system, and because I enjoy being able to push around painted models. A lot of people simply dont see why we would play 40k in the first place, would you stop playing if most people felt you shouldnt play at all? 



> Its a painting and modelling hobby first IMO, so good for them.
> I rank the game as
> 1. Painting modelling
> 2. Narrative story
> 3. Tabletop FUN in a social setting


Thats a cool ranking, but nobody cares, because its your ranking. I rank it as
1-Competitive problem solving
2-painting and modeling
3-narrative story doesnt really register for me

Thats just how I play, more fun for you if you prefer painting and modelling, but thats not my main thing.



> Katie, seriously, I'm really not trying to goad you. I thought I was having a conversation/discussion. Sure I'm dogmatic about my point and your dogmatic about yours, but at no point was I intent on 'converting you' to playing more casually, I was just responding to your points, as you were to mine.
> 
> Its sad that you haven't played 40k in so long, but by your own admission, you and other competitive players are trying to put the square block in the triangle hole.


Maybe those competitive players just arent having fun? When people quit having fun, they tend to try new things before giving up on an activity. So if 'push models around, roll dice, and have "fun"' is getting boring, which it did for me, you might try to play more competitively. If you still arent having fun, the game likely isnt for you.



> It breaks 40k when you powerlist. Both in terms of competitive fairness, as all codices are not created equal and in terms of the game was never designed to be punishingly competitive or intricate.


Its a game, its designed to do whatever you want it to. If I want to come up with a complex and detailed way to play monopoly, that makes use of real life finance and accounting, and my friends all agree its more fun, why cant I? It was never intended to be a realistic simulation of buying and selling real estate, but if the people I play with agree this is how we want to play, thats what will happen. Same with 40k, you might not enjoy razorback marines vs chimera guard games, and thats fine, but thats YOUR fun. I love those games, personally, because they are always close and cutthroat. 



> Sure there are rulebooks, tactics, objectives, but its more to put the models you've spent time assembling and painting into action rather than having them sitting on the shelf collecting dust, as well as then adding narratives and stories to the fluff that surrounds the game.
> 
> That's the problem. Why are you playing 40k to compete? There are so many other avenues for competition, as you say, you play starcraft 2, I play Super Street Fighter 4 AE for competition, not 40k.


I play 40k to compete because its all I need for competitive gaming. You know how much time I would have to put into starcraft 2 to become competitive? I already know how 40k works from when I was a kid and had the time to learn. Now that I am a man I wont bother investing near that much time into learning a new game. I dont go out of my way to browbeat scrubs into running competitive lists, why do you care what I run? 

I have posted here on and off for some time, and have noticed a couple of big themes to your posts DAC. They are as follows

1-A whiny sense of self entitlement. You frequently create threads/post about how others play the game. Why? When was the last time any of the competitive bloggers came to a forum and whined about all the footdar players in their area? Why do you care if 2 people want to run tough optimized armies against each other? Oh, thats not how the game 'should be played'. Well shit, if im putting hundreds of dollars into these models, I can paint them, or not paint them, however I want, and play them how I want. Dont like competitive gaming/armies? Dont play competitive players. I dont like people who feel they are entitled to wins regardless of list or effort, so I wont play you.

2-"Im smarter than you." Seriously, if running a mixed army of units was as effective as running an optimized spam list, it would be done more often. I think that your whole analysis here is wrong on a few counts. It and stems largely from just a flawed and poor understanding of how 40k actually works. Also I think you operate under the assumption that you know more than the people around you, and can understand their motives for doing what they do.



> I don't really consider that last part to be the trait of a 'competitive' gamer to be honest.
> 
> If your helping people out and being amiable, your not exactly curb stomping their faces into the ground with your min/maxed uber army list are you?


Ive been to 3 tournaments in the last 6 weekends, I have literally won half of my 2k mech greyknights from these 3 events. All but 1 of my games ended in at least near tablings, if not wipe outs. Ive gone to lunch with guys I have played, bought them beers, bought won of them a venom with some of my earnings. I let people take back bad moves after they realize it, and roll for things they forgot. I like to win, but more than that I like to compete. If someone forgets to roll for their 2 wolf scout squads before moving any units, I dont say to bad, I let them do it. Its about being a competitor, and competing against the best I can find. 

I agree, there are shitheads who like to stomp kids who are new to the games heads in for fun. I hate those people to, but you cant see past the army lists, and that shows a poor and superficial understanding of both the game and people.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

I think it might be interesting to apply something like the chess ranking system to 40k.

It could easily be adapted to take into account the strength of different codices based on actual tournament results.

Just a thought.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

darklove said:


> I think it might be interesting to apply something like the chess ranking system to 40k.
> 
> It could easily be adapted to take into account the strength of different codices based on actual tournament results.
> 
> Just a thought.


they have something like that for flames of war i believe. that's not a bad idea either. +rep.

me likes.


----------



## mcmuffin (Mar 1, 2009)

lokis222 said:


> they have something like that for flames of war i believe. that's not a bad idea either. +rep.
> 
> me likes.


Well, there is  Rankings HQ  which caters for 40k FoW and WFB based on tournament results

Or, in ireland, they are trialling the  Glicko Ranking System  but that is invisible to players who are not Team captains for the ETC or other events. These rankings are based on individual results in a tournament and scores are based on the ranking of the other player.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

mcmuffin said:


> Well, there is  Rankings HQ  which caters for 40k FoW and WFB based on tournament results
> 
> Or, in ireland, they are trialling the  Glicko Ranking System  but that is invisible to players who are not Team captains for the ETC or other events. These rankings are based on individual results in a tournament and scores are based on the ranking of the other player.



funny, that first one looks exactly the same as the flames of war one. i am in fredericton, canada and while i have a bunch of good guys to play against, i don't think that there is actually 40 of us playing.  

cheers though.


----------

