Redundancy is Key...?

[DrBored]

Most of my experience comes from running Chaos Marines, and these days if you want to win with CSM, redundancy is key. Multiple units of Obliterators, multiple Daemon Princes, multiple squads of Plague Marines... and little else.

My question is how well this relates to other armies? I know it's impossible to be redundant with named characters or certain 0-1 squads, or certain things just because their points are so prohibitive.

But considering the new release of the Dark Eldar, and how many viable Elite choices there are... is it still a good idea to be redundant?

Keep in mind that the benefits of redundancy mainly exist in 'target saturation'. In other words, your opponent's precious Land Raiders are threatened by melta guns, and if you have 3 melta squads, you'll have a much higher chance of disabling them than if you only had one melta squad, one flamer squad, and one plasma squad. That's just a small, general example. The reverse of that is that if your opponent is threatened by melta, he wants to kill all the melta on the field, and if you only have one melta squad, this is easily done.

But here with the Dark Eldar, there are a couple of juicy choices. Grotesques, Incubi, Bloodbrides.. To take one of each of these is surely to invite disaster, but to take all three of something tends to eat up a lot of points and means that the rest of your army has to fill out in other areas!

So, redundancy... are we still going to be seeing it, or are people finding chances to have lots of original squads? How about you, with your personal army? Do you go for redundancy or do you like to mix things up?

[BuFFo]

Most of my experience comes from running Chaos Marines, and these days if you want to win with CSM, redundancy is key. Multiple units of Obliterators, multiple Daemon Princes, multiple squads of Plague Marines... and little else.

What you see as redundancy as neccesity to win, the truth sees this as a poorly thought out codex, with very few choices that are cost effecient.

If the other entries in your book were worth taking, you wouldn't have to spam the same units over and over again.

Take the new Dark Eldar codex for instance. Literally, every single unit in the codex is worth taking.


My question is how well this relates to other armies? I know it's impossible to be redundant with named characters or certain 0-1 squads, or certain things just because their points are so prohibitive.

Spamming units comes down t one thing; power. If one troop choice is obviously better than the other 3, then most players will just spam that one unit. If you have 4 balanced units, then players can make armies based on various combination.

Now, if you don't care about being a WAAC player all the time, and just want to have actual fun, yes, you can field Berserkers and Tzeentch and still win against other fun armies.


But considering the new release of the Dark Eldar, and how many viable Elite choices there are... is it still a good idea to be redundant?

Every single Elite choice is viable, with one or two exceptions. Mandrakes are pretty okay, but they Infiltrate, hence they Outflank, which in itself is a powerful ability. Harlequins, I feel, shouldn't have been in the book at all, so I forget they even exist.


Keep in mind that the benefits of redundancy mainly exist in 'target saturation'. In other words, your opponent's precious Land Raiders are threatened by melta guns, and if you have 3 melta squads, you'll have a much higher chance of disabling them than if you only had one melta squad, one flamer squad, and one plasma squad. That's just a small, general example. The reverse of that is that if your opponent is threatened by melta, he wants to kill all the melta on the field, and if you only have one melta squad, this is easily done.

Yes, the benefits of spam is that you can spam. If you want to field all meltas, then face a Tyranid/Ork/Dark Eldar opponent, then egg is on your face, lol. With spam comes the chance of just getting your paper cut in half by your opponent's scissor.


But here with the Dark Eldar, there are a couple of juicy choices. Grotesques, Incubi, Bloodbrides.. To take one of each of these is surely to invite disaster, but to take all three of something tends to eat up a lot of points and means that the rest of your army has to fill out in other areas!

Invite disaster? Are you trying to write a cheap novel here? lol

Actually, if you take a BALANCED force, you invite LESS disaster, than if you only took incubi, and happen to then face an Ork Opponent.


So, redundancy... are we still going to be seeing it, or are people finding chances to have lots of original squads? How about you, with your personal army? Do you go for redundancy or do you like to mix things up?

One new codex isn't going to change the minds of 1) WAAC gamers and 2) the simple minded internet net listers.

[Tynskel]

When I play space marines/blood angels, I only double up on on thing, if I decide to take them at all. And that's the Predator. Everything else, I arm differently. If I take multiple tactical squads, they will have different transports and different equipment.

I have much more fun. Plus, I generally confuse my opponent, because they do not know how my army fights together.

[DrBored]

@BuFFo: Good points all. I'm still learning the ropes, and having learned the ropes form the Chaos Codex has handicapped me in certain ways. Instead of being rewarded for trying new things and army builds, or even fluff builds, the Chaos Codex has punished me for doing these things, smacking me back down. There's a team-tourney on the 13th at my flgs where I'll be running the Chaos version of Cheese and then I'll set the CSM Codex aside for Dark Eldar.

So, that said, a lot of these things, where different Elites are actually effective, and how the DE actually HAVE a Fast Attack section.. this is all very new to me, and my first thought is to spam Plague Marines xP

No, I'd rather make a varied list that has a lot of flavor and looks good on the field, and will also perform in a fun and a competitive setting. My competitive meta isn't that hardcore. One of my buddies has consistently placed 2nd in two tournaments in a row using a Terminator Space Wolf list with two Land Raiders. That's less than 30 models on the table for near 2000 point games! I believe that Dark Eldar will be able to do something similar, shunning the WAAC and net-lists for favor of flavor and personal preference, and what's more is that I have a feeling that, unlike how many armies that have been updated have been vying for power, that Dark Eldar will always be able to sneak in and hit hard because of how very different of a codex they are.

Yeah they may not change the way people play because few people will still play them, but because of that they will be contenders. While everyone else is kitting their lists out to deal with IG and Space Marine builds, the Dark Eldar will do what they do best...

Crap, I've caught myself ranting again.

[BuFFo]

@BuFFo: Good points all. I'm still learning the ropes, and having learned the ropes form the Chaos Codex has handicapped me in certain ways. Instead of being rewarded for trying new things and army builds, or even fluff builds, the Chaos Codex has punished me for doing these things, smacking me back down.

You know, my friend, who is a Chaos player, went into a rant today about how sh!tty and boring his codex is. he is sick and tired of either being accused of a power gamer for fielding useful units, or trying to field crappy units like Chosen or Berserkers, and getting tabled.

Some codices are just piles of crap.


So, that said, a lot of these things, where different Elites are actually effective, and how the DE actually HAVE a Fast Attack section.. this is all very new to me, and my first thought is to spam Plague Marines xP

Here is the illusion... The entire Dark Eldar codex IS a Fast Attack section! Has been for 12 years, and I am glad GW kept it this way :) Almost every unit entry has a way of moving 24" in the movement phase.


Yeah they may not change the way people play because few people will still play them, but because of that they will be contenders. While everyone else is kitting their lists out to deal with IG and Space Marine builds, the Dark Eldar will do what they do best...

Dark Eldar will change the meta because the meta is full of 1) MEQ and 2) Mech, and these are the two aspects of 40k that the Dark Eldar are designed to beat. So while many people may not play Dark Eldar, they have to watch out now for them!

[DrBored]

You know, my friend, who is a Chaos player, went into a rant today about how sh!tty and boring his codex is. he is sick and tired of either being accused of a power gamer for fielding useful units, or trying to field crappy units like Chosen or Berserkers, and getting tabled.

Some codices are just piles of crap.

It's sad but true, and it's taken me 2 years, since 5th edition started up, for me to understand this. Now I have over 5000 points of Chaos Marines that I'm just going to set aside until they become good again.



Dark Eldar will change the meta because the meta is full of 1) MEQ and 2) Mech, and these are the two aspects of 40k that the Dark Eldar are designed to beat. So while many people may not play Dark Eldar, they have to watch out now for them!

Right, which is going to be interesting to see. Either people will keep doing what they're doing and be unprepared for the Dark Eldar, or they'll try to make new styles of 'all comers' lists that will be less effective against MEQ or GEQ armies, and therefore less effective against DE armies as well.

Or it's all a load of baloney and the GK or Necron Codex will just knock it all over :P

[DarkLink]

Redundancy is vital insomuch as you don't want to have your only anti-tank unit capable of killing a Land Raider get taken out turn one.

However, that doesn't mean that you have to spam stuff to fulfill that anti-land raider capacity.

For example, you may need some anti tank, and some close combat stuff. You could take 3x10 Grey Hunters with dual melta in drop pods. Or, you could take a unit of Long Fangs, a Dread, and a Wolf Guard unit to meet those needs. Both their abilities overlap so that you have a good amount of AT and CC, but one set of options is a bit more interesting than the other.


As Buffo said, some codices just don't have enough different options to give you much flexibility here. A new Dark Eldar army can have a crazy variety of units, and still be very capable in all areas. A CSM army, though, is going to be much more limited.

[ElCheezus]

I think DarkLink touches on what Buffo misses: Redundancy does not equal spam.

I play IG, so I honestly have a lot of spam going on. Wether it be a CCS or a PCS or Vets, they're pretty much all "dudes in Chimeras with special weapons" to an opponent. However, my anti heavy-tank takes the form of one CCS with Meltas, two Vendettas, and if necessary, a Leman Russ Demolisher (which works fine against all targets, really). That's redudant, yet not spammed.

Redudancy is multiple ways to accomlpish something, not multiple of the same unit that accomlishes something. Having a codex with felixible units that don't lose potency helps you stick toward the former instead of the latter.

[weeble1000]

Yea, Imperial Guard can invite a lot of what looks like spam. I run an infantry heavy list with 9 infantry squads packing a smattering of meltas and flamers. I also run four autocannons. But outside of the infantry squads, the army is more redundant than spam, like ElCheezus. For AT I've got a melta vet squad, a demolisher, and a vendetta. I also run a second vet squad, leman russ chassis, and valk chassis, but those units are kitted out to serve different roles than the others.

But I don't think simply having several of the same exact unit makes a spam list. For me, spamming is more about taking a seemingly powerful and effective unit over and over because it is perceived to be more powerful than other unit choices and building a list around that concept. The four autocannons I run in my list are packed into four basic infantry squads, making 4 units that are exactly the same. One could certainly argue that this amounts to spamming autocannons, but I think that in the overall context of my list, this is a perfectly reasonable kind of repetition. I like the look of my infantry squads being set up with the same heavy weapon and I think it would look odd and play weird if those units were armed with an autocannon, a lascannon, a heavy bolter, and a missile launcher, just for the sake of making the units "unique." My list also isn't designed around a spam concept, which I think is a big part of spamming units.

If your army list can be carved up into two or three identical mini-lists, then I think you've entered spam territory. But if you like tac squads with missile launchers, or plague marines, or trukk bayz, I don't think there's inherently anything wrong or cheesy with taking a few units that are exactly the same.

[DarkLink]

Well, spam is defined as taking a whole bunch of the same thing. You can spam bad units, just for fun. And spam isn't a bad thing, as much as some people badmouth it. Some people just don't like playing against what they think are boring lists, and some people feel spam is boring. Their prerogative.

[BuFFo]

I don't know why you gusy try to make yourselves feel better about spamming. Redundancy IS spam, regardless of what BoLs authors have tried to convince you in the past.

So spam is just massing the same thing over and over? And Redundancy is massing something that does the same job?

Wjhat is the difference between these, then?

4 Lascannon Units all the same

and

1 Lascannon Unit with 5 models
1 Lascannon unit with 4 models
1 Lascannon Unit with 5 models in a Chimera
1 Lascannon unit with 4 models in a Chimera

Nothing! It is all spam.

You guys sound like my Chaos Marine friend who claims not to spam, but he takes a Demon Prince with Lash, and Sorcerer with Lash, Plague Marines with Powerfists, Plague Marines without Fists, 3 Oblits and 2 Oblits.

Or my other friend who takes 20 Ork boyz, and 25 Ork Boyz and 15 Ork Boyz. Still spam.

Call it what you want, you are still spamming SOMETHING. You may not be physically spamming a certain unit, but you are still spamming an idea, such as anti-tank.

So yeah, you guys are just deluding yourselves into thinking you aren't spamming. You are. Just not units.

:eek:

- edit -

For the record, I find nothing wrong at all with spam. I just call it what it is.

[gcsmith]

on that basis its impossible to not spam buffo as any army will have more than 2 units.

[DarkLink]

Well, spam is redundancy, but only using a limited selection of units. Redundancy is a little more broad, in which you have multiple unit fulfilling certain capacities in your army.

If those multiple units are identical (or near identical like what you mentioned Buffo), then it's spam. If you have very different units, however, then you can have redundancy without spam. Of course, due to the limited number of unit choices in even the more flexible codices, it's tough to be redundant without spamming.

[Tynskel]

I do have to admit--- spamming is almost like crossing a fine line

Do you consider someone who is using 60 hormagaunts spamming? Maybe--- what if they also have a bunch of termagants? Now they look like they are just following the fluff of Tyranid Swarms.

However, it is pretty easy to see spam.... 3 squads of Zoans... multiple squads of Long Fangs with Missiles. Multiple minimum sized greyhunters/BA assault squads with razorbacks. That's spam!

Redundancy is a different idea that spam: Units that can perform the function of other units is redundant. Note, that spam can do this, and subtle commanders can make this happen with variety.

[gcsmith]

In the end though, i see no problem with spam. especially in nid army when zoans seem to be the only option worth taking in most peoples opinion.
Spam just allows you to eliminate the force easier in some cases as they only have one type of unit, so you can focus the units they cant kill towards them.

[Daemonette666]

Most of my experience comes from running Chaos Marines, and these days if you want to win with CSM, redundancy is key. Multiple units of Obliterators, multiple Daemon Princes, multiple squads of Plague Marines... and little else.

My question is how well this relates to other armies? I know it's impossible to be redundant with named characters or certain 0-1 squads, or certain things just because their points are so prohibitive.

But considering the new release of the Dark Eldar, and how many viable Elite choices there are... is it still a good idea to be redundant?

Keep in mind that the benefits of redundancy mainly exist in 'target saturation'. In other words, your opponent's precious Land Raiders are threatened by melta guns, and if you have 3 melta squads, you'll have a much higher chance of disabling them than if you only had one melta squad, one flamer squad, and one plasma squad. That's just a small, general example. The reverse of that is that if your opponent is threatened by melta, he wants to kill all the melta on the field, and if you only have one melta squad, this is easily done.

But here with the Dark Eldar, there are a couple of juicy choices. Grotesques, Incubi, Bloodbrides.. To take one of each of these is surely to invite disaster, but to take all three of something tends to eat up a lot of points and means that the rest of your army has to fill out in other areas!

So, redundancy... are we still going to be seeing it, or are people finding chances to have lots of original squads? How about you, with your personal army? Do you go for redundancy or do you like to mix things up?
I only take multiple of a certain type of units in games of 1500 points or more.

I generally take 2 noise maruine squads (but avoid the Blast masters which should have a reduced price.) I also take multiple units of standard Chaos Marines. (painted up as Iron Warriors) with icons of chaos glory. These standard chaos marines squads are built to fulfill different roles, so the army if more flexible.

An example of a 1999 point army I like to take is: Kharn and a 9 Berserkes -r squad champ has power weap, melta bombs. Mount these in a possessed landraider with havoc launcher. A Defilerwith 2 x Combat arms, a squad of 10 noise marines - 9 have sonic blaster, champ has- Doom Siren, power weapand melta bombs. I mount these in a rhino - havoc launch. A squad of 5 plague Marine with a melta gun, 2 squads of 10 Iron warriors with icon unaligned, lascannon in each unit, champions got power weap and melta bombs. one unit has melta gun,the other a flamer,A daemon pince with- lash and wings, and finally a unit of 2 obliterators.

Standard Chaos Marines are the only double up unit in this army. I generally perform well with this army, as I use tactics, terrain, and work out my plans to achieve the mission, not just to kill off all the enemy. Guaranteed I have not played this army against some gamers out there who have better armies, and killer tactics, and the luck of the dice gods.

But the army is well balanced for a Chaos Space Marine Army. Yes only one Daemon Prince, and one unit of Obliterators. The 4 troop Choices helps me claim objectives more, and the 2 transports may not be enough in some games, but I find it generally balanced, and I can make a decent FLEXIBLE plan that I can alter on the move to achieve my mission.

I find redundancy is over played by some gamers. I had a game against a BA army with Mephison, teamed up with a chaplain (jump jets), a tactical squad that survived the game, a scout unit that also survived the game, a Vindicator, a Dreadnought (multi Melta) mounted in a drop pod, Sanguinaire, with a sanguinary priest( Jump Jets), and 3 squads of Sanguinary Guard one set with 2 flamers, one with 2 inferno pistols, and the last with a flamer and an inferno pistol.

I used the army listed above. The game was capture the hq's with standard setup. By the second turn I thought I was in deep Sh*t, and my opponent was rolling his saves very well. I.E. he has 1 power weapon wound, and 13 armour saves to make on the turn my berserkers charged sanguinius's squad. He made 11 of the saves, then passed the 2 feel no pains rolls, and then passed the invul save on sanguinous. I lost 3 inluding one Kharn killed.

However, the use of tactics, and prioritising his most deadliest units for elimination, and moving my units about to contest his HQ, while eliminating all his units near my HQ worked. I ended up with an intact squad of Iron Warriors, a lone plague marine with melta gun, andall 10 noise marines and their rhino tpt while he had his scouts and tactical squad left on his side of the table. A good 7 turn game, but he did not protect his HQ very well, and tried to kill my defending forces with most of his troops.

Flexability is the key to good tactical and fun gaming, not redundancy and power unit army building.

Since you play Chaos, how about trying my army out for size. The Noise marines can shoot from their rhino with a sonic blaster and the doom siren. The Daemon prince is good for pulling enemy out of defensive terrain, and the Berserkers with kharn in the landraider are great for assaulting those still dug in cover. The Obliterators, well - good fire support as you know, and the iron warriors great for holding those objectives near my deployment area. The defiler is great a anannoyance to my opponents, as it can be used for both close combat and artillery. The Plague Marines were just an option I took. Sometimes I swap them out for summoned lesser daemons, another noise marine unit, or a squad of thousand sons, depending on who I am going against.

Maybe I can convert your army building and playing style from power elite shoch units to using a more flexible balanced style?

[weeble1000]

However, it is pretty easy to see spam.... 3 squads of Zoans... multiple squads of Long Fangs with Missiles. Multiple minimum sized greyhunters/BA assault squads with razorbacks. That's spam!

That's the point I was driving at, Tynskel. If you're discussing spam in the context of it being a cheesy or boring list-building method, I think there's an obvious point at which something is on the spam side of the line. Where the line is can be something of a grey area, but I think certain builds, like those you mentioned, are the kinds of things that obviously fall into the spam category, if you're considering the context.

Now, whether or not spamming is cheesy or boring is, I think, a different question. I personally think that the question is ultimately irrelevant because answering it draws on such a wide range of personal opinions about the game and the hobby that there can be nothing like a "right" answer. It's one of those things that opinionated people will debate ad nauseam without coming to any kind of consensus. The only "right" answer, in my opinion, is to build a list that you personally enjoy playing and to keep in mind the people that you are playing with and the context in which you are playing. But that's always the easiest answer, isn't it?

[Lupercal]

I like the opposite of redundancy: every unit different. It adds an element of uncertainty as the opponent tries to figure out his target priority. I find it to be especially effective when used with elite armies of multiple small units. Seems like I always have an extra trick up my sleeve regardless of what the opponent manages to inflict. I may not win (though I often do), but I will have a lot of fun!

Of course, I usually don't play with WAAC players because I want to enjoy the game. Still, I think it can be a very effective strategy.

[Tynskel]

You can be redundant and have differently equipped units.

Ex: Predator Annihilator with Lascannon Sponsons
Blood Angels Assault Squad with Meltaguns.
Sangiunary Guard with Infernus Pistols
Reclusiarch With Infernus Pistol and Jump Pack.

This is redundant, and not repeating the same unit over and over.

[DarkLink]

Right, every unit being different is the opposite of spam, not redundancy. Spam is redundancy, but redundancy is not necessarily spam.

[Bean]

Of course, complaining about either spam or redundancy in an opponent's list is always bad sportsmanship, so it hardly matters where the distinction between the two lies.

[Tynskel]

Of course, complaining about either spam or redundancy in an opponent's list is always bad sportsmanship, so it hardly matters where the distinction between the two lies.

That's why we complain online here!