A desperate plea, caution may contain new thoughts

[Tortuga932]

I have noticed a very interesting trend in army list construction that is in my opinion becoming more and more alarming. Anybody want to take a guess, go ahead I'll wait...



Spam Spam Spam

I'm not sure why everybody feels the need to copy and paste units in their army lists. In fact if you look at the army lists on this site how many don't copy a unit exactly? not many i'd bet

think about it yourselves when's the last time you played a game against someone who didn't have cloned valkryie squads, or grey hunter squads or units in rhino's copied, or 2 exact units of blood crushers, or how many eldar lists have you seen where they have multiple war walker squads all kitted out the same, or even avenger units in wave serpents with the same load out., or how many marine armies run 2 dreadnaughts in the exact same way. I mean the list goes on and on. Or on the same note when's the last time your army didn't do that?

Now there's nothing wrong with doing this. it is all perfectly legal and such. but ask yourself one very important question

Is it fun?

do you like seeing units in someones army copied, like they fought against the dreaded xerox legion?

Personally i find it rather boring. there are tons of units in a codex and I don't mean any offense to anybody who does it, but I think it's a lack of tactical thought and flexibility. All those units in the books all do different things, usually fun and interesting things. I do understand the people who bring 8 units of beserkers all 8 man strong, theme and fluff selections are not what I'm getting at here but armies that people try to do well with at tournaments.

But why is everybody picking 2 units that are very obvious in how they work and copying them? Do they not want to exercise any thought in their games or do they want to just play a super simple game. Especially with the way new codex's are designed, there are so many ways you can go with some of the books and I just don't see people using it.

This is a serious question I don't mean to offend I'm just trying to understand why people are doing this. as the trend seems to be increasing more and more.

I mean after all all those units that people say suck, do have uses in them. Those units that people don't expect can do filthy things to people.

Think, and I mean really think about diversity in your armies, it gives you tactical flexiblity to deal with a wide range of missions and objectives, and also a wide range of armies and people with different schools of thought on the game. After all dust off those "terrible units" you know the ones I mean. the ones that people on the internet say are terrible.

Units like daemonettes, possessed, chaos dreadnaughts, vanguard, master of the forge, scorpions with biting blades, flash gitz, rough riders, guardsmen actually on foot, kroot, vespid, or even the daemonhunter list (on its own) or even failing that how about a marine squad with a different special weapon, I mean do they really all have to be identical?

This is my challenge to you try out some armies, not just a game or two, I mean really try out some new builds without copying a single unit. you'll be surprised how awesome that new thing you're trying out can really be. After all variety is the spice of life.

[MasterKnives]

It's not really a new phenomenon, spam is going to be somewhat common simply because this is a tactical miniatures games. A redundant unit is incredibly important tactically, you don't want to have completely diverse units simply because the unexpected (or expected) death of one means your army loses something needed for the remainder of the game. It is the same concept in chess, almost every piece has a redundant backup. Or in a real war-time scenario, there is a lot of redundancy by necessity.

Diversity is nice, and should be a part of any list, but so too must redundancy. My army's will often use two troop squads of the same load-out, and a third with a different set up, simply because you can afford one unique unit if your staple units have a "backup."

So that answers the why aspect, backup units are important, tactically, much like with data storage the key is "backup, backup backup".

Is it fun?

Yes, it is... in moderation. Playing the exact same list over and over again in many different games will inevitably become boring. That is why playing different lists is key, that's where the variety comes in.

If you play a list with no backup units and you end up against a heavy tank list (IG or Master of the Force dreadnaught marines or what have you) and your one strong anti-tank unit is destroyed you have to sit resigned to a loss (or at least realizing that losing is incredibly likely) on the exact turn that unit dies. If it is late in the game you at least have the thrill of "did they accomplish enough for me to pull this off?" If it is early in the game... that little bit of a thrill is gone and you are resigned to failure.

For example, if you play one tau hammerhead with a disruption pod and whatever else, and it is your only railgun, the turn it dies your reliable anti-tank is gone. How much fun is it going to be knowing that you cant put a dent in your opponents incoming av 14 tanks without being incredibly lucky with a series of seeker missiles.

You say you don't mean "offense" to those that spam units, but then you turn around and call them either stupid or bad players in the same sentence. Give me a break... sound tactics require contingency plans, which means redundancy. I say this as one who knows. What do you call someone who plans something, and has that plan fall apart with nothing to replace it? Foolish!

Two units of the same type do not a simple game make, quite the opposite! If you know as an opponent that you have to deconstruct the enemies carefully planned list... "Ok, I will have to take out both devastator squads to get rid of their strongest anti-tank, but they have dreadnaughts with melta weapons that I will have to worry about once they come in range... etc" it is an entirely different and more complicated thought process than "Ok, if I kill their land raider I win as they don't have anything else that can deal with my <unit x>"

I have been playing this game and loving it since 2nd edition, I have also played competitive chess and won money, I was also a circuit TCG player for quite some time. My hardest most thought producing games are always against an opponent with lots of backups/redundancies. The easiest games have always been against players that have no backup plans, or ineffective ones.

e.g. a card player who doesn't use playsets of anything, or rather uses lots of one-offs with no way to find them, the game is down to random chance for them... no thought just luck.

An opponent in chess who has one strategy to win (queen pawn for an early breach) and when that is refuted they have no alternative victory method... the game can be decided in the first forty seconds... how much fun is that?

And finally, a 40k player who plays a "unique" and as you have said "flexible" list. Killing their one stronger squad (as only one will be optimized to that specific role under your "radical" thought) guts that part of their list permanently as I have already stated.

Variety comes from making and playing/testing different TACTICALLY SOUND lists. Yes this means some unit duplication, but such is the cost of dealing with tactical optimization. Not from making really strange tactically unsound lists over and over.

TLDR, the key is moderation, variety in list composition from game to game, and necessary tactical duplication within any given games list.



Of course what do I know, I have probably only played a few thousand games.

[terminus]

As a guard player, my methodology is that if I want something to accomplish a goal, I need three things that can do it. The first one will get destroyed before it gets to make the attempt, the second one will make the attempt and fail, and the third one will finally seal the deal.

[Duke]

Currently I had about 25000 points worth of eldar, one week I just played a tottally random list, meaning I rolled a d6 to see if I took a hq, elite, troops, etc. Then I rolled a d10 (or what fit) to see what squad I took within that choice, then I rolled another fee dice to see what upgrades that squad (and how many members) that squad had.

All in all it was a weird list, but it forced me to use units I hadnt thought of before, and guess what? I won all my games too, lol

pong story short, spam is better for tactical reliability and efficeny, but non-spam can be fun.

[Melissia]

In my lists, I often have four to six Battle Sister Squads, simply because they ARE the best unit in the codex when it comes to points efficiency.

There are only so many equipment combinations I cna give to Battle Sister Squads. And at least a fourth of them suck (five point storm bolters as special weapons = lol), and most of the rest are unbalanced for take-all-comers lists; flamer/flamer, or flamer/heavy flamer cause the squad to lack any anti-tank; conversely, meltagun/meltagun does not maximize the effectiveness of Divine Guidance and reduces the squad's ability to handle infantry. Therefor... flamer / melta or heavy flamer / melta are really the only two viable choices in a mechanized Sisters list. And because of the increased bolter count in Footslogging lists, melta/melta is typically the best combination there, again with dual flamers being no anti-tank in the squad. If I give the Veterans Eviscerators... why would I spend twenty five points on an S6 chainfist with two attacks per turn at WS3? Same with power weapons, really... they'd work well on Celestians, but Celestians are more expensive and aren't scoring.

So yes. These are copy/pasted. Deal with it.

[Melissia]

Hell even in my non-Sisters list, this typically turns out to be true.

In my Orks list, my Green Tide list does not lend itself to unit variety. My Kommandos list is more varied, but it still has copy/pasted units because I'm a huge fan of burnaz on the Kommando squads-- having three power weapons (two of them S4 on the charge and the other one S9) is very nasty against MEQ, and having two flamers is nasty against GEQ. I could give them Rokkits, but I'm sane, and big shootas are quite tempting... but they aren't burnaz.

In my Guard list... it's a GUARD list! What do you friggin' expect? You want me to somehow differently equip every damn Infantry Squad? Ludicrous, especially in situations where I have six squads or more...


This isn't a LACK of flexibility. This IS flexibility. Being able to lose a unit and still function is far more flexible than a list where every unit is unique.

[Bean]

To the OP

I like lists with multiple identical units. I like the aesthetic of having identical units. When I build a list, I honestly try to make it "symmetrical," by which I mean that I can line it up on the table such that a line down the middle would divide it into portions which mirror each other perfectly. I can accept a couple of units sitting on the center line--I usually play only one Daemon Prince, and I only own one Vindicator--but the more stuff that's mirrored the better.

For me, this is an aesthetic thing. I generally won't let it force me into choices that make the army utterly uncompetitive, but I do strive for it even at the cost of some amount of effectiveness. I enjoy playing spammy armies more than I enjoy playing diverse armies, and I enjoy playing against spammy armies more than I enjoy playing against diverse ones. Not much, but I basically prefer it if both armies meet my aesthetic criteria.

While I would prefer that other people's army lists be made to certain specifications--it would make the game more fun for me--I don't feel the need to criticize others for expressing preferences other than my own when building their armies. It's really none of anyone's business how other players decide what goes into their armies. They'll pick the units that they have the most fun playing: whether they have more fun with lots of identical units, lots of units that share a certain theme, lots of diverse units, or whatever selection of units makes their army the most effective. Each of those criteria is exactly as legitimate as the others.

You, too, get to pick whatever selection of units you enjoy playing most--even if it's a radically diverse list that would make me cringe--and I doubt you would appreciate a thread saying, "Seriously, why do you people play lists with lots of different units! Don't you know you're missing out?" even though such a position is exactly as legitimate as the one you've taken in this thread.

[gcsmith]

Wat if??? that one unit is the only thing for the job, I mean BT only have 1 troop choice, how can they not spam.

[Sangre]

For Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Sisters, Eldar, Necrons and Tau, identical units make sense.

For Chaos, Tyranids and Orks, less so.

[Vepr]

I really like to change my nid lists up and it is rare that I field the same list twice. I am always making changes (sometimes to my own detriment) because it keeps me interested. That being said with mech the way it is these days my elites section is often hive guard, hive guard, zoan with the occasional death leaper tossed in instead of a group of hive guard for giggles. I would like to experiment more with my elites section but with so much mech IG and mech SM I have to build around that or risk getting run off the table which is not much fun.

[Melissia]

For Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Sisters, Eldar, Necrons and Tau, identical units make sense.

For Chaos, Tyranids and Orks, less so.

For Orks, it makes sense because the codex is practically designed that way.

[Tortuga932]

i'm not talking about one unit to kill a tank one unit to kill infantry etc... I'm talking about I bring 3 assault squads all with 2 melta guns, why not bring one assault squad with melta, one pred with lascannon, and one dready instead? you can achieve all the same tank killing power but now you have diversity in your list. you have more tools to deal with other situations that may come up, and your list is no longer super boring.

you don't need to copy units to be effective, losing a single unit will not cost you the game if you have plans for multiple ways to achieve a goal, other than just trying to find the "optimal unit" and applying the cookie cutter to it 3 times.

now i agree that necrons are going to be a copy paste army just because they have one troop unit with no options, but all the other armies i disagree with.

sisters on foot, sister in rhino, sisters in immolator, all with combinations of melta, flamer, plasma,

space marines ditto, only you can also have heavy weapons

eldar they have a wide variety of options too, guardians on foot in a serpent, storm, or defender what kind of heavy weapon platform, rangers, jetbikes in units bigger than 3 with or without warlocks

Tau can have firewarriors on foot, in a fish, you can give gear to the sargeant, (less options here but you still don't need 3 units in fish)

Ig have tons of different ways to kit out a troop unit you have penal legions, heavy weapn squads, special weapon squads, conscrips, and infantry platoons they can be equipped with a variety of special and heavy weapons, most of them have different upgrade characters, or hq characters that do different things for them (chenkov for conscripts) commisars they have piles of ways to do things, they don't only have veterans and chimeras you are allowed other units

now this is all just in those codex's troops selections, they have just as many options if not more in their other selectons

I'm not talking about randomly pulling units to make an army. copy pasting leads to a lack of tactical thought I believe (I don't mean to offend anyone by that, just my thoughts) you can use many different units to achieve similar goals on the battlefield so why not exercise some thought and try it?

now i'm not saying spam spam spam isn't effective, if it wasn't people wouldn't do it. I'm just saying how about we think outside the box a little bit and try out other unitsin our armies I'm not advocating sucky units either (although i don't think there are any sucky units thats a different discussion for another time)

after all how boring would it be if there were 3 copies of people all running around together in real life?

[Melissia]

sisters on foot, sister in rhino, sisters in immolator, all with combinations of melta, flamer, plasma,
Sisters can't equip plasma, and no combi-plasma on the veteran does not count, fifteen points for a single phase of shooting plasma is incomparable to ten points for an entire game of shooting with a more useful melta weapon.

Edit by Jwolf: Those who wish respect should give it first.

[Tortuga932]

sister can have plasma pistols, and combi plasma, just because it's an option that is looked on as not that good doesn't mean it can't be good in other hands. in any case there are tons of ways to field a sisters unit without copy pasting them multiple times.

In no way am I saying that it is wrong to do this, I just think that people should try out lists that have redundancy without spamming their units. it makes the game that much more interesting. different units give you more options on the field.

Master- I never once said they were stupid or bad players, and I don't think taking one hammerhead is a smart way to play a tau army, taking 3 I think gives you some tactical inflexibility, after all one hammerhead one unit of broadsides, and fusion guns on piranahas can do the same thing vs land raiders, and those are all different. A backup unit for redundancy is incredibly important in an army, however spamming that one unit 3 times, well that's a different story And actually having units that are different make it much harder on your opponent. They have to deal with a variety of units that do a variety of things in a variety of ways, all of which have the express purpose of killing either tanks or dudes, and if people have the tools to kill unit a, b, and c that's great, but the people who have units a,b,c,d,e and you don't have the tools to get d, and e then you are in trouble

losing different units does not make you less flexible, i'm not advocating an army where you have one unit to kill tanks and one unit to kill infantry etc... that would be silly. but you can have units equipped differently to perform the same role, all while having tactical flexibility

instead of 3 assualt squads with melta, why not 1 assault squad with melta, one lascannon pred, and a dreaddy? you still have the same tank killing power as before, but now you have tactical flexibility in your list to shore up match up problems. Losing any one of those units doesn't lose you the game or make it so that you can't kill a tank. What it does is force you to use your units tactically.

gcsmith-even black templar with their one troop unit can do a multitude of things with them, a bunch in a crusader with assaulty bits, a bunch in a rhino that shoot, drop pod units designed to kill infantry, drop pod designed to kill tanks, small units in rhino's with multimeltas to kill tanks, giant mobs on foot to run screaming at the enemy, and they can have a variety of special weapons too even the vow can make it different.

[Xas]

dont try to preach any higher tactics to the masses.

most people cannot even hope to be enough of a player to master a diverse list.
the same people are going to tell you that you have to spezialise units because otherwise you waste points but in reality its because otherwise they wouldnt know what to do with their units.



some (mostly 3.E books) armies cannot avoid spam because they only have one unit for that particular job which is not total useless. a good example are pure deamon hunters without induced guard. they have 3 units that have a good chance against tanks: stormtroopers with meltaguns, dreads with lascanons/rockets and landraiders. most of the other units can do tank-hunting as secondary (s6 in melee) but first have to reach their destination.

similar can be said about dark eldar. they have one anti armor weapon in the whole codex (technically its two but they are just heavy and assoult versions of the same thing).


with marines or guard I do not see the need for spam. guard I can see use the same unit twice simply because all of them are cheap enough that some repetition comes naturally but no marine of any type should need to do that. every unit in the codex is good against infantry, a large pletora against heavy infantry and at least ten unit-builds work like a charm against heavy armor. light-armor hunting is a bit scarce but if you see it as a special form of heavy armor hunting all you do if choosing one of that units is doing a little overkill.

[Bean]

The assertion that playing a diverse list somehow requires you to be a "better" or "more tactical" player, Xas, is patently absurd. Playing a diverse list does not require "higher" tactics.

There are plenty of good reasons for bringing multiple identical units beyond simply not knowing what to do with other units.

[Dingareth]

Wow really? I can't believe we're having this discussion. Who are you to stand on the moral high ground and tell me what to play with? Who are you to say that I'm a rubbish player if I bring more than one of the same unit? Who gave you this authority? Why do you put me down?

What if I can only afford the army I have now- a bunch of Assault Marines? Who are you to tell me that I'm a WAAC *** because I can't afford to change my army up?

Or what if it fits my fluff? My Guard army only uses PlasmaVets becasue it comes from Ryza, and the Vets represent Skittarri? Does that make me a lowly player who's ruining the hobby?

No sir, it does not. You build your list your way, and I'll tell you that it lacks focus, duplication of resources, and can easily be counted by a half decent opponent. As such you are free to tell me that my list looks boring to play, looks like a pain to play against, and that I'm an *** (not related to the list, but I don't mind when you call a spade a spade). You however, do not have the right to implore your "gaming morals" onto me and call me a bad player because I take multiples of the same unit, that crosses a line right there.

[Melissia]

sister can have plasma pistols, and combi plasma, just because it's an option that is looked on as not that good doesn't mean it can't be good in other hands. in any case there are tons of ways to field a sisters unit without copy pasting them multiple times.
Yes, you can. It just won't be very good. You can also use Repentia, too, doesn't mean that they will be good, either.

Go ahead. Try and post a Sisters list that is both competitive and has each individual unit truly unique. We have an Army List forum. I will be glad to tear down your army list like a cardboard cutout. It also arguably won't even be that fluffy, either.

[harrybuttwhisker]

Another question would be what is missing from peoples lives that they have to refine and minimise a "fun" tabletop miniature "game" to the point of it becoming a mathematical exercise, were the winner is the one that simply goes first and rolls the best. Thats what I see a lot happening when people use these min maxed spam lists. I have no problem with people using there intellect to refine armies through "there" intellect and experience, however thanks to the internet there are two many people who willingly cut and paste these armies with the sole desire to win at all costs. A lot of the time these individuals do not understand the synergy in the army, and if they lose as a result we usually see a manifestation of poor sportsmanship.

By all means try and make a razor honed list of doom, but don't close your mind to the variety of possibilities and options that exist within any given army that can still be effective when employed in different strategic schemes. Above all remember to use your minds, do fresh things to keep your hobby fun for "all" participants and when things go badly or well be a good sport.

The internet is an easy way to opt out of independent thought, this is bad!

[DarkLink]

i'm not talking about one unit to kill a tank one unit to kill infantry etc... I'm talking about I bring 3 assault squads all with 2 melta guns, why not bring one assault squad with melta, one pred with lascannon, and one dready instead? you can achieve all the same tank killing power but now you have diversity in your list. you have more tools to deal with other situations that may come up, and your list is no longer super boring.


So you go from 3 scoring units that are capable of clearing objectives and killing tanks pretty effectively, to 1 scoring unit and 3 units that can kill tanks effectively. All in the name of diversity. You lose a definite degree of effectiveness, and gain a subjective degree of flavor.

That's a fine choice for you to make on your own. But attempting toforce that choice on others just because it is the one you would make is generally considered to be bad form.


I won't even point out the fact that you need two troops choices, and having more than two scoring units is usually fairly nice (especially when the units will be on the frontlines, likely to take casualties), so taking 3 assault squads is a very sound option. And giving them the means to deal with tanks is very sound as well, because it gives them the ability to pop a transport and assault the passengers... actually, I guess I will point it out:p.

[Polonius]

Most of the spam encountered is due to the rules of 5th edition, not due to the influence of net lists. Why? Simple:

1) Fifth edition requires troops. With only troops scoring, every army needs to bring plenty of troops to actually accomplish mission objectives. Before, many armies only brought the troops they wanted, now, they need to find ways to make more troops work. To help out, the 5th edition codices (plus Orks) all have very good troops choices.


1a) Any non-troops need to be very good to compete. With troops required, and troops getting better, more and more players are ditching all but the most efficient non-troops units. With fewer points available, non-troops now tend to be more focused, concentrating on the weak spots left by the basic troops.

2) Most troops choices are basic infantry that are good at killing light infantry. No matter what codex you pick from, the bulk of basic troops are already pretty good at fighting light infantry. When you get to pick options, most players choose to make their squads good at other things, rather than focus on more light infantry killing power.

3) Plasma guns have gone up in price and down in effectiveness. The increase in cover, coupled with the points jump, means that plasma guns have gone from the default best to third place in all imperial style armories.

4) Vehicles are incredibly hard to kill with anything other than melta guns. 5th edition is melta-hammer, and it's not just because we've all caught spam fever. If you want to kill vehicles, you need meltas. With vehicles more survivable, more are on the table, and the need to kill them goes up.

In short, The fifth edition rules are great, but there are systemic reasons for the spam you encounter.

[sangrail777]

wow, I built my bloodangels over 10 years ago. The same still applies for me, all I wanted was an army in nothing but jump packs. Does that bother you? Would you like to tell me how to spend my money? Over the years people ***** about all kinds of things with this game from the rules, models, codexes, lists, and what others shouild field. Dude you are fihghting armies others have put together just to play a game with you. They spent thier time, money, and whatever esle just to have a lil fun with you at some point. Stop being inconsiterate of others and just play the game or find others with more diverse list and play with them.