Why the hate on "spam"?

[Melissia]

Far be it for I to do anything but laugh at the people whining about "spam" in an Ork list (which is something I did, the comments on my guest article provided plenty of amusement to me when I woke up this morning), but why do people hate "spam" even when it's a fluffy, thematic thing for the army like it is with Orks?

The unending tide of barbarians at the gate SHOULD be numerous. So should the endless horde of bugs trying to eat your planet. And why should the legion of flashlights not be the same? Even Marines don't necessarily need to have each squad be dramatically different to be thematic-- in fact, I think it fits their theme better that each tactical squad is kitted out quite similarly, to handle every kind of threat they might run into. People who try and push everyone to make every unit unique are just deluding themselves, and they're breaking the fluff while they're doing it too.

[Kirsten]

I couldn't agree more, there is nothing wrong with it at all. It is by its' very nature appropriate to have spam in a military force, you wont see american commanders in afghanistan sending out every squad in different numbers with different equipment so they are all different. Most armies suit spam, they will invariably be composed of similar groups, be it eldar guardians, ork mobs, or tactical squads. I don't get why people would have a problem with it, variety isn't enforced, or even non-fluffy. I love seeing armies, dedicated horde armies especially, with vast numbers of identical squads, makes them seem even more innumerable and dramatic.

[lobster-overlord]

Wouldn't spam in an ork list be called "tofu"?

I agree that Ork spamming isn't a detriment. I also think they are more balanced than many other armies, and spamming is more about repetative tweaking in my mind.

[Aldramelech]

I believe there are occasions when its ok and some where its just crap. Orks are a good example of ok. But go to the fantasy army list section of this forum and there you'll find an army list for Empire under 8th............ 4 Engineers with Hochland Long Rifle's! Really? Pleeeeese............

[Melissia]

I think that's a bit of a fault on WFB's more open army list style. You can have what, 25% of your army be heroes/lords? Or was it 25% heroes and 25% lords?

[HsojVvad]

Can anyone explain to me what you mean by spam? Do you mean having alot of the same unit over and over again? People are complaining abou this? I thought it was the other way around. Too much Herohammer instead of fluffy spam lists.

[Kirsten]

25% heroes, and 25% lords. It would depend on the rest of the army, if it were Nuln themed, I would say fair enough. Multiple identical characters isn't the same as multiple identical units though, characters are expected to be more unique, unlike the rank and file.

[Melissia]

Can anyone explain to me what you mean by spam? Do you mean having alot of the same unit over and over again? People are complaining abou this? I thought it was the other way around. Too much Herohammer instead of fluffy spam lists.

People are complaining about my list which has copy-pasted units, which they call spam. The reason it has copy-pasted units? Because it's an Ork list. Duh...

[BlackKnight15624]

For horde armies, spam can be good. What army wouldn't want each of its components to be able to engage a wide range of foes independently (besides Eldar)?

Besides, with armies like the IG or Orks, it becomes a hassle keeping track of what units have which weapons and where they are. Just kit them all the same and you're good to go! Of course, then you have to kit each squad to take on both AA/AT duties...

[Aldramelech]

In any army since the dawn of time, standardization has always been the holy grail. It makes supply and logistics so much simpler. Units in 40k armies should be very similar if not identical, no problem with that. Characters though should be unique.

Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics.

[Melissia]

With some armies it's almost impossible to make effective characters that are unique. It's fine in, say, Space Wolves (they're designed for it) but in this particular list I needed two big meks for their KFFs to guard my trukks (that 4+ cover save is essential to any mech Orks list), and my choices were between power klaws and burnaz for their other piece of equipment. Which I choose depends on the local metagame...

[OCdt Mephiston]

The only issue that I have run into playing against spam list is the simple fact that more often than not, they are ****ty and/or boring to play against... The only exception to this is the fluff list, where the two players can create a narrative in-game and the importance of the story of the game beats out the importance of the result...

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

I think it comes down to a difference in a player's tactical mindset/interests.

Anti-spam players focusing on a smaller scale, a fight between a few units. From that viewpoint, a fight between a unit each of Kommandos and Shoota Boys and a unit each of Warpspiders and Dire Avengers is more interesting than a fight between two units of Shoota Boys and two units of Dire Avengers.

Pro-spam players are more interested in the bigger picture of the battlefield, focusing on how the forces as a whole play against each other, through flanking, pincer movements etc. It doesn't matter to this viewpoint that they have two identical Veteran squads in Valkyries and four identical mechanized guardsman squads - rather, the focus is on how the Veterans outflank the enemy, harassing and cutting down on their mobility to allow for the mech squads to punch through the center or somesuch.

The rules really do favor the pro-spam position (naturally, after all, multiple similar/identical units is a typical military method. Multiple disparate units, not so much).

My personal stance on spamming varies by army, I suppose. Orks or Nids would just seem a bit silly without multiple identical units. With other armies, particularly Eldar, I feel that something is kinda lost thematically when multiple identical units are used rather than a nice variety (showing off the aspect warriors). Hordish armies feel good with spam, elitish armies, not so much.

From a competitive standpoint, spam is the way to go, though.

[Melissia]

The thing with Eldar though is that they're specialized. So the army is designed so that you SHOULDN'T spam identical units. If you want to, well wahtever floats your boat, but that's not the way Eldar were designed to be played.

But with more generalist armies, even elite ones, that should be fine. Space Marines are a perfect example. What's wrong with, say, three or four tactical squads each with a power sword, meltagun, and missile launcher? They're kitted out to handle everything. Which really is the entire point of a tactical squad in the first place. It's both fluffy AND it makes tactical sense.

[BlackKnight15624]

But with more generalist armies, even elite ones, that should be fine. Space Marines are a perfect example. What's wrong with, say, three or four tactical squads each with a power sword, meltagun, and missile launcher? They're kitted out to handle everything. Which really is the entire point of a tactical squad in the first place. It's both fluffy AND it makes tactical sense.

Amen. "Spam," when used in a derogatory sense, I would imagine is more targeted to unit repetition that is of a non-fluff nature i.e. an army full of veterans kitted to the teeth with meltaguns. Though meltas aren't necessarily rare (thanks for correcting me on that one melissia), they're definitely not standard kit, and any sane commander in the field wouldn't allow for that kind of concentration of AT weaponry in a single squad (or if so, not army-wide).

[Freefall945]

Some folk dislike spam because it sticks out as uncreative. Spam is a multi tiered problem. Typically, if someone takes a choice several times identically, it is because they feel it is the best way to spend that force organization slot. Often enough, they are not alone. It wouldn't be annoying seeing an army with four wave serpents packed to the gills with Dire Avengers and two with Fire Dragons if you hadn't seen the same set up a half dozen times before.

It's the Eldrad problem, or the Vulkan problem. People often enjoy the game more if they play against a different army than they've played off before. Spam armies, by their nature, are far more likely to be similar (or identical) to the guy's army you just played.

It's not a huge deal. Just lots of players look down at the opening mini case and say, "Really? He'Stan fire Bonanza again?"

[Connjurus]

I really don't understand this whole anti-spam thing. The people who don't like it strike me as being the thing they themselves claim to hate: unimaginative. I mean, come on: four units of fully-painted, similarly kitted out 10-man 'zerker squads is a lot more "fluffy" than one of each of the four aspect troops.

Also, there are some armies out there that can't function without spam. Orkz and 'nids, as has been pointed out, but from what I hear, Sisters are in the same boat, as are the Necron. Now, Marines are fully capable of operating WITHOUT spamming, but I think they look a lot better if they do - three tactical squads, each with a different weapon load-out, transport choice, and squad size? It would just look jumbled together to me.

So spam, really, shouldn't ever be an issue in 40k. It would be like if in WW2, we got really upset with the Germans for fielding so many of the same MP40-wielding Wermacht soldiers, and not swapping them out for Gewehrs(sp?) instead.

[Kirsten]

The thing with Eldar though is that they're specialized. So the army is designed so that you SHOULDN'T spam identical units. If you want to, well wahtever floats your boat, but that's not the way Eldar were designed to be played.

It depends in part on the point size of the game, because eldar units are so specialised, some simply wont be suitable for a given opponent, so if you know who you are to be playing against, then you might double up on certain aspects.

For myself, I just find that only taking one of each unit annoys me for some reason, I like taking things in pairs, there is symmetry in it. It is tactically flexible too, I can either send one down each flank, or keep the two together, for example.

[BuFFo]

Ork Spam lists are fine.

Fluff wise, Orks and Nids are spam armies.

[fuzzbuket]

Can anyone explain to me what you mean by spam? Do you mean having alot of the same unit over and over again? People are complaining abou this? I thought it was the other way around. Too much Herohammer instead of fluffy spam lists.

spam is canned meat known worldwide for its "great" taste and also for being on a monty pyton sketch.

seriously people dislike spam beacuse its easy


whats easier to make an army list for

a) an eldar army with 10 Da (dire sword) , 5 rangers and 10 da with twin catapults, several aspects (2 dragon squads and a scorpian squad) a farseer and a pheniox lord, shining spears and a wraithlord
b) a guard army with 4 valk vets with meltas 3 russes, 3 manticores, 2 inf blobs and CREED

also it looks boring and isnt realistic

"but fuzz in real life all soldiers have the same guns" (sorta)

in real life soldiers dont have power armour and mini RPG machine guns and dont fight souls in mechanical bodies that strip you down atom by atom and are lead by the grim reaper.

if you are and elite space marine strike force
or a veteran guard platoon
or a colony fource supported by battlesuits
or a evolving bio-fleet

you will have to adapt, fill many roles your soldiers will fight pivitol battles aginst unspeakable horrors and will wear the scars

they might be equuipped to fight any enemy

not just one that needs 1000 meltaguns.


/ rant over

fuzz

[Shavnir]

Spam is just a sign the codex in question has good choices and bad choices. Balance the game and spam mostly dissipates.

[scadugenga]

It depends in part on the point size of the game, because eldar units are so specialised, some simply wont be suitable for a given opponent, so if you know who you are to be playing against, then you might double up on certain aspects.

For myself, I just find that only taking one of each unit annoys me for some reason, I like taking things in pairs, there is symmetry in it. It is tactically flexible too, I can either send one down each flank, or keep the two together, for example.

I like some duplication in my eldar armies, but it's not just feasible to duplicate a lot of things. (Like shining spears) that are point heavy to begin with.

Where I find my duplication in eldar is the role I need them to fill: CC? You have scorps, harlies, banshees & Spears. Anti-mech? You have Dragons, Reapers (to an anti av12 extent) & Walkers/Prisms/Vypers. Anti MC? Pathfinders/Seer Council, etc.

So you can have deviaion while still filling duplicate roles.

[Melissia]

also it looks boring and isnt realisticThat's funny, I think armies where every unit is unique looks ugly and unrealistic.

Uniformity is an important aspect of military operations.

[Unlighted]

Everyone has the right to dislike the composition of an opponent's army, but the only army you have any say in how it is made is your own.

It's kind of like the playing against unpainted models argument. If "spam" really annoys you that much then you don't have to play that person, but at the same time you don't have the right to heap a bunch of abuse on that person for their personal choices.

Everyone should just chill and have fun playing this great game. :)

[scadugenga]

everyone should just chill and have fun playing this great game. :)

qft

[BlacknightIII]

I enjoy playing against most spam lists as they tend to be one trick ponies and I tend to play more balanced lists. All I do is play to the weakness of the spam army and victory usually isnt to difficult. By spam I dont mean every troop is the same. When you see three baal preds three vindicators, and two assault squads on the other side of the field then i call spam. 2 loota squads, a squad of kommandos, 2 max ork troops, 6 killa kans and a deff dread a spam list does not make! The ork list has good synergy amongst the units while the blood angels list all serve overlapping roles imo.

[DarkLink]

also it looks boring and isnt realistic

"but fuzz in real life all soldiers have the same guns" (sorta)

You're not a military man, are you.

The USMC, for example, follows a standard organization, as do essentially all organized military forces. A battalion has three rifle companies, one weapons company, and one HQ and supply company.

Rifle companies all have three rifle platoons and a weapons platoon. Weapons companies have a mortar platoon, an anti-armor platoon and a heavy machine gun platoon.

A rifle platoon has three squads.

A squad has three fire teams and a squad leader.

A fire team has four members; a fire team leader with a grenade launcher, a rifleman, a machine gunner and an assistant machine gunner.

This is effectively constant. It does not change. It is standardized, and organized as such, in order to be effective in as wide a variety of situations as possible, without require extensive resupply and reinforcement every time the unit redeploys.

Military units are not a hodge-podge of random tanks and weapons.



in real life soldiers dont have power armour and mini RPG machine guns and dont fight souls in mechanical bodies that strip you down atom by atom and are lead by the grim reaper.


What does this have to do with anything whatsoever? In fact, if anything the power armor and mini rpg machine guns that Space Marines wield would mean that there is even less call for specialization than in real military units, as a Space Marine would be able to face nearly anything with the standard load out. Meaning a force of Space Marines would be very standardized.

[Marshal2Crusaders]

I like what DarkLink said.

Me and my friends attempt to play all our games along some form of TO&E. Unless its my buddies Orks or Nids, there really is some precedent somewhere in 40K for a standard grouping of you army.

[LidlessPraetor]

I totally agree Melissa. First off, it's hard to build a theme to an army without duplcates. Take away the "'spam" units, and you generally destroy any cohesive theme that the army was building. I personally spam plasma cannons in my army, and it adds alot to my theme. To me, it says that my guys are willing to use whatever it takes to destroy the enemy, even if a self-sacrifice is needed from time to time.

Also, quite a few armies are left with only a pair (or even less) of troops options, but with the system being so dependant on scoring with troops, players are left with little option other than to take duplicates of the same units, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

[Paul]

I agree entirely with what is being said here.

My Armored Company has a standard loadout:

3x Vanquishers with Lascannons
"But Paul, why don't you make a couple of them Leman Russes with lascannons?"
Because, logistically, having to supply HE AND AP rounds to a single squadron makes less sense than just AP rounds.

3x Demolishers with no upgrades
"But Paul, why don't you make one an Executioner (or the like)?"
Because they're siege tanks, in war they'd be used for line-breaking. As good as the Executioner is, it isn't good against bunkers / walls / fortifications, so doesn't fit with a siege squadron.

3x LRBT with Hull HBs, HBSponsons
"But Paul, take 3x more demolishers / executioners / whathaveyou!"
They're the Guard's main battle tank. What armored regiment doesn't have one full company (10) as well as a squadron in each of its other companies (six more)?

Veteran Squad with Flamers, Heavy flamer, chimera
"But Paul...MELTAGUNS ON VETS IS TEH PWN OMGBBQ"
Flamers make sense in an armored company; the mech platoon will get caught up in close quarters fighting in built up areas (where the tanks have trouble). Also, Armored Company's (to my knowledge) don't usually rely on the infantry to engage enemy armor.

Veteran Squad with Plasma Guns, Chimera
"But plasma sucks! Why don't you get METLAGUNS ON YOUR VETS OMGBBQ"
It makes sense that some sort of long-ranged (relatively), anti-infantry and anti-light vehicle weapons would be issued to the Mech Platoon to defend the ground they hold. Our tanks should engage their tanks; ours will win 85% of the time.

[Connjurus]

I agree entirely with what is being said here.

My Armored Company has a standard loadout:

3x Vanquishers with Lascannons
"But Paul, why don't you make a couple of them Leman Russes with lascannons?"
Because, logistically, having to supply HE AND AP rounds to a single squadron makes less sense than just AP rounds.

3x Demolishers with no upgrades
"But Paul, why don't you make one an Executioner (or the like)?"
Because they're siege tanks, in war they'd be used for line-breaking. As good as the Executioner is, it isn't good against bunkers / walls / fortifications, so doesn't fit with a siege squadron.

3x LRBT with Hull HBs, HBSponsons
"But Paul, take 3x more demolishers / executioners / whathaveyou!"
They're the Guard's main battle tank. What armored regiment doesn't have one full company (10) as well as a squadron in each of its other companies (six more)?

Veteran Squad with Flamers, Heavy flamer, chimera
"But Paul...MELTAGUNS ON VETS IS TEH PWN OMGBBQ"
Flamers make sense in an armored company; the mech platoon will get caught up in close quarters fighting in built up areas (where the tanks have trouble). Also, Armored Company's (to my knowledge) don't usually rely on the infantry to engage enemy armor.

Veteran Squad with Plasma Guns, Chimera
"But plasma sucks! Why don't you get METLAGUNS ON YOUR VETS OMGBBQ"
It makes sense that some sort of long-ranged (relatively), anti-infantry and anti-light vehicle weapons would be issued to the Mech Platoon to defend the ground they hold. Our tanks should engage their tanks; ours will win 85% of the time.

This list makes me happy, and I'd love to play against it just for fun. There are very few armies where not spamming would make sense - Lost and the Damned (lol), some Chaos Warbands, Daemons (they're freaking Daemons), Orkz, Nids. That's about it, I think. The reason I mention 'nids is because they work for both.

[Freefall945]

It's important not to over-estimate the amount of passion on this subject. God knows we don't need another Us Vs Them angry war.

That said, I don't think anyone who calls themself a disliker of spam would suggest that no army should ever have two identical units. Almost every army's core is wrapped around a bundle of standard squads, whether it's Termagaunts, Boyz, Guardians, or Marines.

I don't know anyone who has ever felt so strongly about this that they would refuse to play someone's army about it - it's not like the paint or proxy things. This is a decidedly tertiary foible.

However, those on this side of the fence, while we appreciate that three Rhinos full of Silver Skulls is fluffy, fine, and visually attractive, are less enthused with other slots.

This happens to me every time I read a BolS article on a particular list. The title will be something like "How to play Foot Eldar" and then you'll see...

3 X War Walker, EML/BL + SS
3 X War Walker, EML/BL + SS
3 X War Walker, EML/BL + SS

10 X Harlequins, Shadowseer, 6 X Harlequin's Kiss
10 X Harlequins, Shadowseer, 6 X Harlequin's Kiss
10 X Harlequins, Shadowseer, 6 X Harlequin's Kiss

... and so on, and my eyes glaze over.

It's all a preference thing, but I guess I like armies that print from a computer with less thoroughly worn Ctrl, C, and P keys.

[mysterex]

People are complaining about my list which has copy-pasted units, which they call spam. The reason it has copy-pasted units? Because it's an Ork list. Duh...

I know we've had this discussion before but being an Ork list is the very reason it shouldn't be cut and paste theme-wise. With orks everything is home made, customised or stolen. They don't all line up and get handed the same basic kit like guardsmen.

Consequently giving identical upgrades to all the characters of the same type isn't thematic. Similarly unit sizes are dictated by how many orks the nob can bully into following him so I don't buy into identical sized units for orks either.

Compare this to "it's a cult of speed so everyone rides something and they're all painted red" which is theme.

I recognise most wargames armies are a balance between effectiveness and theme and it's a matter of style where you draw the boundary.

The reason I don't like most "spam" lists?

They're been tweeked to what the owner thinks is the most effective combos
They are predictable and usually so are the tactics making for a less enjoyable game; and
They require less skill to play (which is not to say that skilled players don't sometimes use them)


I think the article you posted (and good on you for making the effort to do so because the site relies on contributors) was weighted towards the effectiveness end of the spectrum.

In a themed list the units and the nob & vehicle upgrades would have had more variation.

[Col.Gravis]

There's nothing wrong with spamming really from a players perspective IMHO, it can either be fluffy and themed (which gets brownie points from me more then anything) or it can be a sometimes nasty army, even if it can just be list hammer (because lets face it it's rock, paper scissors 40,000 at it's worst depending on what the other army is). The chances are it may well be boring to play against, and it may not require much in the way of tactical finesse, but thats not really the fault of players per se, the fluffy player picked it for the army, the gamer player picked it to win - nothing wrong with these concepts even though as anyone knows we don't all share the same motives ourselves.

The problem is they do break the game mechanics, the codex in theory should allow for a balance list and are costed as such (even if they often get these cost's 'wrong') however that does'nt accurately reflect the value of a unit when it is spammed. That means you either put up with these type of list's, restrict them (which prevents often fluffy combinations such as the Ork horde which SHOULD be allowed) or you develop a new way of building the list's involving costing things depending on composition of the army and/or multiple army list's (e.g. in the case of Orks, 'hordes', 'Speed Cults', 'Balanced' (with greater restrictions on composition).

It's the game and codex design which is ultimately at fault.

[Mauglum.]

Hi.

It's the game and codex design which is ultimately at fault.

QFT.

IF the devs ONLY put in the codex the options they had actualy playtested.
There might not be a lot to pick from!

However if they noted the options they had actualy playtested in ( ) after the entry.
It would at least indicate where multiple maxed out units may cause balance issues.

TTFN

[Xas]

I agree entirely with what is being said here.

My Armored Company has a standard loadout:

3x Vanquishers with Lascannons
"But Paul, why don't you make a couple of them Leman Russes with lascannons?"
Because, logistically, having to supply HE AND AP rounds to a single squadron makes less sense than just AP rounds.

3x Demolishers with no upgrades
"But Paul, why don't you make one an Executioner (or the like)?"
Because they're siege tanks, in war they'd be used for line-breaking. As good as the Executioner is, it isn't good against bunkers / walls / fortifications, so doesn't fit with a siege squadron.

3x LRBT with Hull HBs, HBSponsons
"But Paul, take 3x more demolishers / executioners / whathaveyou!"
They're the Guard's main battle tank. What armored regiment doesn't have one full company (10) as well as a squadron in each of its other companies (six more)?

Veteran Squad with Flamers, Heavy flamer, chimera
"But Paul...MELTAGUNS ON VETS IS TEH PWN OMGBBQ"
Flamers make sense in an armored company; the mech platoon will get caught up in close quarters fighting in built up areas (where the tanks have trouble). Also, Armored Company's (to my knowledge) don't usually rely on the infantry to engage enemy armor.

Veteran Squad with Plasma Guns, Chimera
"But plasma sucks! Why don't you get METLAGUNS ON YOUR VETS OMGBBQ"
It makes sense that some sort of long-ranged (relatively), anti-infantry and anti-light vehicle weapons would be issued to the Mech Platoon to defend the ground they hold. Our tanks should engage their tanks; ours will win 85% of the time.

i cannot see any spam here.

you have a squad of dmolishers, a squad of LRBT and a squad of vanquishers.

spam would mean you had 9 identical tanks :)

[Sanguinary Dan]

I doubt anyone actually complains about Ork's or Necron's "spamming" their troop choices. But in other armies my issue with spam is that it's boring to face. I like seeing a nice mix of unit types across the table top. If I want to see a board where each and every unit is the same I can play something with counters.

So, spam if you have no option? Too bad, but that's life as constrained by a Codex. Spam if you are lazy or think it's the only way to "WINORGOHOMEBIIIIiiiiaaaTCH!"? Pass.:p

[Melissia]

I know we've had this discussion before but being an Ork list is the very reason it shouldn't be cut and paste theme-wise. With orks everything is home made, customised or stolen. They don't all line up and get handed the same basic kit like guardsmen. Every single Ork shoota is unique. But they all have the same stats. It is an abstraction of the real thing, not an exact replication. Therefor the premise for your argument is rather pointless to me.

[Melissia]

I doubt anyone actually complains about Ork's or Necron's "spamming" their troop choices.

Actually yes, they did and they do.

[erwos]

In any army since the dawn of time, standardization has always been the holy grail. It makes supply and logistics so much simpler. Units in 40k armies should be very similar if not identical, no problem with that. Characters though should be unique.

Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics.
This is true, but it's also irrelevant. The units in the battle are assumed to be at least relatively well-supplied, and so the logistics are hand-waved away. It might be interesting to try to simulate logistics issues, but considering that this would be represented as a series of annoying book-keeping penalties, I doubt anyone really wants to do it on a regular basis.

I think the "spam" people get tired of isn't really seeing identical units per se, but seeing undercosted identical units used over and over for more and more advantage (eg, Manticore and Vendetta spam) over someone who takes a more varied force.

[Aldramelech]

This is true, but it's also irrelevant. The units in the battle are assumed to be at least relatively well-supplied, and so the logistics are hand-waved away. It might be interesting to try to simulate logistics issues, but considering that this would be represented as a series of annoying book-keeping penalties, I doubt anyone really wants to do it on a regular basis.

I think the "spam" people get tired of isn't really seeing identical units per se, but seeing undercosted identical units used over and over for more and more advantage (eg, Manticore and Vendetta spam) over someone who takes a more varied force.

You've missed the point entirely.

The troops on the 40k battlefield are supplied and we don't need to worry about it, but to say "spam" is "unfluffy" is rubbish due to the reasons laid out by me. The point of the post is to highlight that "spam" is very "fluffy"......

[Hyperion]

Spam? I love spam...

[Aldramelech]

Spam Up!

[DarkLink]

Spam; the other, other white meat. That's actually kinda pinkish.

[Sister Rosette Soulknyt]

Firstly i dont see why people have issues over Spam, seriously its a game, yes its less fluffly in ways, maybe to them its boring some how even. That said, it can be hard not to Spam with some armies.
Example, i play SoB, i use in large Apoc games 7 Dominion squads:
3 6 woman sqaud with 4x melta guns, Vet sister with combi melta and Immolator.
2 6 woman squad with 4x flamers, Vet sister with combi flamer and Immolator.
2 6 woman squad with 4x storm bolters, Vet sister with storm bolter and Immolator.

now ad that SoB lack lots of troop choices too how am i not to end up with squad s all the same? i have 10 squads of troops, 4 of them the same. Spamming is a lot more commen than in some armies, but even in the most militaristic armies like IG or SM you will find Spam with Tactical or platoons being all the same.
It saves time, its uniform and atleast i know whats in each squad and dont have to look at my sheet everytime a squad goes to perform an action.

People who have issues with spam have to much time to think about complaining. Maybe they should call complaining a hobby and then justify tht too.

[Valkerie]

I totally agree Melissa. First off, it's hard to build a theme to an army without duplcates. Take away the "'spam" units, and you generally destroy any cohesive theme that the army was building. I personally spam plasma cannons in my army, and it adds alot to my theme. To me, it says that my guys are willing to use whatever it takes to destroy the enemy, even if a self-sacrifice is needed from time to time.

Also, quite a few armies are left with only a pair (or even less) of troops options, but with the system being so dependant on scoring with troops, players are left with little option other than to take duplicates of the same units, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I agree. Among other armies, I play Dark Eldar. There is really only one good build for this force, Raider spam. Most of the other units are next to useless. I do run an HQ with Incubi and a Wych squad, but even these run around in Raiders. Around here, anyway, no one really worries about spam from me. Of course, that probably has something to do with my less than stellar win/loss record. :)

[Lucian Kain]

Cool I've been testing the waters so to speek,( im new to BoLS) with a 1500pt SpaceWolves list but not getting many bites,and agree with most of the collective thinking seen here,just didn't want to build an expensive army bring it to bare and find out the general attitude towards it was "dont bother bringing it" its just too dumb to play against.It would be a fairly childish response but the ideas obviously to have fun and get as many games as possible,anyone who's that serious should probably consider getting a life or growing up.It obviously has its inherant weekness' anyway-Please pull it to bits and make an example of it in all respects...

I was just thinking if you didn't spam a GreyKnights list how would it even begin to become competitive,the one trick flick that is the obvious build, being very light on effective long range/anti armour and haveing to make up for it...besides if someone spams a list against me im happy- i like the challenge, part of why i like the GK,small elite, low number units that if played wrong will have punishing results.If you loose-you loose if you win you walk away knowing that the decisions you made carried more weight then your oponent (satisfaction win or loose) Keeping in mind that its still only a game.

[Brettila]

Just a quick 2 cents. I think many are missing the definition of what many consider to be 'spam'. Generally, spam is anything done in an army to excess; to the point that an army constructed to compete against whatever foe may show up to play cannot deal with it. A case in point would be the IG army that won a recent national 'Ard Boy. It was virtually nothing but armor 12 (lots of FW vehicles, not just chimeras). ((It had LOTS of vehicles too.)) A generic army has little chance taking out nothing but armor when it is designed expecting troops. I believe that that is what is meant by spam. Armor 12 spam, melta-gun spam, mech infantry spam, etc.

[Col.Gravis]

Just a quick 2 cents. I think many are missing the definition of what many consider to be 'spam'. Generally, spam is anything done in an army to excess; to the point that an army constructed to compete against whatever foe may show up to play cannot deal with it. A case in point would be the IG army that won a recent national 'Ard Boy. It was virtually nothing but armor 12 (lots of FW vehicles, not just chimeras). ((It had LOTS of vehicles too.)) A generic army has little chance taking out nothing but armor when it is designed expecting troops. I believe that that is what is meant by spam. Armor 12 spam, melta-gun spam, mech infantry spam, etc.

To be honest, a properly balanced army should be able to complete against it, perhaps it won't have the easiest time but it's doable, however many people are not properly balanced because the local metagame favours something else so it's natural to tailor a little towards that leading to a greater amount of anti-personel or anti-tank firepower - when someones then spams something unexpected it caused problems.

My local club had alot of small elite armies for qutie a while, Ravenwing, Deathwing (guess what these too 'spam'), Mech Eldar amongst them naturally people adjusted there armies a little to deal with these - now someone has an Ork Boy and Kan horde, it went undefeated for quite a while on account the armies people were using just could'nt deal with the sheer numbers, the army list's are now changing to reflect this and are more balanced to deal with anything as a result.

[Hyperion]

To be honest, a properly balanced army should be able to complete against it, perhaps it won't have the easiest time but it's doable, however many people are not properly balanced because the local metagame favours something else so it's natural to tailor a little towards that leading to a greater amount of anti-personel or anti-tank firepower - when someones then spams something unexpected it caused problems.

My local club had alot of small elite armies for qutie a while, Ravenwing, Deathwing (guess what these too 'spam'), Mech Eldar amongst them naturally people adjusted there armies a little to deal with these - now someone has an Ork Boy and Kan horde, it went undefeated for quite a while on account the armies people were using just could'nt deal with the sheer numbers, the army list's are now changing to reflect this and are more balanced to deal with anything as a result.


And now we move into the realm of metaspam.

[Chris Copeland]

I now have a term that I officially love: meta-spam!

Well done, sir! I salute you!

[Denzark]

I agree entirely with what is being said here.

My Armored Company has a standard loadout:

3x Vanquishers with Lascannons
"But Paul, why don't you make a couple of them Leman Russes with lascannons?"
Because, logistically, having to supply HE AND AP rounds to a single squadron makes less sense than just AP rounds.



Respectfully if we're talking logistically it is fairly simple to supply HEAT, AFPDS, HESH and all sorts to a single sqn. Its differing calibres that starts to cause the Plt Sgt/ CQMS/ G4 wallahs problems.

[Denzark]

I think the problem with spam is, it is not disliked by people facing necrons/orks/sinful sucking sisters of battle because thats the only way an army works. It is disliked by people who have to face maxed out power lists that have been designed to WAAC - you might as well call it list hammer. A la Goatboy around 8-12 months back - now he seems to be less duplication and more fluff. So now, having seen an 18 Land Raider list with only 6 infantry models, or whatever, people associate all duplication with power gaming.

Personally, having had my 3 defiler list slaughter yet more blood angels last night, c'est la guerre, mon capitaine.

[jumai]

I thought the whole tradition established itself after the release of 5th, when people were still getting used to facing armour saturation... I heard "rhino spam" for a fair bit before I started hearing overuse of other things called spam. Etymologically at least this seems like the reason. I could be completely wrong though.

At any rate, complaints while we were adjusting to games where people put down 6 tanks and nothing with legs were kind of understandable, and if it's kinda stuck... probably also understandable, I am going to be unimpressed the first time I play a BA player with only dreadnoughts.

[erwos]

At any rate, complaints while we were adjusting to games where people put down 6 tanks and nothing with legs were kind of understandable, and if it's kinda stuck... probably also understandable, I am going to be unimpressed the first time I play a BA player with only dreadnoughts.
Just play objectives. Insta-draw! (Unless you get tabled, but I've never found dreads all that hard to kill.)

Units are naturally going to get spammed if they present a far better value than everything else in the slot. That's why you see Chaos armies of nothing but Plague Marines, Obliterators, and DPs, and 3 Manticore, 3 Vendetta squads, and 3-6 meltavet chimera IG armies.

I've always felt that, with some codexes, if everyone kept refining their lists down to what worked best, they'd wind up with roughly the same list.

[DarkAngelHopeful]

I've always felt that, with some codexes, if everyone kept refining their lists down to what worked best, they'd wind up with roughly the same list.

I've thought the same thing.

[jumai]

Just play objectives. Insta-draw! (Unless you get tabled, but I've never found dreads all that hard to kill.)

Units are naturally going to get spammed if they present a far better value than everything else in the slot. That's why you see Chaos armies of nothing but Plague Marines, Obliterators, and DPs, and 3 Manticore, 3 Vendetta squads, and 3-6 meltavet chimera IG armies.

I've always felt that, with some codexes, if everyone kept refining their lists down to what worked best, they'd wind up with roughly the same list.

Oh, I'm not claiming that the 999 dreadnoughts plan is genuinely problematic, any more than I meant to imply that troop transports are. I was just observing that adjustment periods involve annoyance.

[BlindGunn]

Spam is a powerful force and I agree, some armies just don't work well without it.

My Tau force consists of Multiple squads of Firewarriors - almost all kitted out exactly the same - mainly because I hate Kroot (it's a preference thing - nothing to do with mathhammer or quality - I just don't like them). Big difference is some have Devilfish and some walk - hardly a distinction when I can swap squads after 1st turn and have the "Devilfish Taxi Service". Multiple Hammerheads and possibly multiple Pathfinders if I have the points. It's almost impossible NOT to Spam a Tau force.

My Spacewolves though, I think the only common squads are my Blood Claws. My Grey Hunter squads all have different weapon combos. The Spacewolf Fluff makes it seem more "right" to have different weapon combos for these squads of highly opinionated and strong-willed individuals.

Both armies are fun for me to play. Everyone has to find what works for them and what they have fun using. I think that's the key.

[Melissia]

I think the problem with spam is, it is not disliked by people facing necrons/orks/sinful sucking sisters of battle because thats the only way an army works.

Oh yes it is. People whine and b**** and moan and groan and then whine some more about EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE LISTS.

People whined about "spam" when I posted my Sisters of Battle lists (with four identical Battle Sister Squads and three exorcists). People whine incessantly about "spam" any time an Ork list is EVER posted. People whine about "spam" when a Necron player dares use even a single monolith (seriously).

As I've said elsewhere, the common thread is that people whine. And the second common thread is that I ignore them because they're idiots.

[Hyperion]

Oh yes it is. People whine and b**** and moan and groan and then whine some more about EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE LISTS.

People whined about "spam" when I posted my Sisters of Battle lists (with four identical Battle Sister Squads and three exorcists). People whine incessantly about "spam" any time an Ork list is EVER posted. People whine about "spam" when a Necron player dares use even a single monolith (seriously).

As I've said elsewhere, the common thread is that people whine. And the second common thread is that I ignore them because they're idiots.

Eee! Monospam!

[PhatCat]

Very simply, spam exists because: 1) it's effective and 2) the game dislikes multipurpose units. It's effective because linear thinkers tend to build a unit for a single purpose and then multiply it because of thoughts that it's the "best" or "only" choice to do that role. This is forced by the fact that GW makes rules that hinder multi-faceted units. For example, you cannot (for 99% of the units, at least) split fire from a squad, so that means you get one special weapon and bunch of bullet catchers, rather than being able to fire the meltagun at a tank and then send 9 bolter shots at a nearby enemy squad. Similarly, there's the dumb rule about only being able to assault what you shoot, so again, units are built (and spammed) to do one job only.

If GW simply did a better job writing rules (and codexes), the need to spam wouldn't be as prevalent and specialist units are much more frequent than well-designed, all-comer units that can handle any task with skill.

[Whoop!]

No, ork spam would be scrapple.

Its the Eldar whos spam is tofu.

[david5th]

I could not care less if an army is spam or not as long as i and my opponent have a good and enjoyable game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE

Sorry, but i could not help my self.:)

[Skragger]

As an Ork player, I love spamming. The idea of dropping a hundred boyz with shootaz is very psychological. When every model staring at the enemy is the same, their eyes do that great glazing over thing and they just see a tide of green.

It looks great displaying them on their shelves, and its very realistic.