Dealing with Mathhammer players

[will44]

I've recently realized most of my opponents aren't playing warhammer 40K, they're playing mathhammer. It's all about the min/max and playing the percentages. Now I realize that's perfectly fine, it's not the game I want to play. I tend to prefer fluff based lists, or strategy lists. Is it at all possible to play a successful 40K game without giving in? Anyone else find this to be the case?

[AbusePuppy]

Are you having fun playing against them? Are they having fun playing against you?

If you aren't having fun, the problem is basically on your end. Maybe you should speak to them- in a non-accusatory manner- and explain what you're looking for in a game. (Please don't say "fun," everyone wants to have fun.) Maybe they'll be willing to accept a handicap in points or tone their armies down. Maybe they can suggest changes to your army that will make it stronger without compromising what you want to do with it. Or maybe there isn't a common ground and you'll have to find someone else to play against.

Unless your opponents are being outright jerks to you, it's your own responsibility to ensure you're having fun. You need to figure out what you enjoy and find a way to do that. Does not winning bother you? Are you only interested in playing against painted armies? Do you want some sort of narrative structure to the game? Usually there are many things you and your opponent(s) can find as middle ground if you try, things that you both enjoy.

And if you and they are both having fun already, what does it matter which game they're playing and which game you're playing?

[artfcllyflvrd]

I think you are misusing the word mathhammer (if it's possible to misuse interent slang).

I you don't like playing them then don't play them. Find a different group or ask them to bring fluffy lists when they play you.

That's one thing I don't get about this hobby. I know there aren't a ton of players, so we all usually play with whoever we can find. But if it's really the unenjoyable then just stop. Nothing says you have to play anyone.

[Oelber]

I've had this problem in the past, and to be honest I kinda just suffered through it. It made the wins sweeter. I think you make fluff based lists that can still be successful, especially if you make the optimal choices for things that aren't dictated by the fluff you're building your list around.

[Grrmpf]

Math only gets you so far. Often its misleading people to expect averages all the time. Many reasons why units function well are hardly expressable by math.

When you dont want to play games with multiple identical units, you can set up composition rules beforehand, like many smaller tourneys do.

[Alxmas]

I just have to echo what AbusePuppy said many people derive almost all of their fun from tweaking and perfecting their lists and play style. That said there are many ways to play a "fluffy" list that can compete with top tier lists. You don't have to resort to cheesing out your own list just build your list with a game plan in mind and stick to that plan. Fluffy lists don't have to be ineffective.

The best thing to do is talk reasonably and rationally with them and try to find common ground and settle on an acceptable compromise for everyone. This situation forces you to be on your A game which will make you a better player as well rather than have the optimizes completely downgrade their lists.

[Bean]

I also basically agree with what Abuse Puppy said. If people are "mathhammering" their army lists, they're doing it because that's what's fun for them. It's not really your opponents' responsibility to make sure that you have fun playing against their armies--it's your responsibility. If you're not having fun playing against their armies, either ask them nicely (remember, they're really not doing anything wrong or reprehensible) to play different armies or learn to enjoy the challenge.

[Komosunder]

there are many different ways to play 40k, and I'm not talking about apocalypse or planet strike. most of these fall in to two different categories, hard core or fluffy. hard core, just as you would imagine, takes not prisoners. this is where the cheese belongs, or your "mathhammer". this is how tournaments are played. that is, of course, if you want to win. fluffy play is where you get to run what ever you want. you can put some backstory in if you want. drop in some crazy scenarios and bam you have it.

it sounds to me like you and your buddies are playing 2 different games. if they want to play competitive then play them competitive. but i feel they should give you the same respect.

a lot of players like to play competitive 24/7 not because they need the practice, but because they only find fun in winning. if you really have a problem with how they are playing then tool to crush them in a couple games and i bet they would be more willing to play some of the less competitive lists.

[marsdonut]

I've recently realized most of my opponents aren't playing warhammer 40K, they're playing mathhammer. It's all about the min/max and playing the percentages. Now I realize that's perfectly fine, it's not the game I want to play. I tend to prefer fluff based lists, or strategy lists. Is it at all possible to play a successful 40K game without giving in? Anyone else find this to be the case?

Depends on how you pregame. If you're able to submerge yourself into a story of an oncoming assault, limited resources and obtuse characters, you're half way there to ignoring the effects of the meta. Play your game and let them play theirs, but afterwards, make note of what was lost and gained from the fight. What story elements can you draw from their advancement and your reactions? How concrete is the fluff, and when were the characters making the decisions? I would say if the game is wearing thin and you have options to retreat, take it. Offer your opponent another game with remaining forces, and see if they will accomidate you. Just my 2 cents.

[inquisitorsog]

I get where you're coming from, but the format of most 40k(and WFB) games tends to make even those who start out wanting to be fluffy drift into a more tactical way of building lists. When

Folks will disagree with me, but if you want fluffy games, you need to lay out the scenarios with a little more care than "roll up the scenario from the book and bring x points of whatever army". I'm thinking of old battle tech books where they set up precise scenario details down to which mechs would be used, where each one enters the board from, and very specific victory conditions in order to represent a "historical" battle. That's a true fluff game.

We don't need to go quite that far, but my point is that when you throw open the game format to just plain old "bring whatever your army is", folks will naturally tend to build the most advantageous army. It's a game, people play to win even if they can enjoy themselves while losing. To play other wise, you need to change the format!