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!

[Bean]

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.

Honestly, it probably won't even take that--and what I've found is that "fluff" players who tool up to "crush competitive players" are usually disappointed and get even more frustrated as a result.

Just ask them. I don't think I know anyone who would refuse to modify their army (within reason) if you just asked them.

What you shouldn't do is accuse them--they're not doing anything wrong, and people don't respond well to accusations.

Don't say, "man, quit playing those power-gamy, win-at-all-cost armies! you're un-fun!"

Say, "Hey, I'm really not having fun playing against your army, do you think you could do me a favor and maybe try a different type of game? Perhaps we could play a fluffy scenario, or, you know, you could at least leave out x, y, or z unit that I have particular trouble dealing with."

I really think that, if you take the latter approach, you won't run into much opposition. Most opponents will be happy to help you have a good time if you let them know that you're not having fun and what they can do to help.

[DarkLink]

Straight math is the quick way to competitive gaming. How many tanks can you kill per turn? How many Marines can you kill a turn? How many models do you have, and how many vehicles? The more the better, so maximizing your damage output while minimizing cost is a basic skill any competitive player spends a lot of time on.


The best players, however, tend to take a step beyond this. Most of the top level competitive lists tend to have slightly odd choices. It's pretty common for them to even look like a bunch of nonsense, as if the player just took one or two of every unit he felt like. Part of this is individual skill, where some players are better at different aspects of the game than others and so adjust their lists accordingly. More importantly, these players have found synergies within the list that aren't immediately apparent that are lacking in a more vanilla 'netlist'. Taking an odd unit here or there opens up options that would otherwise not be available, so even if it puts a small dent in their numbers the increased tactical flexibility more than makes up for it.


So, yeah, it's totally possible to have weird but competitive lists. Making them work just takes a lot of skill and a unique understanding of the army, though.

[Grenadier]

I'm not sure I understand this "mathhammer" thing. Especially since I am terrible at math. But if it is about players who like to squeeze every single point they can into an army and choose heavily laden hard hitting units like fully tricked out Terminators or Command squads I'm familiar with it. If it's about players who just try to build an uber powerful unstoppable army I know all about it.

I never try building a fluffy list or a math list. Generally I build my army around something I love about the army. In the case of my Black Templars I love how cool they look. Probably a silly reason to pick an army. I don't care if they're great at hand to hand and suck at shooting. So my army begins with the "coolness" factor. And I'll fill it full of the greatest and coolest looking units. Doesn't exactly make for a super powerful army.

After I do this I identify my army's strengths and weaknesses. And will get additional units to compensate for the weaknesses. Always with an eye towards how they look. To an extent fluff comes into play for my Templars. And now I'm content with my army. It still has certain glaring weaknesses: it lacks significant fast attack potential and it suffers from having any hard hitting shooty units. But it is troop heavy. And it's all about swarming my enemy. My Templars will take lots of casualties. And they may not always win. But they play like Templars. Of course I could math it up on the list and try to get more bang for my buck. I could power up the army. But then it just wouldn't feel right.

Conversely, with my Imperial Guard I built my army around the thing I love best about them: shooting. So tanks are my main models. They're everything to me. Consequently all my non-tank selections were chosen for one reason only: to support tanks. And so I have infantry squads and heavy weapons teams. Due to the army's sheer firepower I forsook fast attack. I have 6 sentinels but they aren't real fast attack in my opinion. I also gave up specialized units like psykers and priests. My army is all about backing up my tanks and letting my tanks handle the bulk of enemy killing. There's nothing fancy in my army. I go light on upgrades and so forth. It's just pure shooty death.

My army isn't invincible though. The troops can be cut down easily by Marines. And there is a decided decrease in my "death dealing per turn" for every vehicle lost. The loss of each tank is a blow to the army. And if you take out enough of my tanks the issue is in doubt for me. And since I have no serious fast attack I'm not capable of quickly responding to certain kinds of threats and have little in the way of proper outflanking potential. This army, like my Templars, isn't "win at all costs."

Winning is always fun. And I've won far more than I've lost. But to me making an army that is impossible to beat takes the fun out of the game. When my Dark Angels opponents brings his fancy little marines loaded with every special little thing, wargear, special character, etc....you'd think it's going to be an unbeatable foe. For sure he has EVERYTHING you can give them in his army. And he'll bring the most. Power gaming at its finest. Yet my armies regular beat his.

I think when you intentionally seek to build an army that can't be beaten, when you math it up or power game, you've actually hurt your army. Because you get too comfortable with it. You think it can be beaten. You think you've got all your bases covered. And if your opponent knows how to "pick apart" an army you can lose quickly. I know which units to worry about the most. When you know how to dismantle an army properly no army can be unbeatable. So why build one to be unbeatable?

[Night Haunter]

Everyone has their own thing. Personally, I choose a unit I want to use and then run the math for them to figure out what I should expect on average for performance against certain opponents. That's how I do it anyway.

[vharing]

I had an opponent that became very upset because his "averages" werent working. I was wiping out his SW with my all DC Blood Angels army. His dice rolls were going really poorly and my normally terrible luck was doing awesome. By the end of turn 3, with over half his army was gone and me with only a handful of dead models, he told me that is army isnt meant to lose this bad and was trying to say I was cheating some how. One of his friends told him that I had been playing fine and that it was his bad luck. After that he suddenly had a phone call an had to leave. Sometimes math hammer just doesnt work.

[Bergermeister84]

Mathhammer doesn't work for people who don't understand the underlying principles behind probability. Warhammer 40k deals with dice and results cannot be perfectly predicted. Bad luck happens and is just part of the game.

[Blaznak]

Just a thought for you:
The "mathhammer" type players out there I've met tend to have a preconcieved notion how armies work. They tend not to play the odds or go for unusual tactics. This does not make them bad players: far from it. However, it does give you places to exploit their armies.
1) Clump'm and lump'm. Your mathhammer works all day long, but my entire army is going to focus on your unit A until it is dead and then move on to the next. If you get good target priority and table placement, you may leave the mathhammer player scrambling to "add things up". Example: Table up on just one table quarter and send your entire army against a key unit or two. Disadvantage: Well, all your grots are in one buggy, so to speak...
2) Play the odds. Use fun units that have a lot chance of a big payoff and exploit them. I'll use Orks for example: Old Zogworts got about a 50/50 chance of making an independent character go all squiggy. The horror on a player's face when they realize the lynchpin of their force is about to become an intelligent rabid fungus is priceless. Another Ork example is the Shokk Attack Gun. Lets just say its a 1 in 36 of instant death for you or the enemy, but I'll take those odds! Essentially you are becoming a "chaos hammer"as opposed to their mathhammer!
3) Don't do the expected. So: There you are with an all terminator army marching / teleporting around you. Wow. Logic is "Shoot Fiighty/Fight Shooty" Termies are very fighty so shoot'm up! right? Wellllll.... look at your forces and charge troops in that can act as turn sinks. Got somethign with invulnerable saves? or lots of attacks on the charge? Get them stuck in! Make Mathhammer react to you. (I know that example probably isn't the best but hopefully you get the idea).
4) Don't worry about it! Play your army to your strengths and don't focus on the win loss so much. I know I do A LOT BETTER in my games when I do that. Do I forget the scenario conditions? Do I -not- want to win? Nope. Not at all. BUT, I try to focus on what will be fun to do with my army from turn to turn. I fought an extremely skilled, extremely tweaked, extremely mathed out Necron force with my orks. I said to myself "Screw it - going to just play this one orky". I Looked at something and said "Dunno what it is but it smells funny. Get it lads!" rinse and repeat. Sure enough, my orks acted like orks and I won the game I really don't think I should have.
So, there are my thoughts!!!
Good luck,
Blaz...

[Bean]

Just a thought for you:
The "mathhammer" type players out there I've met tend to have a preconcieved notion how armies work. They tend not to play the odds or go for unusual tactics. This does not make them bad players: far from it. However, it does give you places to exploit their armies.
1) Clump'm and lump'm. Your mathhammer works all day long, but my entire army is going to focus on your unit A until it is dead and then move on to the next. If you get good target priority and table placement, you may leave the mathhammer player scrambling to "add things up". Example: Table up on just one table quarter and send your entire army against a key unit or two. Disadvantage: Well, all your grots are in one buggy, so to speak...
2) Play the odds. Use fun units that have a lot chance of a big payoff and exploit them. I'll use Orks for example: Old Zogworts got about a 50/50 chance of making an independent character go all squiggy. The horror on a player's face when they realize the lynchpin of their force is about to become an intelligent rabid fungus is priceless. Another Ork example is the Shokk Attack Gun. Lets just say its a 1 in 36 of instant death for you or the enemy, but I'll take those odds! Essentially you are becoming a "chaos hammer"as opposed to their mathhammer!
3) Don't do the expected. So: There you are with an all terminator army marching / teleporting around you. Wow. Logic is "Shoot Fiighty/Fight Shooty" Termies are very fighty so shoot'm up! right? Wellllll.... look at your forces and charge troops in that can act as turn sinks. Got somethign with invulnerable saves? or lots of attacks on the charge? Get them stuck in! Make Mathhammer react to you. (I know that example probably isn't the best but hopefully you get the idea).
4) Don't worry about it! Play your army to your strengths and don't focus on the win loss so much. I know I do A LOT BETTER in my games when I do that. Do I forget the scenario conditions? Do I -not- want to win? Nope. Not at all. BUT, I try to focus on what will be fun to do with my army from turn to turn. I fought an extremely skilled, extremely tweaked, extremely mathed out Necron force with my orks. I said to myself "Screw it - going to just play this one orky". I Looked at something and said "Dunno what it is but it smells funny. Get it lads!" rinse and repeat. Sure enough, my orks acted like orks and I won the game I really don't think I should have.
So, there are my thoughts!!!
Good luck,
Blaz...

I think you've confused "mathhammer player" with "idiot." =P

Seriously, there's really no reason to think that a player who applies probability math to their evaluations will be unduly hampered by any of these "tactics."

Point 4 is a good point, though.

[AbusePuppy]

Anyone who says mathhammer "doesn't work" or "can't account for bad luck" doesn't understand what most of the common mathhammer tools are predicting. It's entirely possible to calculate the odds of particular strings of results, it's just not commonly presented because it's more complicated to interpret and isn't really needed.

Math is a tool. Saying a hammer "doesn't work" because you keep hitting your thumb with it is a fault with you, not with the hammer.

[Bean]

Anyone who says mathhammer "doesn't work" or "can't account for bad luck" doesn't understand what most of the common mathhammer tools are predicting. It's entirely possible to calculate the odds of particular strings of results, it's just not commonly presented because it's more complicated to interpret and isn't really needed.

Math is a tool. Saying a hammer "doesn't work" because you keep hitting your thumb with it is a fault with you, not with the hammer.

I've made a point of trying to discuss things in terms of probability more than in terms of averages over the last couple of years (ever since I started working on my suite of excel-based probability calculators). Much of it is, though, beyond what I can do in my head, so when I'm doing stuff on the fly it's usually still couched in terms of averages.

But you're definitely right. If you're of the opinion that math doesn't work or fails to account for bad luck, you're really just letting everyone know that you don't know how the math works.

[RFHolloway]

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!
I wouldn't mind borrowing a trick from Mech warrior. You might want to throw out a challenge like this.

"I have a 1500 point Grey knight army with 1 HQ 3 elites 3 troups and a fast attack - prepared to take on any Xenos army but the lowest point total army gets the first shot"

Give people a week or so to design a list and submit bids.

This could represent an attack on a homeworld or outpost, and give the math hammer players some interesting analysis to do, and you some story and fluff.

[doom-kitten]

Never really understood why anyone would want to use mathhammer, personally the word math gives me the heebie jeebies and hammers have very little to do with math. When i first encountered it in a game I was surprised and asked my opponent why he was calculating how many orcs my exorcists could kill per turn, when clearly I would never waste an exor on mere orcs when there where tasty mega-nobz and killa-kans to shoot. He pretty much tried to predicted every roll I made and it got annoying fast, I lost mostly because I thought it would be funny to see how many orcs I could kill by running them over, answer was none he jumped his orcs out of the way everytime but I did ram a kan and it exploded...and killed my living saint but such is war.

Dealing with them seems weird, their just guys or gals that get off on numbers, for the most part their harmless if a bit dedicated and very useful if you've forgotten your calculator or periodic table ( a nessacary tool for determining sciencehammer). So mathhammer away if thats what makes you happy.

[Drakkan Vael]

Often you can win by doing things that their mathhammer tells them is stupid or at least seems so. Luck and guessing distances accounts for much in this game, more than probability.

[alshrive]

"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction"

My advice to beat those who play MathHammer, is to counter it with LuckHammer. Take an army that statistically shouldn't stand a chance. Watch as their maths fall apart as they fail to successfully predict the 247th roll of the game! Stand there amused as they smash the calculator against the side of their head in the hope that they may eventually get one statistically probable roll! Pull maneuvre that even you aren't really that sure about! if you can't predict what you are going to do, then statistically they don't stand a chance.

well, it's either that or explain to them what you are looking for/find players with a similar gaming intent- but that just seems a bit too easy!

ALShrive

P.S i must actually point out that using a useless army against someone who has basically gone for WAAC army isn't necessarily the best way. It is however completely classic when you actually manage to do something and they are left somewhat befuddled.

[Chumbalaya]

"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction"

My advice to beat those who play MathHammer, is to counter it with LuckHammer. Take an army that statistically shouldn't stand a chance. Watch as their maths fall apart as they fail to successfully predict the 247th roll of the game! Stand there amused as they smash the calculator against the side of their head in the hope that they may eventually get one statistically probable roll! Pull maneuvre that even you aren't really that sure about! if you can't predict what you are going to do, then statistically they don't stand a chance.

well, it's either that or explain to them what you are looking for/find players with a similar gaming intent- but that just seems a bit too easy!

ALShrive

P.S i must actually point out that using a useless army against someone who has basically gone for WAAC army isn't necessarily the best way. It is however completely classic when you actually manage to do something and they are left somewhat befuddled.

What?

[Urza8188]

Personally I enjoy crunching the numbers as much as if not more than playing the game itself. Of course I am a man with a LOT of time to think and not much to think about. Additionally i just started playing a few months back and i don't have much of an army so i don't get to play really other than Vassal.....

But yeah keeping that in mind Ive spent days and days studying different armies and crunching numbers cause i really get a lot of enjoyment out of comparing them to my own lists and looking for ways to deal with things that have given me problems thus far.....Maybe that's part of the reason i Chose tau as my 1st army, because there's a lot to learn and it kinda feels like an uphill battle so i have to work really hard and research to get the win.Or maybe im just a glutton for pain.

[Bean]

Personally I enjoy crunching the numbers as much as if not more than playing the game itself. Of course I am a man with a LOT of time to think and not much to think about. Additionally i just started playing a few months back and i don't have much of an army so i don't get to play really other than Vassal.....

But yeah keeping that in mind Ive spent days and days studying different armies and crunching numbers cause i really get a lot of enjoyment out of comparing them to my own lists and looking for ways to deal with things that have given me problems thus far.....Maybe that's part of the reason i Chose tau as my 1st army, because there's a lot to learn and it kinda feels like an uphill battle so i have to work really hard and research to get the win.Or maybe im just a glutton for pain.

I'm the same way.

Did you know, for instance, that the probability that a melta veteran squad will destroy a land raider with shots is just slightly over 50%?

Or that the probability that a melta veteran squad with Demolitions charging a Landraider (that moved at cruising speed) has only a 28% chance with ten melta-bombs?

Just figured that out this morning. =)

[Kaiserdean]

In any game, there will be min/max players. Role playing, mini, online... My LGS has had a bunch of people using netlists and "mathhammer" to optimize there game play to win at all costs. I'll play in tourneys with these guys but I still find that I have a few friends that I always enjoy playing with and I stick to weekly games with those guys.

[DaveLL]

Anyone who says mathhammer "doesn't work" or "can't account for bad luck" doesn't understand what most of the common mathhammer tools are predicting. It's entirely possible to calculate the odds of particular strings of results, it's just not commonly presented because it's more complicated to interpret and isn't really needed.

Math is a tool. Saying a hammer "doesn't work" because you keep hitting your thumb with it is a fault with you, not with the hammer.

Technically true. However, the number of people who fully understand the statistics involved is pretty limited, and most of the calculations you see done on these boards ARE in terms of averages. Talking about probability distributions is, unfortunately, a good way of getting head-scratching.

So, I think the more accurate way to say it is that most of the people who try to use it don't actually know how to use the math hammer for anything more than the most basic operation.

[Blaznak]

I think you've confused "mathhammer player" with "idiot." =P

Seriously, there's really no reason to think that a player who applies probability math to their evaluations will be unduly hampered by any of these "tactics."

Point 4 is a good point, though.

Maybe not, but its served me ok over the years. Your dice milage may vary (Grin). I guess I'm saying look for things that disrupt the calculations as much as possible, if that's what you are going for.

Later!
Blaz

[Bean]

You can't really "disurpt" calculations in the ways you describe. I still really don't think you know what you're talking about.

[The AKH]

I have a friend I started the hobby with who is very much a math-hammer-ite - his lists are much more optimised than mine, and I find that I just don't enjoy the game as much playing the kinds of lists he favours.

So, I play the lists I want, and try and catch him off-balance tactically as much as I can. Oftentimes that involves praying heavily to the Dice Gods, but I find that the outcome is usually heaps of fun for both of us. Sure, I don't always win - but the games are mutually enjoyable, which I find to be an end in and of itself.

[volrath8754]

While I don't fall into the "math hammer" crowd I definitely am guilty of spamming the hell out of units. I own a all terminator (no paladins) GK army and a 12 chimera guard army. Frankly some people just hate playing me and that sux but it seems that everyone that complains about it being a chore to get a game in against me changes their mind immediately when they figure out they can beat my mono-dimensional lists. And that really Irks me. So please examine why you're not having fun if its because you're loosing than their is only one person to blame...

[Drakkan Vael]

Spamming units only increases the probabilities of certain results. It does not necessarily work out in the end.
Spam lists can be defeated just as any other list out there.
Mathhammer is just a tool like a template or a measuring tape.

[Turner]

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?



This is the inherent folly (if you will) I keep running into and I have with comp scores. I would like to preface that I have no problem with any of it except the argument or reasoning behind it. You say that you prefer fluff based lists or strategy lists, but getting to the very core of it, there is no fluffy lists for a futuristic game. If we were playing a WWII table top game and you played Germany on D-Day and I played America on D-Day then sure you could argue a fluffy list. You can specifically look back at history and make the statement, "You know, I don't think America sent wave after wave of transport ships filled with dog bombs." This would be true and probably not fun to play against, (I mean seriously those dog bombs are straight cheese, so cheap and they are impossible to hit, do tons of damage, anyways) but to say that "Playing against an IG parking lot, space wolf razor spam with long fangs, scarab farming, Ghaz and da boyz," or anything of the sort just doesn't make sense. The only possibly argument one could make is that a list that has two special characters (unless it literally is fluffy, like in the IG Codex Creed & Kell, two guys never seen apart) would not be fluffy. What are the sheer odds that two special characters would happen to show up for the same battle? Would Commissar Yarrick decided that, "You know, I heard a rumor that a battle was going to take place on the far edge of the galaxy with some Tau and Sly Marbo, Commander Pask and Al'Rahem would be there so I might as well fly my self over there and" seriously? Commander Pask is in charge of a tank company, Al'Rahem is the desert fox so to speak, light infantry only type deal, Yarrick is suppose to be chasing Ghaz across the known universe and Sly Marbo is suppose to be all sly and stuff. (Yeah I didn't have anything good for him) A list like that is easily argued that "it's not fluffy" whether it is fun to play against is another story entirely, but not fluffy is easily and clearly defined. Where as, stated before, playing against an IG parking lot, space wolf razor spam with long fangs, scarab farming, Ghaz and da boyz, min/max anything you can't come out and state that it isn't fluffy. There was a thread a little while back that was to the effect of "why you shouldn't read The Art Of War and try to apply it to table to war games" and I think it had it's merits. Looking at a min/max list and saying "that isn't fluffy" to me says "I'm a bad sport" sure it might not be fun to play against, right now only because everyone else and their mother is doing it. There's tons of min/max units out there, their every where! But picture this, 6th ed. rolls around and GW releases new codexes and suddenly min/max lists are gone, poof! Nobody plays them because they are terrible, there's some sort of game mechanic in 6th, the new generation of codexes really excel at beating them or simply build better without min/maxing and just nobody does that any more. Now, now something else isn't fluffy, whether it is Eldar this or Black Templar that or This play style or That Play style, but min/maxing? Well that becomes fluffy I guess, because no bodies doing it? No, that argument/set of thinking doesn't work. You might be upset at the meta, min/maxing, but you can't simply state that it's not fluffy because we have nothing to compare it to. Yes you can compare it to the actual story line GW/Black Library has but in an ever expanding universe there's so much out there that there must be an entire planet dedicated to producing army after army of IG parking lots. Even if you compare the story line GW/Black Library has put out to people's army lists then you'll skew the phrase "That's no fluffy" into something completely different. If anyone play's Necrons, right now, unless you're playing 3rd ed. Necrons then it isn't fluffy. Ah but GW/Black Library updated their codex and wrote new fluff, so who's to say that the next edition of [Insert Codex Here] won't be centered around a min/max list? Maybe that's the Tau for you?


Ultimately just play what you fine fun and master it. As an IG player used to run three Deathstrike Missiles regularly with a two to three penal legion squads and did fairly well. I did heard the occasional "that's not fluffy" or "that's not fun to play against" because when those suckers did go off they devastated my opponent, all castled up either on the objective or some corner of the map. But when they said those things I just thought to myself, "It's fun for me to play, and really, it's a Deathstrike Missile. [Insert Sarcasm] Of course it's not fun to play against because it's the most powerful weapon in the entire game, hands down, no questions asked, end of story... [End Sarcasm]"

[pathwinder14]

It is all about the player skills not the army list. Here's an example. I used to play Amateur "A" paintball. Our team captain was a girl, Connie. Newer players would smack talk her because she was a girl. She would then play one on one with a Pump marker (gun) aganst them with their electro marker. She would win every time. She knew the game. All they knew was their fast expensive marker.

Beat those Mathhammer players with a solid, fluff based list. It is not just possible, but it is more ccommon than people think. As long as you have a solid list (which can still be fluff based) you can beat them.

A solid list is mobile. It's hard hitting at range and up close. It can equally deal with hordes, asssault, and shootinig armies. On top of that, know the rules like the back of your hand and ensure you use them against the opponent at every opportunity. Many math hammer people are sooo fixated on min/max for effect they forget small rules.

[Kveldulf]

There is a difference between mathhammering and min/maxing.
Mathhammering is figuring out the precentages of success and failure and how you can achieve that success more effeciently, this can be applied in list building and on the table (knowing the precentages can help you make decisions as to how to move and what to shoot/assault). It is about first putting yourself in a situation where you have an army that can complete its objectives.
Min/Maxing is about fitting in as many moderatly well proforming units into the army as you can, or making room for that single large unit that you hope will win you the game.
Yes, you use matherhammer to min/max, but you do not necessarily min/max by matherhammering.

You can still build a balanced, and fluffy army and use matherhammer at the same time, and by streamlining certain aspects of your force you might just find your army proforms more like it should.