Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi All,

I was wondering what you think the fairest/ most fun matchup is currently in 8th edition?

I've been playing some Orks vs Tyranids recently and it has been really good.
Mainly I think because neither army is geared towards shooting the opponent off the board turn 1, they both have a deep roster with nice mix of shooting and melee options and both have poor long range anti-tank which makes big walkers and monsters feel more impactful.

I definately think that having a decent share of mele, psychic and shooting in a list is more fun. More possible interactions, more chance for sneaky tactics and less chance of being shut out of a game completely.

Also as fun as they can be, monster mash lists are often one sided (depending on how many anti tank guns the other side brought).

I really like thousand sons (with a few tzeentch daemons) vs dukari as a matchup. I've had this a few times and the power through pain abilities and loads of psychic powers are always fun and feel balanced.

Non-Competitive: horde of Orks that march up a field vs Space Marines with guns and a couple dedicated close combat units. It's just a lot of fun, bodies go flying everywhere. Good time.

Competitive: ITC - Space Marines w/Smash Captain, Scouts, and Fire Support vs Chaos Firebase, w/Psykers and Disco Lords. That game will challenge you on so many levels, and the fun will be in not screwing up and trying to prod your opponent for a weakness.

Had an interesting matchup a couple of weeks back, both playing Loyal 32 + Raven Knights with only a couple of differences.

My list
- Loyal 32
- Gallant
- Castellan
- Crusader
- 2x Helverins

His list
- Loyal 32
- Gallant
- Castellan
- 2x Helverins
- 2x Warglaives


Very close match indeed, I won 20-19 mainly by luck. Was interesting to see how these similar lists ran, coming down mainly to luck and player skill. Highlights of the match were my last Helverin surviving 3 separate Knight explosions, and my Castellan failing to do a single wound to his Warglaive despite Order of Companions and firing every single weapon at it.

Fairest/most fun matchup?

Two players who enjoy eachother.

I've had games that steamrolled either way that were more fun than games that were close but I was playing against a jerk.

And people within a meta who kinda know and respect that meta will produce lists that play at that level. So unless you're in an overly competitive meta, any army can compete (although some need more optimization than others).

Some armies inherently are less likely to yield a fun game than others. Extremes tend to reduce the likelyhood of fun.

Space Elves are designed around being douchebags, both by fluff and by rules. So it's always a risk that their builds can be annoying to play against - as too much control play can get frustrating.

T'au are designed to shoot the opponent of the board, before they can close in. That's going to frustrate a player who wants to play a close-range game.

That said, I've seen Marines be the "unfun" opponent, and CWE/T'au/whatever be the fun one.

Regardless of army, I try to build a TAC "Demi-company" style list. Something with at least a little of everything. This way, my opponent has options, and his decisions matter. Include at least a little of as many different categories as possible
-Core basic footsoldiers (Marines, Avengers, Guardians, etc)
-Fire Support (Devs, Preds, Reapers, Falcons)
-Skirmishers (ASM, Spears, etc)
-Heavy close units (Zerkers, Fire Dragons, SM Vets, etc)
-Beatstick HQ (Captain/CM, Phoenix Lord, Autarch)

Then fill up. It's not as strong as a skew list - competitive lists do better when they focus on one area. But by having a little of everything, you need to find ways to make it work together to do best. And it gives you lots of options. And your opponents have lots of meaningful options.

Opponents tend to enjoy games against me more when I use such lists.

My friend and I have been doing the Vigilus missions. Same faction each week, started at 500 points, ended at 3500 points.

Black Legion vs. Ultramarines.

The final mission was hilarious. Abaddon bitch slapped Calgar, and the proceeded to evade death for four turns, only to have my friend roll a 6+ on the "Oh god ships are falling out of orbit" table, killing 1000 points of his army and making it neigh impossible for him to win!

No knights were used, and I found most of the match-ups to be quite well balanced.

It has little to do with the army, and more to do with the army build. It's quite easy to construct a fun/balanced pair of army lists, but it takes two people sharing that desire to make it happen.

I've had a lot of very close matches with my 3x Knights lists... generally 3x Crusaders (or 2x Crusaders + Warden) w/ 1-2 Tank Commanders, and either a smash captain and scouts or enginseers and dunecrawlers. Some of my closest matches in tournament games have been:

Vs AdMech - Played at a tournament last weekend, won a 25-23 game. Played at a GT 2 weeks ago, lost 22-23. In both cases, vs AdMech it's a game of attrition. Their units are quite durable, and so are my Knights, so we just grind each other down over the course of a game. I'll try to stay out of range of Kataphrons or Dakkabots so I can focus fire on one unit at a time, but it's not easy to do so.

Vs Orks - had a 26-30 loss against them at a recent GT. Shokk Attack Mek, 120 boyz, some warbosses and weirdboyz, some tankbustas. I'd kill a bunch, but I'd eat some wounds from the SAG every turn, as well as the Tankbustas and others. Slowly ground down my Knights. I think at the end of that game I had a crippled Knight left on the table, he had a SAG surrounded by Grots and 4 boyz. Real meatgrinder.

Vs Genestealer Cults - I've played these guys 3 times, always close. I have to turtle up in a corner HARD, so I basically give him map control. If I let myself expose a Knight to a charge, i will lose that Knight... so I need to use terrain and careful placement of my units to ensure he assaults tanks or infantry that I can afford to lose. The idea is eventually I'll be able to move out after the deep strikers have come in. My last game against them was a 29-24 win.

GK vs. Ork soup

Mostly lists that arent one dimensional. Against a 2-3 knights list I can have a really fun and close match one time. Then win turn 2 or be wiped off the table turn 2 the next game.

Like others have mentioned. Different units that can compete in different phases. Even movement phase counts. Having some mobile units like jump infantry moving around and perhaps some reserve units or units that can deploy further forward so you have to think about each phase. If not all in on one phase the game will usually be decided a bit later than if one list were a static gunline and got turn 1. Will also be more meaningful choices later on when it comes to scoring if you cant wipe them early. Kill or score usually become a relevant decision then

Interesting could be 2500 pts GK vs. 2000 pts <insert army here>.

GK are only 3rd worst as a primary faction now.

I'd say probably a mirror match in playstyle.

Ranged-on-ranged with mostly direct-fire units is probably most fair and most fun.

Melee-on-melee might be fun. Melee units have a lot of power, but kind of low survivability, for their cost, which means they're often either a total bloodbath or a prolonged standoff as nobody risks getting within charge range.

The asymmetic ranged-on-melee matchup is not fun for at least one person, because one person does not play the game. Either the shooters turn everything to paste before it makes contact, or something makes contact quickly and the shooting army stands around and dies.


I actually think that the fact that mass melee as a strategy is a supported format is to the detriment of this game. The inherent limitations of melee units in a game generally about ranged combat means that an army focused entirely on melee has a very fine line between overpowered and worthless, it affects the power curve and required capabilities of units, and will trend towards games that are faster, more lethal, and more one-sided.

 Elbows wrote:
It has little to do with the army, and more to do with the army build. It's quite easy to construct a fun/balanced pair of army lists, but it takes two people sharing that desire to make it happen.

This.
Sure there are more skewy armies ( in the past Tau, now Knights of any Variation are moreso) which easily can be aggrivating to Play against in pure form, but a prewarning (he i am going to Play the new Chaos Knights pure or i bring a R&H militia Horde) goes a Long way to slightly remove the skewy nature inherent of These lists..

That said, a decent mixed army with not only optimal choices, or Theme armies such as this:
Which is built as a undead ethereal somewhat durable but not really durable army.
can make for great match ups. If the theme works well enough.

Alternatively the most fun i had was to just go in and Play the game without any consideration just to have a good time. Esepcially with my R&H this is probably a rather necessary mindest.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

I actually think that the fact that mass melee as a strategy is a supported format is to the detriment of this game. The inherent limitations of melee units in a game generally about ranged combat means that an army focused entirely on melee has a very fine line between overpowered and worthless, it affects the power curve and required capabilities of units, and will trend towards games that are faster, more lethal, and more one-sided.

what army is massed melee?
Most melee armies are more along the line of movement shenanigans and some really powerfull Units supported by other stuff, in essence beeing a huge Alpha strike idea.

Martel732 wrote:
GK are only 3rd worst as a primary faction now.

Oh? What changed to give them such a boost? Who took #1 & #2?

ccs wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
GK are only 3rd worst as a primary faction now.

Oh? What changed to give them such a boost? Who took #1 & #2?

Blood Angeles dropped off.

 Elbows wrote:
It has little to do with the army, and more to do with the army build. It's quite easy to construct a fun/balanced pair of army lists, but it takes two people sharing that desire to make it happen.

Sage advice that I couldn't disagree with, however I would add that some armies are more fun to play against than others.

I think part of the fun is feeling that you're making an impact on your opponents forces and seeing a physical change in their army. So attacking a squad of GK Terminators or a Knight and doing nothing because they have 2+ invulnerable saves and loads of wounds feels less fun than attacking a squad of guants or boys where you'll always inflict some casualties but maybe not enough to stop yourself being run over!

I would disagree with shooting feeling more fun than melee though. In shooting you pick a unit and attack it, whereas I find melee has more back and forth so feels more interactive.
Things like considering how to get your unit across the board in good order, how to do the pile ins and consolidation bits to get the most out of the combat, what order to fight the combats in to limit the effects of opponents fighting first, the effects of units retreating out of combat and also the the opponent getting to interact with the charges through overwatch I find really enjoyable.

However all this is predicated on there being a lot of melees going on and both players having a good mix of melee units in their army, otherwise it can just become the 'run away' phase for one player!

Space Marines/Deathwing/Blood Angels/Wolves vs Tyranids are always fun

Marine's tanks/transports become more durable and their special characters will get a chance to get into combat. Tyranids get to swarm and run more balanced lists as well.

ccs wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
GK are only 3rd worst as a primary faction now.

Oh? What changed to give them such a boost? Who took #1 & #2?

I don't know but they have better faction primary % than several armies now, and a better mono % than Dark Angels. They did have a better mono % than BA, but some BA guys have done well lately.

The one where you play Apocalypse. The one game I have played has outdone all my 8th edition games combined.

Orks vs nids seems a decent shout. Neither army is likely to play a static gunline, both are likely to interact meaningfully in every phase, models will be flying off the table both ways and while both factions can (and probably will) field hordes of chaff, they're both capable of dealing with big infantry blobs

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The one where you play Apocalypse. The one game I have played has outdone all my 8th edition games combined.

Can confirm. Much fun, very wow. Even at 150 PL.

I particularly like playing with my craftworlds Vs other eldar, dark or clown flavours.
That way everyone is fast, hits hard but are fairly brittle. It makes manoeuvring and target priority probably the most important aspects of the game which makes them fun for me at least.