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.

Since my style since third edition has been to take hard to kill bricks and push them across the table. (Iyanden Wraithguard, IG Armoured Companies, Knights, etc.)

I realize I never branched out from this single playstyle... and to a lot of people I talk to, this style is kinda boring.

So, fellow dakkanaughts, what are some fun 40k armies to play, or armies that you enjoy playing against?


Maybe I'll be inspired to play something different....

Armies that have big dead piles at the end of the game (even when they win) tend to be a lot of fun to face because you feel like your units are accomplishing something throughout the game even if you're losing.

In the past, I'd have pointed to orks as a prime example of this, but T5 and some of their newer rules may have moved them away from this. Certain types of tyranid, GSC, and daemon armies can kind of fill that slot now. Daemons have the added benefit of generally being light on dakka which makes them less stressful to face as failing to hide a unit doesn't necessarily mean it gets blasted to pieces from across the table.

So the opposite of the brick-heavy armies you've played in the past, Lathe.

Honestly I can have fun playing & playing against almost anything.
It's easier to tell you what I enjoy least than trying to distil out favorites.

Playing:
My least favorite types of armies to use are melee reliant ones.
I like the vast array of guns/bigger guns/BIG guns/ big guns in 40k. So even though I do play things like World Eaters I bring firepower & don't rely upon CC to carry the day.

Playing against:
The forces I least like to play against? Knights. Imperial & Chaos, but especially Chaos. Because there's sooo little variety to those forces.
Runner up? AdMech. Well, 9e AdMech anyways*. Such a litany of special rules to go through every turn. Opponents going on& on about pick this/do that/blah blah blah at the start of every turn.
And then on my turn I'd just shoot them dead anyways.
*I haven't seen AdMech in action at all here in 10e.

I agree that killing things and seeing the models removed is just more fun that doing X wounds to one big model.

I also think playing against sentient soldiers, like Humans, Orks or Eldar, is more fun than mindless death machines like Tyranids or Necrons. They just create more opportunity for individual storytelling and putting yourslef in their shoes when a dreadnaught breaks through a wall or something!

I would also say that long range shooting armies are not that fun to play against for me, running across the board towards 3 Basilisks for example.

I think the most fun game is focussed around melee over 2 - 3 rounds, with manoeuvring, charging, overwatch, retreating etc. but that does require that both the shooting and melee is not too deadly and units aren't deleted too quickly!

Part of play against an army is also playing against a person. our old hammer group really tends to favor thematic armies that represent the lore or sometimes silly stuff that just shouldn't work but does anyway.

And when we say favor the lore.....our khorne berserker army player(chaos 3.5 codex) will try to assault absolutely everything he can, even if he really shouldn't.....i mean he brings some other stuff that could shoot as well(defiler, brass scorpion, berserker delivery system AKA land raider), but if he dies or you die khorne is pleased so win/win for him.

I have Grey knight allies (demon hunters) i from time to time will run with my salamanders (5th ed codex) but they will never assist my dark angels (3rd ed codex) because the first would never allow it.

At the end of the day we still believe in the old GW motto from a time in the distant past-the game should be fun for both players.

As such win or lose, games that tend to be close always feel the best. nobody really enjoys a cheddar filled one sided stomping on either side of the table in my experience especially amongst friends.

I always liked fighting against Orks. It wasn't a question of whether or not you could damage an enemy - which can sometimes feel frustrating - but whether you can damage them efficiently enough. Flamers and heavy bolters felt useful, and my poor Malcador Defender never had it so good in terms of target selection :-D

The past editions' penchant for giving Orks weird RNG weapons and goofy special rules helped keep things from getting too silly, and while I played the game, they were seldom a top-tier meta pick so the players tended to be more mellow, too. The exception being the period when Nob bikers taking advantage of wound allocation shenanigans were a strong "deathstar" unit, that was a bit pants.

In my experience it comes down to two factors:
- your opponent and
- you.
I found that if the expectations between the opponents are similar, most problems like not looking enough stuff / seeing all your stuff die vanish, as it's just part of a greater story.
The mighty knights of Count BigHat deployed to secure the flank against a vanguard force of tyranids. Mission for the tyranids player is to get as much units off the table on the opposing side of the board. The knights must hold important streets/ chokepoints so that the bigger organisms can't support their smaller cousins.

If both players find this scenario fun, than the importance of killing the knights isn't as pronounced, taking away the feeling of one opponent that he is outclassed on battlefield presence.


My favorite army is guard, with a ton of infantry and some supporting tanks. This edition requires very thoughtful positioning of infantry so that they don't get blown from the table, but I find this very fun for me to see the struggle of the small humans against the worst the universe has to offer. And then we switch it up, I take my knights, or Baneblades, and we adapt the mission so everyone gets what he finds fun.
It does require knowing your opponent(s) and discussing pre game what the expectations are.

I also should add that I haven't played a pickup game against a random opponent since 2019 and quite glad that I have the space at home to invite friends over for some relaxed games.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Armies that have big dead piles at the end of the game (even when they win) tend to be a lot of fun to face because you feel like your units are accomplishing something throughout the game even if you're losing.

This would be my answer as well.

Infantry-heavy armies (especially Orks in older editions) are usually the most fun to play against because even if you lose you'll usually still get to cause a lot of casualties.

I always found my Death Guard fun to play, because they're a very varied force with CC, psychic, shooting, some vehicles and yet they're an all comers list so don’t skew too hard and the units didn't immediately die, instead they always achieved something. My opponents didn't like them, though, because they always felt things were too tough (even the Necronplayer in 7th complained while his warriors had a better FNP on models that were 10points cheaper and DG had no chance against Decurion before Traitor Legions...).
As an opposing list... Space Marines, probably. I'm not familiar with what Primaris have, but I've had many games against Power Armour Hordes of Space Wolves... and more often than not they looked very terrifying but died in droves once the plasma was raining which felt pretty satisfying. Also SM don’t really skew, they do some stuff but rarely feel unfair (8th edition subsub-faction rules notwithstanding). Primaris changed the picture a bit as now they try to be the best at everything while before they were just middle of the road at everything but lacked the tricks the likes of eldar or Tau had.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I always found my Death Guard fun to play, because they're a very varied force with CC, psychic, shooting, some vehicles and yet they're an all comers list so don’t skew too hard and the units didn't immediately die, instead they always achieved something. My opponents didn't like them, though, because they always felt things were too tough (even the Necronplayer in 7th complained while his warriors had a better FNP on models that were 10points cheaper and DG had no chance against Decurion before Traitor Legions...).
As an opposing list... Space Marines, probably. I'm not familiar with what Primaris have, but I've had many games against Power Armour Hordes of Space Wolves... and more often than not they looked very terrifying but died in droves once the plasma was raining which felt pretty satisfying. Also SM don’t really skew, they do some stuff but rarely feel unfair (8th edition subsub-faction rules notwithstanding). Primaris changed the picture a bit as now they try to be the best at everything while before they were just middle of the road at everything but lacked the tricks the likes of eldar or Tau had.

Yeah the "aspect marine" phenomenon was/is real. Kind of inevitable though. 40k generally rewards specialization over generalization, so it's hard to *not* lean into specialization without making your expensive elite soldiers feel a bit underwhelming.

I think orks are the most fun if the person playing them is actually has an orky mindset themselves.

So, the fun is in the Orks.

I was really expecting to hear some positive stuff about Dark Eldar, or Harlequins.

Or that other army no one has ever played (or played against)... the Leagues of Voltron... or Votann.

Squishy infantry is why I'm rebuilding the Loyal 32 as AdMech and shoving them into my Knight army... not quite a total change... but I'm getting there.

Why Dark Eldar?
They’ve been the worst combination of OP and boring.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why Dark Eldar?
They’ve been the worst combination of OP and boring.

Haven't seen anyone play DE in forever.

I think different people are going to like different things.

I'd echo people saying horde infantry armies at least give you the feeling you are doing something in your turns.

I'd say MSU* tends that way too (even if the term is fundamentally redundant these days).

*MSU tends to be described as "many/multiple small units, or occasionally minimally sized units. In the old days you could overwhelm people due to the much harsher limits on split firing/charging etc.

In the modern day, if your army is composed mostly of units around 75-150 points mark you are probably going to have a lot of them, and they aren't individually going to be "that tough". So the game feels interactive (aside from terrible dice). You have a lot of decisions to be made (even if the correct answer may be obvious).

Whereas with armies built with lots of 300-400 point monsters/bricks, you tend to feel the strategy is obvious. I'm going to swing in - and the dice will decide whether I clear the unit and probably then win, or fail, might as well not have bothered having a turn, and lose. That's very simplistic/reductive, but its the main negative feeling when playing against say Knights. (And yes you can just play the mission and win, but... I'm not that win-orientated - I want a game.)

Its going to vary from person to person and army to army but the most common denominators will be variety and interaction.

Interaction at its most basic consists of My guys can kill your guys, and your guys can kill my guys, so it's pretty competitive between them.

Variety can be as simple as a lot of different units to units that play to a less common game mechanic and does it well.

Imagine playing a Dark Angels army Index Det army, all built around Battleshock and such. And they do it well so Battleshock isn't as sucky/ineffective as it normally is. But wait, you're playing your own Nid Army also all about Battleshock. You can repeat this with various layers/combos FNP vs Mortals for example.

My issue is twofold, I'm going to a new city, meeting new folks and essentially playing games against random folk.

I don't want to be the "oh, it's so-and-so with his boring, unfun army, again."

But I also don't want to play an army which is duller than a World Eaters, "I move, I assault" force.

Had an absolute blast last week playing Orks v Orks. So much mayhem and laughter.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
My issue is twofold, I'm going to a new city, meeting new folks and essentially playing games against random folk.

I don't want to be the "oh, it's so-and-so with his boring, unfun army, again."

But I also don't want to play an army which is duller than a World Eaters, "I move, I assault" force.

Aren't you making Knights/Custodes? If so, you're already that guy with the boring/unfun army.

ccs wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
My issue is twofold, I'm going to a new city, meeting new folks and essentially playing games against random folk.

I don't want to be the "oh, it's so-and-so with his boring, unfun army, again."

But I also don't want to play an army which is duller than a World Eaters, "I move, I assault" force.

Aren't you making Knights/Custodes? If so, you're already that guy with the boring/unfun army.

Shh... don't tell everyone.

There's still a chance I could play something fun... that's why I was looking for other options.

I’d rather play someone with a one-dimensional army and a charming personality than someone with an interactive and varied army who’s rude and petty.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I’d rather play someone with a one-dimensional army and a charming personality than someone with an interactive and varied army who’s rude and petty.

This!

In general the game is MORE about the person behind the army than the army itself.
If you're a fun person to play games with that's far more important than a "fun army". Because everyone has their own interpretation of what a fun army is to play against (or play with) and its not even something set in stone. Even the mission type can be fun or unfun - eg in a straight "killing things" game with no objectives; armies like ranged knights can be "unfun" for many armies because they will just hangback and shoot you. Meanwhile that very same army on an objective rich map that forces you to move into the killzones to win can be a lot more fun to play against.

So yeah don't worry about building the "fun army" for generic random matches. You'll never get there. Focus on being a good, polite opponent and person and generally just go have a good time with others. Play the army YOU want to play rather than the army someone else or some random people online think you should maybe possibly play.

You want Custodes and Knights - GO FOR IT!
You're the one spending money on them; you're the one spending time building; you're the one spending time painting - you're making ALL the investments into your models so get what YOU want

 Overread wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I’d rather play someone with a one-dimensional army and a charming personality than someone with an interactive and varied army who’s rude and petty.

This!

In general the game is MORE about the person behind the army than the army itself.
If you're a fun person to play games with that's far more important than a "fun army". Because everyone has their own interpretation of what a fun army is to play against (or play with) and its not even something set in stone. Even the mission type can be fun or unfun - eg in a straight "killing things" game with no objectives; armies like ranged knights can be "unfun" for many armies because they will just hangback and shoot you. Meanwhile that very same army on an objective rich map that forces you to move into the killzones to win can be a lot more fun to play against.

So yeah don't worry about building the "fun army" for generic random matches. You'll never get there. Focus on being a good, polite opponent and person and generally just go have a good time with others. Play the army YOU want to play rather than the army someone else or some random people online think you should maybe possibly play.

You want Custodes and Knights - GO FOR IT!
You're the one spending money on them; you're the one spending time building; you're the one spending time painting - you're making ALL the investments into your models so get what YOU want

Thank you. This has really helped. I am going to buy some more giant stompy robots.

And I will try to keep the maniacal laughter (as I step on my opponent's infantry) to a minimum.

It’s never the army. It’s always the player. Every single time.

Consider Orks.

Orks are often considered a fun army. And they are. Yet if played by a jerk of any stripe (WAAC, rules lawyer, a moaner, slow player etc) then the game just isn’t going to be fun. And that stands for any army in any edition.

Every single time I’ve had a crap experience during a game? It’s been a player problem.

Do some Codexes attract certain not-fun opponents? Sure. But whether someone has fielded an army because of netlist, or constantly bemoans their luck, lack of oomph etc? That’s the player. Not the army.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s never the army. It’s always the player. Every single time.

That's probably 95% accurate.

I don't play in stores or clubs, all my games are with my friend that joined the hobby with me, or very occasionally against my son. So I keep the 'player' variable more or less constant - but he is a prolific painter and hobbyist and has blitzed through probably 20+ armies in the time that I've not finished my 2.

One game stands out as being absolutely terrible for me. It was 7th edition, and we were pitting my CSMs (largely Khorne-flavoured) against his new army du jour. He was playing an Eldar wraith host - Wraith Lord, Wraith Knight, Wraith Guard with the D-weapons in a Wave Serpent, and some jetbikes with scatter lasers. It turned out this was an EXTREMELY powerful list - certainly against my army. He got first turn, whizzed across the table, and literally ripped the arse out of my army - to the point that I only had a few models left by my first turn. They accomplished essentially nothing, and I did not get a second turn. Felt like there was nothing I could have done to have avoided it either.

To my mate's credit, he was kind of appalled and embarrassed, and I didn't face that list again. But that was a proper gak game for both of us I think, definitely for me!

Well, we all gets our red headed stepchild type spankings now and again. The dice might decide not tonight, Josephine. We may make an absolute blunder which leaves us hideously exposed. And yes, sometimes our opponent just has a horrifically powerful list, even by accident rather than design.

All of that is relatively inconsequential if your opponent is still fun to play against.

I’ve been utterly dismantled in ways neither I nor my army could do much about, and come up smiling. I’ve also had smug git opponents, using guff like the Loyal 32 and pretending they’re a tactical genius for using someone else’s list.

I’ve utterly dismantled opponent’s, and come up smiling. And I’ve had incredibly bad loser opponents, where any skill or ability on my behalf is put down to me “dicing them”, or who can’t or won’t understand that my weird lists work, because I’ve used them a lot, and use their weirdness to my advantage, and years of experience* has given me fairly decent knowledge of their army’s typical strengths and weaknesses, and from there what I might do about them.

*not anymore. Well, well out of practice!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s never the army. It’s always the player. Every single time.

Except when it isn't.
Sometimes it's just the army.
I have 2 regular opponents whom I've had many many many fun games with over the years. And I'll have many more.
We've played battletech, WHFB, Old World, Kill Team, Sigmar, 40k of multiple editions, Bolt Action, 15mm WWII, historicals, rpgs, boardgames....
But they each own a 40k force that I find dull & boring/unfun to play against.

Opponent #1 - has a Chaos Knights army.
It consists of
1 hq Armigar (whatever it's called)
1-6 Brigands
As many other Chaos Armigars as pts allow.
There's no big Knights, no fw Knights, no Demon allies, and I don't expect him to make use of any cultists via the new detachment.
Aside from paint schemes there's only 2 points of variation in his force - wich leg is positioned forward & what arm weapons are on any given model.
Every game plays out the same. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose.

Opponent #2 - has a Custodes army.
Even at 2k pts + he simply doesn't have enough units nor big enough units.
All I have to do is destroy x % of his units & the game ends in concession because he cannot win on VP.
He does have a good collection though. So the exact mix of too few/too small units can vary game to game.

Fortunately both opponents own multiple (less boring/more fun) armies.

In neither case is my opponent the cause of the un-fun (unless you blame them for army selection).
We're friends. We're having fun hanging out at the end of the week playing some games (often involving minis).
But sometimes the actual game play is lacking.

ccs wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s never the army. It’s always the player. Every single time.

Except when it isn't.
Sometimes it's just the army.
I have 2 regular opponents whom I've had many many many fun games with over the years. And I'll have many more.
We've played battletech, WHFB, Old World, Kill Team, Sigmar, 40k of multiple editions, Bolt Action, 15mm WWII, historicals, rpgs, boardgames....
But they each own a 40k force that I find dull & boring/unfun to play against.

Opponent #1 - has a Chaos Knights army.
It consists of
1 hq Armigar (whatever it's called)
1-6 Brigands
As many other Chaos Armigars as pts allow.
There's no big Knights, no fw Knights, no Demon allies, and I don't expect him to make use of any cultists via the new detachment.
Aside from paint schemes there's only 2 points of variation in his force - wich leg is positioned forward & what arm weapons are on any given model.
Every game plays out the same. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose.

I'd argue that "sometimes I wind sometimes I lose" means that every game isn't playing out the same

That said your two examples are purely examples of boring armies for YOU to play against when played by that specific person.

You can't say that all custodes or All Chaos Knights armies are boring as a generic thing in gaming world. It again comes down to the fact that most of the time its the people not the armies.
Once you get beyond that yes you could identify unfun patterns but they are more likely to be as you've found - specific armies with specific people and those specifics could be entirely unique to you. Others are the club might love those games.

So when someone asks "what's an unfun/fun army" it again comes down to their personality and how they are as a person to play games with as something they can control, influence and adjust at a generic level for all games. Much more so than "Oh don't collect Chaos like my friend collects Chaos Knights"

I'd say in many editions you had to work hard as a Tau player to overcome the unfun playstyle that army suggested. Basically you had to take unpopular choices like Kroot, Ghosts, Breachers, tanks or their planes that were always bad to not just stand in some corner, do your markerlight phase for half an hour, shoot for half an hour, repeat next turn.