PDA

View Full Version : Army Tiers



Classius
15-10-2008, 02:55
I hear lots of talk about army tiers while I am reading post and I am going to assume that most of the top tier armies are the ones with the most up to date army books, but i was wondering if someone could list them for me in order. (warhammer fantasy batter noob)

Eldramesha
15-10-2008, 04:42
Stelek on Dakka will argue and I'll back him on this particular subject that there aren't really tiers as such, just poor players.

SuperArchMegalon
15-10-2008, 04:46
Some armies have the upper hand, that's for sure... Here's what you're likely to see people saying:

God Tier: VC and Daemons
Good Tier: Elves, Bretonnians
Everything else Tier: Everything else
Bad Tier: O&G
"Where's my new army book?" tier: Ogres, Tomb Kings, Beastmen

There has been some clumping in my not-too-comprehensive list. But here it is.

sulla
15-10-2008, 05:16
There are certain armies out there that insulate you against bad luck better than others (things like VC and Daemons spring to mind, where they are immune to psych, almost unbreakable and in the case of VC, have a massive but low risk magic phase too). I don't know if I would call them top tier because of that, but they certainly are forgiving while also being quite powerful.

On the other hand, an army like Ogres has fairly low Ld, low WS, low I, low armour and is almost completely reliant on rolling well in combat. An army like ogres is not forgiving at all so if you really wanted to give armies 'tiers', you would place them quite low.

To me, 'tiers' are only really relevant in tournament play where you have to make an army to cope with 'all comers'. In normal gaming, where you should really be tailoring your army to your opponent, even armies like Ogres and Elves can be very successful.

SolarHammer
15-10-2008, 05:33
In normal gaming, where you should really be tailoring your army to your opponent,
I, and I am sure many other players, hate that idea.

J.P. Biff
15-10-2008, 07:41
[...]there aren't really tiers as such, just poor players.

EXACTLY... thank you... I whole heartidly agree. Some may have advantages but all are beatable with all armies. Yes, some have it tougher against others but no army is practically unbeatable, quite honestly I'm sick of hearing about O&G's being weak! I RARELY LOSE with them. THEY ARE NOT BAD! Perhaps everyone who uses them (or any army for that matter) and thinks they're underpowered should look at the units they take and the way they use those units, or look at the skill of their opponent and what units he/she takes and how he/she uses them.

rodmillard
15-10-2008, 07:45
I, and I am sure many other players, hate that idea.

I agree - list tailoring was the bane of my existence for many years until I decided enough was enough and bought another army. At that point, my opponents had to bring "all comers" (well, both comers) lists to deal with whichever force I decided to play on the day. I'm perfectly happy to allow a certain amount of tweaking (letting them swap out dispel scrolls when facing dwarfs, for example) in a friendly game that wouldn't be allowed in a tournament, but complete army tailoring is a no.

To get back to the original point, I always thought "tiers" referred purely to tournament placing. As such, its a useful guide to whether lists are over- or under-powered, but has little real meaning off the tournament circuit.

Ixquic
15-10-2008, 12:24
Stelek on Dakka will argue and I'll back him on this particular subject that there aren't really tiers as such, just poor players.

Not to sound rude, but take an Orc and Goblin army and go up against a Vampire Counts summoning hoard or a Demon army with players of equal skills and see which one wins 99% of the time. There are clearly tiers of armies but the most important thing is to pick one you like playing in order to have fun. If you are beating all your friends' demon lists with a Night Goblin hoard it's probably more likely that the people you are playing are not very good or are intentionally crippling themselves by not taking the best options than the army books being balanced...

Right now Demons, Vampires and Dark Elves are at the top. I agree with SolarHammer that list tailoring sucks but the more 7th edition progresses with Invocation spam on 15 power dice, demons in general and the super Black Guard ASF unit of doom with an assassin, the Ring of Hotek and a Dread Lord with a 2+ armor save and the inverse ward save it's becoming a necessity which is sad.

BigbyWolf
15-10-2008, 13:22
EXACTLY... thank you... I whole heartidly agree. Some may have advantages but all are beatable with all armies. Yes, some have it tougher against others but no army is practically unbeatable, quite honestly I'm sick of hearing about O&G's being weak! I RARELY LOSE with them. THEY ARE NOT BAD! Perhaps everyone who uses them (or any army for that matter) and thinks they're underpowered should look at the units they take and the way they use those units, or look at the skill of their opponent and what units he/she takes and how he/she uses them.

I second this- it's down to the quality of general, not the army. I've been playing Orcs and Goblins for about 12/13 years, and enjoy a lot of success, even today...I study most of the other army books to work out weaknesses etc so when I come up against someone I can work out which of my units would be best suited to dealing with my opponents.

Pokpoko
15-10-2008, 14:37
Stelek on Dakka will argue and I'll back him on this particular subject that there aren't really tiers as such, just poor players.
there are people who survived being shot in the head. however, this does not mean shooting someone in the head is safe thing to do. there will always be better players who can "sculpt masterpiece from ****", and people whose opponents are weaker then them.
but if the majority of players have problem with VC/DoC, i think it's safe to assume they'r not drooling idiots or play againts geniuses and indeed there IS a visible difference in power of ogres and demons:angel:

Greebynog
15-10-2008, 14:39
Do the people who say there are no tiers believe that 90% of Daemon players are geniuses with ultimate generalship skills then? Come on.

gortexgunnerson
15-10-2008, 14:57
A think tier is a bit strong as their is a certain about of A beats B, B beats C, C beats A armies for example, my choas dwarfs hammered a daemon army but scored 3 draws against dyrad WE. The army build just stopped me scoring. But I do think their is now a situation where A beats B, C, D, E and F and B only beats C, F etc Where A is most likely daemons or VCs.

I strongly disagree with tailoring to beat an army unless you have both agreed to tailor against each other then its all fair. But tailoring to win against a standard list is not really sporting. If you tailor an anti daemons list and take it to a tournment that fair enough as the handicap of the tailoring is there too.

In addition to the tier/skill arguement their is the issue that their are some armies that are harder to play then others but give a greater benefit once mastered. Tomb kings are often quoted as a very low tier army due the fact that most pick up players will be hammered completely by an equally skills army. However upon mastered the movement and combination of troops the increased flexibility of the mass magic moves means that played well they can reach a level of tactical play that cannot be achieved by certain other army types. e.g. Dwarfs as my main army I love, but they are realitively easy to learn as their isn't too much to good quality troops that move slowly, they are consistant and are limited in chosing their battles or attacking manovres. So a wall of skill is hit and then its down to dice gods. Where as a army like tomb kings you can keep improving at for a long time, the amount of movement and combinations is higher and therefore you can keep trying or devising new elements. Played well I believe Tomb kings to be a very strong army, however that is slightly on the wane as they suffer most against immune to psy, unbreakable troops, so deamons and VC lol

Kahadras
15-10-2008, 15:28
There are no army tiers. Armies can be divided into two camps based on a couple of questions. Can you take a 'broken' build and is that 'broken' build good enough to compete with other 'broken' builds. Simple as. Even then there's still the 'rock, paper, scissors' idea that some armies 'broken' builds cannot compete very well with other armies 'broken' builds.

Kahadras

ZeroTwentythree
15-10-2008, 16:42
Stelek on Dakka will argue and I'll back him on this particular subject that there aren't really tiers as such, just poor players.



I totally agree. Every single army book is a work of complete perfection and absolutely balanced with all the other books.

And since they are perfect as they are, that's why they never have to release FAQs, and they don't change stats, rules and point values between editions. They certainly wouldn't need to revise them if they were perfect in the first place.

I hear that GW game designers are genetically bred to not be able to make mistakes.

:rolleyes:

sulla
15-10-2008, 17:18
I, and I am sure many other players, hate that idea.

The problem is, if you don't tailor, you are needlessly limiting your army choices to the lowest common denominator.

For example, if I play my dark elves as an all comers army, I would never take shooting since there are many all heavy cav lists and VC out there who make my puny s3 shots and overpriced RBT's next to worthless. I would never take witches because they are too vulnerable to baiting, shooting and heavy cav. I would always take 2 scroll caddies in case I faced a heavy magic build etc, etc.

It needlessly limits and compromises my army list.

I still have the old Nigel Stillman article where he first got on his soapbox about it and it was as flawed an idea then as it is now. The army on the battlefield doesn't represent my general's entire force so why should he always have to take the same army? He should take the troops to do the job, based on what he expects and knows the enemy force to be.

Cypher, the Emperor
16-10-2008, 04:08
I think that some armies just are easier to play well than others, and some are more forgiving when you screw up.

O+G however, are just weak, when your goblin war machines are better at killing than your boar boys you know somethings up.

SuperArchMegalon
16-10-2008, 04:20
I'd like to see someone who claims there are no tiers use O&G to pull off a 50-50 win/loss ratio over several games against an equally skilled Daemon general. "All-comers" lists. Come on, do it.

Say Plaguebearers had a 3+ Wardsave, 2A, WS6, and ASF, combined with Regen and LD10. Pretend they costed 4 pts/model. Does your argument that there are no tiers still stand? Absolutely not, plaguebearers would walk all over the board. Now of course, plaguebearers aren't that good - but they're still really damn good!! It is not as profound, but the advantage is there. Saying that a small advantage is no advantage is the same as saying a huge advantage is no advantage - ridiculous!

Cartoon
16-10-2008, 04:33
Agreed, there are absolutely army tiers. It's a fact that some armies are stronger than others. A decent general is able to mitigate the weaknesses of his/her army and capitalize on the strengths, but the weaknesses are still there.

I would say VC, DOC, and DE are the top tier, strongest armies available. Personally I think the DE book is a little more well written and balanced than the other two, but it is still very strong.

Below that are the rest of the elves, and like was said before Brettonia. I would think Empire, Skaven, and hopefully the new WOC chaos book are the next tier, but I'm sure opinions will vary. After them come all the rest, but I think TK are separate case. In the hands of an experienced player they can be very strong but are tough to learn.

Right now I'm hoping the WOC book is at least somewhat competitive. I mean it doesn't need to be as strong as DOC but it would be nice to be able to put up a fight. Sigh, I guess I'll find out soon enough though.

J.P. Biff
16-10-2008, 06:37
I think that some armies just are easier to play well than others, and some are more forgiving when you screw up.

Definetly true.

O+G however, are just weak, when your goblin war machines are better at killing than your boar boys you know somethings up.

Why do you take either?? They both stink. Try not taking either and investing in things that actually work a hell of alot better.


I'd like to see someone who claims there are no tiers use O&G to pull off a 50-50 win/loss ratio over several games against an equally skilled Daemon general. "All-comers" lists. Come on, do it.

Seriously, I would LOVE to. Please tell me you live in Victoria B.C. Canada. If so name your places and times. If not... whatever. :o

Rioghan Murchadha
16-10-2008, 07:13
Why do you take either?? They both stink. Try not taking either and investing in things that actually work a hell of alot better.



Seriously, I would LOVE to. Please tell me you live in Victoria B.C. Canada. If so name your places and times. If not... whatever. :o

Heh.. Unfortunately, I don't play daemons, and doubly unfortunately, BC ferries, being the rat bastards they are, raised their rates again, so now it would cost me an arm, a leg, AND a kidney just to get over there for a game. ;)

SolarHammer
16-10-2008, 08:28
Ogres suck, Tomb Kings suck, Warriors of Chaos suck. Beasts of Chaos suck.

Daemons rule, Vampire Counts rule, Dark Elves rule, High Elves rule.

Everything else is sort of in the middle.

That isn't to say that incredibly skilled tacticians can't use the bad armies to beat the better, and it's not to say that slobbering idiots can't lose with the good ones, but sometimes it almost feels that way...

Ozorik
16-10-2008, 08:47
Ogres suck, Tomb Kings suck, Warriors of Chaos suck. Beasts of Chaos suck.

Daemons rule, Vampire Counts rule, Dark Elves rule, High Elves rule.


This is the sort of attitude that really annoys me.

Some armies are slightly better than average while some armies are slightly worse.

No army really 'sucks'.

Going by your logic it would be nearly impossible for certain armies to beat certain other armies, this is simply not the case. Tournament results give an indication of the 'breakability' of lists but they arent really all that useful for giving an insight as to a lists utility for friendly games.

It is undeniable that some builds have a distinct advantage but that doesnt mean that the entire army as a whole will have the same advantage.


Not to sound rude, but take an Orc and Goblin army and go up against a Vampire Counts summoning hoard or a Demon army with players of equal skills and see which one wins 99% of the time

You may want to rein in the hyperbole in future. Its virtually impossible to win 99% of the time over a large number of games given that this particular branch of wargaming is reliant on luck to a large degree.



There are certain armies out there that insulate you against bad luck better than others

A good summary.

SolarHammer
16-10-2008, 09:10
It's a much bigger difference than you seem to think. Comparing Ogres to Daemons, with equally skilled players, I'd say odds are 3:1 that the Daemon player wins. Maybe more. Same for Vampires versus Tomb Kings. Same for Dark Elves versus Beasts of Chaos.

SuperArchMegalon
16-10-2008, 10:53
Ok, Ozorik, but I basically said the same thing calling for a 50/50 w/L ratio, but I guess you didn't want to respond to that.

Also nobody seemed to want to respond to what I consider an eloquent, well formed explanation for why "tiers" exist... posted by me back one page. Also, I am glad I hit the nail right on the head regarding which armies "rule" and which ones "suck" on post two. Thank you, thank you...


EDIT: Here's my post for reference, so you can all respond to it. And "calling me out" is not an acceptable response, I don't live where you live, and I'm not equal skill level as you. Without further ado:

I'd like to see someone who claims there are no tiers use O&G to pull off a 50-50 win/loss ratio over several games against an equally skilled Daemon general. "All-comers" lists. Come on, do it.

Say Plaguebearers had a 3+ Wardsave, 2A, WS6, and ASF, combined with Regen and LD10. Pretend they costed 4 pts/model. Does your argument that there are no tiers still stand? Absolutely not, plaguebearers would walk all over the board. Now of course, plaguebearers aren't that good - but they're still really damn good!! It is not as profound, but the advantage is there. Saying that a small advantage is no advantage is the same as saying a huge advantage is no advantage - ridiculous!

Ozorik
16-10-2008, 12:43
Ok, Ozorik, but I basically said the same thing calling for a 50/50 w/L ratio, but I guess you didn't want to respond to that.

Why would I have needed to respond to you?


Say Plaguebearers had a 3+ Wardsave, 2A, WS6, and ASF, combined with Regen and LD10. Pretend they costed 4 pts/model.

They dont so its a strawman argument. Besides quoting yourself isnt very good internet etiquette.


I'd say odds are 3:1 that the Daemon player wins.

I'd say the odds are less bleak than you suggest. The only solid data that we have availible is tournament results and they are a very poor overview due to their nature. Im not suggesting that all armies are equal but no army is really poor either.

ahk3927
16-10-2008, 16:15
Tiers exist. DoC/VC has been ruling over some time while DE on its rise. DE won 1st and 2nd place in our local tourney and they massacred every opponents but DoC as no VC player showed up.

Why Tiers exist?

I think it's economic decision by GW.
When they came up with Speed of Cheese for HE, I knew they were blatantly shouting they need to sell more. Surely, HE became a popular army very quickly and local GW were selling Dragon mage as hotcakes. I think GW learned our behavior well with market testing with HE. They've learned that giving an army powerful rules and insulation against bad dice rolling, newer players will be tempted to drawn upon (calling it a newbie friendly army) while giving the competitive edge for the veterans to have bragging rights among the local regulars. And also, that set up the tone for the rest of the armies to be released.

It's like a chain reaction after that. In order to sell VC after HE release, the writer of the army book had to match army strength on par or above with VC if they were going to have massive sale. And they really did a great job on boosting VC up with invocations allowing units go beyond the starting # and what has happened because of that? Boxes and boxes of skellies and ghouls sale. hahaha. And you all know VC release was when GW reduced the model counts of infantry in a plastic box to 10, though dropped its price to $22. But, when you do the math, players ended up paying more. Anyway, How many players around you ended up playing VC and joined bandwagon? More sales for GW. The next book was DoC and we all know what happened with that book. And this time, GW made even more as DoC were mostly metal. Ask yourself this question. If the writer of DoC wrote a less powerful version of army book instead, would GW have sold as much as they did with more powerful army book?

Think of it this way. With math-hammer and theory Hammer easily accessible, it only takes a few clicks to figure out how well balanced an army is. Most people started their first army based on background or the look of models themselves, but when they come to choose second and third army.. they will look for a competitive army. Last few army book release has been dream come true for many WAAC players and they do sell a lot of them.

There are a lot of casual gamers out there and we all know that.
But casual gamers don't drop $600-$800 in a one stop and start a brand new army when a new book gets released. Those WAAC players will.

Power creeping 7th edition has been a win-win situation for both players and GW.

People ends up buying new armies to compete while GW gets high sales volume in return.

Yeah, I am tired of being crushed with my Ogres and O&G against certain armies.
And that is one of the reason why I am starting a WoC.

Get it now, folks?

It's all about the business. :)

kramplarv
16-10-2008, 18:14
But as several army books are written at the same time, and many of the books are also finished at the same time, but have different release dates your theory falls. For example, the WoC book has been finished since may this year. :p

The market strategy is to release one army at the time. Not to make armies better and betters. Because people buys whatever armies that are released. mainly of the coolnessfactor as there is no way to know if an army is kicking or kicked since after several months of serious gaming.

And there are no such things as power creep, if it were, then the DE would kick DoC butt everyday. But they don't. The thing is that GW makes the books more balanced in itself.

Last edition there were only one or maybe two "solid armies" for HE. now we have several. Which is a good thing. The same with VC. But the drawback of the "one release at the time" is that older army books don't cope as well with the new variations of a competative list that exists. When HE consisted mainly of magic, cavalry and some RbT people could count on that, and build armies to counter the HE. But now as HE can have cavalry.,dragons en masse, shooting, heavy infantry, lots of light infantry etc, it is harder to make a list to counter the HE, as there now are more viable builds.

That's why people cry "power creeeeeeeeeeeeep". I do not argue that several armies are better than other as the game mechanics of WHFB favors some types of armies. Like ItP armies. But there are no powercreep or intentional "make new books better than all others." The goal for a GD is to "make this book as cool and rocking as possible".

Mireadur
16-10-2008, 20:40
VC as it stands now are definitely over the top, of course they can be beaten, if the VC general dislikes cheese, but they start off any battle with certain advantage.

DE unit costs, spells casting values and special rules are insanely low and i was just reading their magical items and was left without words... Whats the deal with regeneration and an easily 3+ ward save for 70 points both? i wonder how a vampire or chaos lord will be able to kill a dark elf lord with that beautiful 2+ ward save for 35 points uh..

EDIT: i just realized the pendant of Khaeleth is so cheap because its a ward save that ''only'' affects STR based attacks muahaha...

EDIT2: i officially hate the DE book after a complete reading of it... Repeater crossbow costing the same as a long bow and not even being 'move or shoot' screams to the heavens

SolarHammer
16-10-2008, 20:45
And there are no such things as power creep, if it were, then the DE would kick DoC butt everyday. But they don't. The thing is that GW makes the books more balanced in itself.

Power creep, meaning that every book is better than the previous does not exist.

Imbalance, meaning that every book is basically a crapshoot, with some being insanely good and some being insanely bad obviously exists because GW has no idea how to achieve play balance.

High Elves are good.
Vampire Counts are great.
Daemons are out of this world.
Dark Elves are great.
Warriors of Chaos are awful.

So every book hasn't gotten better, but Daemons are way out of line, and WoC are bottom of the barrel. I wouldn't be happy if I played either of those armies, so it's a shame that I play both... I hate playing my Daemons because it feels like beating up kids. I hate playing my Warriors because it feels like I'm playing with my Ogres.

How good will the Lizardmen book be? Who knows! GW doesn't care.

Waywatcher-
16-10-2008, 20:58
There arent bad armys, just bad players.

Waywatcher

Defender of Ulthuan
16-10-2008, 21:11
ahk3927 has the basics of the situation down pretty well. :D

Honestly, tiers exist very slightly on a general basis, but, for the most part, the armies are comparatively good when used against a single foe, so those who don't say that there are tiers are also mostly correct.

For example, many people play O&G, so O&G suck. Yes, it is true that O&G have slight tactical disadvantages across the board, but I don't think I've ever heard of an elf player who didn't have a hard time against an orcish horde with lots of chariots and giants.

Armies have tiers in respect to individual foes (some are good against some, but terrible against others). With the new WoC book (which I now possess), VC and Daemons will have huge problems, and I mean HUGE. Both armies have great magic and combat phases. I find it hard to believe that the only two armies restricted to no ranged combat are the best.

Gunlines and conscripts (VC) are only the evolution of warfare; there's a reason we don't wear plate armor or use bec-de-corbin's any more.

To sum it up, your army has tiers of difficulty, but there aren't tiers of play (non-updated armies not tailored to fit the new rules aside). GW is NOT perfect, and the game has many flaws, but don't snipe about army gealousy.

Defender

kramplarv
16-10-2008, 21:12
bad comment... the ogre army IS a bad army. the BoC IS a bad army.
they weren't bad when they got out, but with todays standard they are.

it's like saying the T-34 aint a bad tank. It was a terrific tank when it came, but today...
well, it's a bad tank compared to Leopard2.

W0lf
16-10-2008, 21:29
If you dont agree with tiers then you agree that all armies are equal and balanced.

If you believe that then its not even worth arguing with you.

Some armys have distinct advantages over others, end of.

Orcboy_Phil
16-10-2008, 21:31
For example, many people play O&G, so O&G suck. Yes, it is true that O&G have slight tactical disadvantages across the board, but I don't think I've ever heard of an elf player who didn't have a hard time against an orcish horde with lots of chariots and giants.


You mean an Orcish horde whoose hammers are all ignoring animosity the Orcs achilles heel? :angel:

Kalec
16-10-2008, 23:41
Because people buys whatever armies that are released. mainly of the coolnessfactor as there is no way to know if an army is kicking or kicked since after several months of serious gaming.


That isn't true at all. Many people have been saying that Warriors won't be anywhere close to DE, DoC, and VC in power for months. Many people recognized how powerful VC and DE and DoC were before they were released for retail.

It isn't that hard to tell if a book is amazing or not. Just because GW can't doesn't mean we can't.

SolarHammer
16-10-2008, 23:48
Also, although there was a lot of whining about HE being too strong before the book was released, it pretty much died down within 2 weeks of the book being available, which shows, I think, that the community is able to adapt and change its mob mentality somewhat when it is obviously proven wrong.

That has not happened with VC or DoC. If anything, the longer they are out, the stronger they look, particularly if GW keeps releasing lame duck books like WoC.

Frankly
17-10-2008, 00:13
If you dont agree with tiers then you agree that all armies are equal and balanced.



No, thats to larger an assumption on your part W0lf.

SolarHammer
17-10-2008, 00:17
I don't think so. There's either balance, or some armies are better than others and some are worse. Those armies that are better would form the top tier and those armies that are worse would form a bottom tier, regardless of the level of functional difference between them.

There is no middle ground...

gerrymander61
17-10-2008, 00:40
ofc there are tiers, any tournament results prove this since tiers are really nothing more than predictions of how well a given army will perform at the competitive level. The upper tier armies (VC, daemons, DE) all dominate tournament scores. O&G and Ogres have almost 0 representation at tournaments and when they do show up, they tend to do worse. They are the lower tier armies.

But declaring one army upper tier and another low tier is not equivalent to saying X is AND ALWAYS WILL BE better than Y. It just means that in the hands of a clever general, X has fewer exploitable weaknesses than Y or greater and more plentiful strengths.

Oddly enough, since this is a thread about the tiers of armies (and if you don't believe that tiers exist then you need to be examined), there isn't much discussion about what armies belong where. Just to throw it out there, here's mine:

Top tier:
Daemons
Vampire Counts

Upper tier:
Dark Elves
High elves
Bretonnia
Wood Elves

Mid Tier:
Lizardmen
Empire
Dwarfs
Skaven

Low Tier:
Tomb Kings
Orcs and Goblins

Bottom Tier:
Ogre kingdoms
Beasts of chaos

*I haven't yet seen the WoC armybook yet so that's the reason for their absence.

Some justification:
-Bretonnians above WE because WE really have a hard time dealing with Daemons
-Skaven below empire, lizardmen, dwarfs because skaven cheese has been hugely nerfed (ratlings and 7th ed) and since release of the hugely powerful lores of dark and Tzeench magic and some other factors like 6pt DE warriors, skaven's strengths are no longer so strong
-BoC below Ogres since BoC have a hard time dealing with Daemons
-Lizardmen at top of middle because they deal with Daemons rather well

Frankly
17-10-2008, 00:47
People are throwing around "tier this and tier that' like they know what your talking about, like there is ACTUALLY a trier system, which there isn't. So no I don't believe in this phony interweb bullcrap tier crap that people like to drop into posts so they sound like they know what they're talking about.

So thats no for tiers for me, and yes to unbalance in the game. Just call it what is it is: Unbalanced rules, where no-one truly knows where armybooks lay within it.

Its just our 'imhos', 'whats better than what' and 'who can beat who' and whats paper, whats rock and whats scissors and whats broken, cheesy and abuised. The new flavour of the month catch word for us forum geeks just so happens to be 'tier'.

I've played A LOT of wargames in my silly little 33 years on this earth, alot of card games, alot of rugby games, alot of video games. I've yet to play one not unbalanced. Right now on paladin forums they're QQing about OP ret builds. Right now of LR5 forums dragon clan members are QQing about lion match up's. Unbalance or the level of unbalance I should say is an 'imho' not a static reference sheet.

GW has to balance 13 or so armybooks over something like 5 years while making new rule sets and doing 40K ..... yeah there is going to be balancing issues if every fanboy wants his army to be the next new thing out next month.

Ranting on about tiers won't help that.

Frankly
17-10-2008, 00:52
Top tier:
Daemons
Vampire Counts

Upper tier:
Dark Elves
High elves
Bretonnia
Wood Elves

Mid Tier:
Empire
Dwarfs
Lizardmen
Skaven

Low Tier:
Tomb Kings
Orcs and Goblins

Bottom Tier:
Ogre kingdoms
Beasts of chaos



So thats your tier list.

Awesome.

I haven't seen a 5 tier list yet. I've been stuck at 3.

Has anyone out there got a 6 tier list, yes sir you at the back ... do I hear 8 tiers ... aaahh yes madam 8 in the corner. Anyone for a 9 tier list, do I hear a nine ..... going once on 8 .....

;)

SolarHammer
17-10-2008, 00:54
If there are no tiers then why are all the posters who say there are agreeing on which army goes where?


GW has to balance 13 or so armybooks over something like 5 years while making new rule sets and doing 40K ..... yeah there is going to be balancing issues if every fanboy wants his army to be the next new thing out next month.

If they did all the books at once, which is very possible for a professional games company, there wouldn't be these problems.

If they released errata online there wouldn't be these problems.

Frankly
17-10-2008, 00:57
What other professional company does their whole edition arch at once?

Thats silly.

There would still be these problems, we'd wait for 5 years to get our books and they'd still be unbalanced.

ethsar46
17-10-2008, 00:58
Tier
1
Daemons, Vampire counts,

2
wood elves, Brettonians, Dark Elves

3
Tomb kings, Skaven, High elves, Empire, Lizardmen

4
Dogs of War, Dwarves, Orcs and Goblins, Chaos Mortals

5
Ogres, Beasts of Chaos, Chaos Dwarves

Thats based off the current Tier composition used in australia (Note: I moved DE because of the new book, they were original T3).

Frankly
17-10-2008, 01:00
Sooo ..... you fiddled with the tier system, who do you think you are ... god?:angel: or :chrome: or :skull: anyone of these could be god, depends on which armies fluff you like.

Being from around that part of the world, I'm interested in:

A: how the tier composition was made.

B: how the data was collected.

C: how many tournament use it.


Edit:

If your from Queensland I'm not going to believe what you wrote anyway so ....

ethsar46
17-10-2008, 02:01
It was recently used at the MOAB fantasy tourny with good results. I dont believe there were any complaints though you'd have to ask the TO.

Most people I talked to agreed that DE needed to move up a tier thanks to their upgraded book which has increased the armies power. I also believe chaos dwarfs were looking at moving up a tier.

FYI a DE player won, and a Chaos Dwarf player also came 3rd.

Also, im not a QLD'er :P

You can go check out the comp system on the MOAB players pack on the irresistable force website btw. It basically gives each army a baseline score depending on their Tier, it then goes to a Panel which decides and modifiers, either up to +1 or down to -2.

Kahadras
17-10-2008, 02:25
If there are no tiers then why are all the posters who say there are agreeing on which army goes where?


Because of the theory of group wisdom. Everybody 'knows' the DoC book is the most 'broken' at the present moment. These kind of questions come around again and again with slight ajustments made for the most recent armies. Few people are willing to march against popular opinion. Most people will read the first couple of tier sugestions and run with that while tweaking things to his own liking IMHO.

Kahadras

Ixquic
17-10-2008, 02:36
CLEARLY the reason that Demons are taking control of every tournament since their release is because of group think.

Kahadras
17-10-2008, 02:50
CLEARLY the reason that Demons are taking control of every tournament since their release is because of group think.

Group wisdom encourages such ideas. Ask people on Warseer what the most broken army is in Warhammer at the present moment and the answer will be DoC. Look at the most popular Empire build; a Gunline with Karl Franz (or Popemobile) and 2 steam tanks. Multiple people didn't suddenly come up with this idea all at the same time. The concept spreads via word of mouth and the internet and suddenly there are multiple Karl Franz/steam tank armies at next years GT.

Now focus has shifted to DoC as the internet says Demons are the most 'broken' army at the moment. Suddenly there are an avalanche of Demon armies at GT being played by people who want to finnish in the top ten. Would you take a O&G army along to GT if you wanted to finnish in the top ten? No. Why? Because people on the internet tells us that O&G aren't 'broken' enough to win.

Kahadras

Storak
17-10-2008, 05:08
Group wisdom encourages such ideas. Ask people on Warseer what the most broken army is in Warhammer at the present moment and the answer will be DoC. Look at the most popular Empire build; a Gunline with Karl Franz (or Popemobile) and 2 steam tanks. Multiple people didn't suddenly come up with this idea all at the same time. The concept spreads via word of mouth and the internet and suddenly there are multiple Karl Franz/steam tank armies at next years GT.

Now focus has shifted to DoC as the internet says Demons are the most 'broken' army at the moment. Suddenly there are an avalanche of Demon armies at GT being played by people who want to finnish in the top ten. Would you take a O&G army along to GT if you wanted to finnish in the top ten? No. Why? Because people on the internet tells us that O&G aren't 'broken' enough to win.

Kahadras

this is one of the most bizarre conspiracy theories, that i ve ever read.

players around the world play countless games with very different armies. (you can find quite a lot of them on the net)

some players, mostly those with plenty of experience, go to tournaments with the intention (asnd a real chance) to win. they bring along rather similar armies.

"group think" has absolutely nothing to do with this. the armies they bring, have been shown to be variants of the best. the steamtanks, for example, have been dominating the tournament scene, since shortly after empire was released. they have problems with new builds from the newer power creep armies, but they still perform pretty well.

and not by chance. the tank simply is very good value for the points, especially when you include point denial in your plans.

Cartoon
17-10-2008, 05:13
I can see your point Kahadras and I believe it does have merit, but I think there is a little more to it than that. It's true that the more people here army x is broken, the more that army will be used in tournements not only by players looking to win, but by players who don't want to be destroyed by broken army x.

However, the actual army rules do have a dramatic impact on the strength of the army. Armies are not designated as the most powerful through some arbitrary means, it is usually through a close examination of their rules as well as experience using the army. Granted in recent months people have been quick to jump and shout broken, but after a while a rational analysis of an army is presented and that is what it's strength is based on.

PARTYCHICORITA
17-10-2008, 06:20
My opinions:

Top tier:
Vampire Counts
Daemons

Upper tier:
Empire
Dark Elves
Wood Elves

Mid Tier:
High elves
Skaven
Lizardmen
Dwarfs
Bretonnia

Low Tier:
Beast of chaos
Orcs and Goblins

Bottom Tier:
Ogre kingdoms
Tomb kings

Heafstaag
17-10-2008, 07:15
Why are Ogre Kingdoms, Tomb Kings, and Orc's and Goblins on everyone's low to bottom tier?

Muad'Dib
17-10-2008, 08:40
I think it's economic decision by GW.

How do you explain then, the fact that WOC book is clearly less powerful then Daemons?

Really, I would say that, rather then the blaming the current state of Warhammer on some concious decisions by GW, it is mainly issue of sheer human laziness.

There will always be imbalances in every gaming system, you can't deny that. However, there are always ways to fix them. What's GW's problem is that they are simply unwilling to form any coherent plan when it comes to designing their army books. And thus we get gems like 2+ wards for DE or all the Daemon combinations. Even if you look at the often brought-up World of Warcraft...there Blizzard, after few years, learnt how to design valid for everyone (speaking of class talents here). In GW's case, the situation is becoming worse and worse...This is result of two things in my oppinion


1)The way army books are written. There is no plan, no base costs on which to base things (well, in 6th edition there were at least some for magic items, but this was thrown out of window with the DE book) and it's pretty much the designer putting forward any ideas that might come to him and filtering them through lackluster (or non-existant) playtesting.

2)The development cycle of army books. With armies being updated on average every 4-5 years, it's very hard to keep the game balanced and coherent. (thinking of Beastmen ranking up issue here especially...) GW doesn't help by refusing to release any meaningful erratas (the current ones are more about correcting glaring mistakes in the books then improving balance).

And thus we get cries of 'cheese' and 'powercreep', but really all of it is a case of GW designers not having a clue (it seems) about basic things like point costs or making all choices valid (seriously, look at Execuitoners and Black Guard and tell me that they are equal)


And here are the army 'tiers' IMO

DOC, VC
WE, HE, DE, Bretonnia
Skaven, Empire, WOC, Dwarfs, Lizardmen
Tomb Kings, Beastmen, DoW
Ogres, O&G


Why are Ogre Kingdoms, Tomb Kings, and Orc's and Goblins on everyone's low to bottom tier?
-overcosted units
-bad choice of magic items - or rather, bad in comparison to the likes of Daemons, DE and even WOC
-lack of special rules and 2A troops that seem to be the recent flavour
-pointless choices (Hunters, Slave Giants, Boar Boyz, Icon Bearers...)

Morph
17-10-2008, 10:13
Not sure what peoples' problems with tiers are. It seems fairly obvious that some armies are more powerful than others, just look at tournament results to see this. And even in friendly play 2 balanced armies against each other may tend towards one side (the player skill being equal).

Whilst it's impossible to do an exact ranking, a tier system is a simple way of grouping armies together by rough power level and can promote discussion about the good, average and bad armies. I probably wouldn't go as complex as 5 or more tiers, but my own opinion is...

Top: DoC, HE, DE, WE, VC, Brets
Mid: Empire, Dwarfs, WoC, TKs, Skaven, Lizardmen
Low: O&G, BoC, OK, DoW, CDs

Not sure what the low ranking of TKs by many people is all about - their magic makes them a feared army round here. And I think people are over-reacting to the new WoC book, it's come after 4 of the strongest books so seems weak in comparison, but is probably merely average.

Frankly
17-10-2008, 11:40
players around the world play countless games with very different armies. (you can find quite a lot of them on the net)

some players, mostly those with plenty of experience, go to tournaments with the intention (asnd a real chance) to win. they bring along rather similar armies.

"group think" has absolutely nothing to do with this.


Yeah its more like 'computer geek think'.:)

The larger number of players and hobbiest(hobbier, hobbi) I know of DON'T use the net or forums.

MOST regular tournament results aren't collected up as data for some geeky tier system ..... that we've all made up.

The Red Scourge
17-10-2008, 12:24
...I think people are over-reacting to the new WoC book, it's come after 4 of the strongest books so seems weak in comparison, but is probably merely average.

Yeah! Quit ragging on WoC.

It will work better and cheaper than my old mortal chaos army, and it worked perfectly fine.

From the looks of it, it won't have what the obvious super unit choices except for dogs, which will be less of a liability due to the re-roll panic rule.

It will have armor to rival the empire (we're talking AS 2+ infantry and even AS 4+ fast cavalry), the toughness of dwarfs, and the hardest hitting troops in the game. Couple that with destructive magics and the biggest cannon in the game.

I won't give VC many chances against that :eyebrows:

Harwammer
17-10-2008, 14:27
I'm amazed that people who deny army tiers can say that although beastmen lost over half their units AND magic items they are still on par with the other armies. Lets face it, furies, chaos knights and the staff of change were NOT just chaff.

Secondly, I don't think chaos dwarfs are in the bottom tier. While they ARE in dire need of an update, they do have some amazing options (Ld10 heroes, 2 point core troops with 4/3/3/3/3/1/3/1/6 stat lines, the earth shaker cannon, etc.) including some that are pretty good meta game items (immunity to fire armour for fighting Tz DoC).

However, I must admit, beastmen being nerfed is the exception, rather than the rule, and indeed they have one of the best lores out there (slaanesh) and arguably can do monster infantry hordes (doombull army) better than the specialists (OK).

I've seen alot of people place HE as top tier, I'm not sure if I can agree with this. HEs are good against low armour, low CR armies which rely on getting the charge. Beastmen are one of these armies, but even so I've found HEs aren't massively overpowered, especially if you take nurgle minotaurs to coutner asf and beast lore shamans to pin down dragons.

vinny t
17-10-2008, 14:36
My Tiers

Top Tier:
Daemons
Vampire Counts

Upper Tier:
Dark Elves
High Elves
Wood Elves
Bretonnia

Middle Tier:
Empire
Old Warriors of Chaos
Lizardmen
Skaven

Lower Tier:
Orcs & Goblins
Beastmen

Lowest Tier:
Ogre Kingdoms/Tomb Kings
Dogs of War

My opinion...

Morph
17-10-2008, 15:10
Secondly, I don't think chaos dwarfs are in the bottom tier. While they ARE in dire need of an update, they do have some amazing options (Ld10 heroes, 2 point core troops with 4/3/3/3/3/1/3/1/6 stat lines, the earth shaker cannon, etc.) including some that are pretty good meta game items (immunity to fire armour for fighting Tz DoC).


A lot of cheap flak makes them decent I agree. Last time I played them with my Empire I only managed a draw because I just couldn't clear all the units of goblins and wolf riders to actually get at their main units.

I put them in my bottom tier more because they don't have a full list and so miss out on all the 'tricks' the other armies have. Plus they lack any great hard hitting units.

I still conisder them better than ogres.

volair
17-10-2008, 15:54
Why are Ogre Kingdoms, Tomb Kings, and Orc's and Goblins on everyone's low to bottom tier?

because those armies, along with skaven, beasts of chaos, warriors of chaos, and chaos dwarves, which oddly some people think are better than those 3, are the very worst armies of warhammer. That is not to say you can't win a game with them, just that you have a significant disadvantage and your chances of winning a tournament approach zero.

ZeroTwentythree
17-10-2008, 16:09
That is not to say you can't win a game with them, just that you have a significant disadvantage and your chances of winning a tournament approach zero.

http://www.marauders-inc.com/~marauder/data/files/Marauders%20Mayhem/Fall2008/MMFall2008Results.htm

Approach but don't actually hit zero. ;)

Waywatcher-
17-10-2008, 16:19
Why dont you try, changing tactics aganst different opponents rather than changing army setup.

Armys have high and low points, and some are easy to pick up play, but then again they can be beaten by tactics, some armys are harder to pick up and play, but can win by tactics.

TACTICS. experience. tactics. Intelligence.

Waywatcher

speedygogo
17-10-2008, 16:23
I think one of the problems with asking the tier question is that lots of warhammer players are playing with their buddies at a very local level. Consequently, there are no major power gaming lists or extremely dynamic tactics.

When played against great players, often it is hard even to be competative. Things happen on the board not because of chance but rather stacked odds. Lots of games are lost in deployment. Throw in souped up power armies and the rest of the field is left in the dust.

Daemons and VC are winning everything right now. With good generals playing them, they are nigh unbeatable. Elves and brets are the next level after. A simple way to test this is to build the hardest armies you can with someone in your gaming groups and switch lists. You'll find the power armies will win most of the time reguardless of the general.

The tourney results speak for themselves. If you still think the weaker armies can win, put up or shut up. Enter a tourney where good player come from your region and place high with a craptastic list.

I'm an average player and at a local level rarely lose. However, against top players I only win about a third of the time. It is possible for even a new player to warhammer to lay a beat down on you if they have a great list versus your so so one.

The other thing that is important for me to say is I am an ethical player. I own and have read most of the fantasy books ever published and have played almost every type of concevable army that has existed in warhammer. When playing someone I don't short them of their rules. If they forget I politely remind them.

To me not taking a terror check or the like because my opponet forgot to point it out to me is just as bad as cheating. I have also seen lots of "great tacticians" win games because of such selective omissions and that is pure crap IMO.

Ixquic
17-10-2008, 16:40
The other thing that is important for me to say is I am an ethical player. I own and have read most of the fantasy books ever published and have played almost every type of concevable army that has existed in warhammer. When playing someone I don't short them of their rules. If they forget I politely remind them.

To me not taking a terror check or the like because my opponet forgot to point it out to me is just as bad as cheating. I have also seen lots of "great tacticians" win games because of such selective omissions and that is pure crap IMO.

I watched a game where when one player noticed the other had forgotten to take a few stupidity checks the other replied that it was just as much his job to remind him as it was to remember them. Both the other guy and I were like "uh...."

ZeroTwentythree
17-10-2008, 16:50
Why dont you try, changing tactics aganst different opponents rather than changing army setup.



Some of the trixier armies to win are that way because they exploit the rules/lists to the point where armies need to be tailored to beat them.



I watched a game where when one player noticed the other had forgotten to take a few stupidity checks the other replied that it was just as much his job to remind him as it was to remember them. Both the other guy and I were like "uh...."

Heh. Sounds like one guy I used to know who actually stated it was up to his opponents to notice he was cheating, otherwise it was their own fault. :wtf:

Orcboy_Phil
17-10-2008, 18:26
http://www.marauders-inc.com/~marauder/data/files/Marauders%20Mayhem/Fall2008/MMFall2008Results.htm

Approach but don't actually hit zero. ;)

However if you get rid of all the crap scering the results in the top five you get.

Deamons
Dark Elves
Vampire counts
Dwarfs
Dwarfs = Orcs and Goblins

gerrymander61
17-10-2008, 18:26
http://www.marauders-inc.com/~marauder/data/files/Marauders%20Mayhem/Fall2008/MMFall2008Results.htm

Approach but don't actually hit zero. ;)

The Orc and Goblin army didnt actually score the most game points though, they simply had high composition and paint scores. If anything, these results reinforce the tier argument because to give the Orcs and Goblin army a chance, the tournament organizers had to impose an additional system by which weaker armies could compete and do well. Had the Daemon/vc/de players actually put as much time into painting and "sportsmanship" (the most retarded point category I've ever seen since it's the least objective), those armies would have taken 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place, with the daemon army being FAR ahead of the VC or DE armies. The score that shows how powerful an army is shows in favour of Daemons, VC, and DE. Painting and "sportsmanship" have nothing to do with how powerful a book is.

ZeroTwentythree
17-10-2008, 18:45
The Orc and Goblin army didnt actually score the most game points though, they simply had high composition and paint scores. If anything, these results reinforce the tier argument because to give the Orcs and Goblin army a chance, the tournament organizers had to impose an additional system by which weaker armies could compete and do well.

Nonsense. You're saying the O&G player had some sort of painting or sportsmanship advantage over the DoC player? The DoC player had every chance to paint and be a nice guy as the O&G player.




Had the Daemon/vc/de players actually put as much time into painting and "sportsmanship" (the most retarded point category I've ever seen since it's the least objective), those armies would have taken 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place, with the daemon army being FAR ahead of the VC or DE armies.

The sportsmanship score, buy the way, consisted of two things AFAIK. One was a simple "yes or no" question that was completely spelled out for the players. I think it amounted to whether or not your opponent brought all their stuff, showed up on time, didn't cheat, etc. At the end of the tournament, everyone got to vote for their favorite opponent(s), which gained some people bonus points.





The score that shows how powerful an army is shows in favour of Daemons, VC, and DE. Painting and "sportsmanship" have nothing to do with how powerful a book is.


Well, seeing as sportsmanship and painting are as much a part of the hobby as building a list and rolling dice, I don't see how this is irrelevent to winning tournaments. If painting figures and being a nice guy are "crap," as Orcboy_Phil so eloquently puts it :rolleyes: , then you may as well stay home and play the computer version of the game.



However if you get rid of all the crap scering

I'll play nice guys using nicely painted VC, DE & DoC all day long rather than play a$$holes using O&G, BoC or OK or whatever.


Furthermore, to-requote the original, my reply was to this:


That is not to say you can't win a game with them, just that you have a significant disadvantage and your chances of winning a tournament approach zero.

Note: "Winning a tournament."

Question: Who won that tournament?

W0lf
17-10-2008, 19:14
erm he said painting and sportsmenship dont affect game balance.

Thats completly true and tiers so should only be examined based on ingame performance.

A Tier system does exist because game inbalance exists. They are not mutually excusive.

At the end of a day its a game of numbers and stats and therefore it is possible to create a 'maximised' potential for a list. The best daemons lists are far superiour to the best Orc and Goblin lists.

Local game experience involves far too many factors to really comment on tiers. Unless armies are min-maxed to maximise abilites then its a pointless arguement anyway. You can write a crap daemons list and a brilliant orc list and the orcs win. However the fact is daemons have a initial advantage before pen even touches paper.

You do realise i could play 10 daemons players using orcs and beat all of them?

That only proves that their list was bad, i was better at the game or luck was heavily on my side.

If both armies are maximised to win and both players are of equal gaming ability then the daemons will win every time. Try finding someone who is as near to you as possible in gaming ability, write a 'top tier list' and a 'bottom tier list'. You will find the top tier list wins reguardless of who plays which army.

Storak
17-10-2008, 19:29
Nonsense. You're saying the O&G player had some sort of painting or sportsmanship advantage over the DoC player? The DoC player had every chance to paint and be a nice guy as the O&G player.

there are of course no "army tiers" in categories like "painting" or "sports man". tiers only make sense, when looking at battle scores.

and orcs actually performed rather good on battle scores in this tournaments. they got an average ABM score (http://www.warvault.net/warhammer_realm/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4037) in this tournament. 1 of 3 armies in the top 3rd, 2 armies quite low in the rest.
a good performance for O&G, but not for other armies.

and orcs achieved this result in an environment that banned special chars and has a pretty extreme comp and sportsman system.

a player who lost all of his games by massacre (5 points) and got the highest scores that armies got in this event in the other categories (30 sport, 26 paint and 33 comp) would have placed in the top 10 of general tournament results!

Frankly
17-10-2008, 20:06
.
A Tier system does exist because game inbalance exists. They are not mutually excusive.

.

They're not mutually excusive because they're THE SAME ******* THING!!!!!

'Tier' is the flavour of the month word for, broken, cheeze or what every fanboy forums goers want to call it.

Thats right local gamers DO have to many factors to make a 'imho' opinion tier system work and since the large majority of players DO NOT play in major GTs this tier system is really just a bunch of crap, to the majority of games played isn't it.

ZeroTwentythree
17-10-2008, 20:11
Again, I was replying to the statement that the chances of O&G winning a tournament approached zero, and I found it entertaining that last week I saw them win.

Painting and sportsmanship don't specifically target "low tier" armies, since a "top tier" army with a good, honest player and nicely painted figures will, if anything, find it even easier to win the overall tournament. (One of the best painted armies there was a VC army!)

As I (sarcastically) state earlier in this thread, the designers aren't perfect, so arguing that their aren't imbalances between armies ("tiers" is just an artificial organization of this, call it what you like - it's generally the same thing with minor semantic differences) is foolish unless you believe they've got every single army book 100% balanced against all others. So I'm not arguing against that.

But this has now reinforced what I see as a bigger problem in the hobby than "army book balance." That would be the obsession with winning games and nothing else. The dismissal of painting and being a good sport as "crap" and "doesn't matter" is really pretty sad. As I said before, I'd rather play unbalanced books than idiots with unpainted figures.

Tournaments including such scores are a step in the right direction, as they are as much a part of the game as which army book one uses.

kramplarv
17-10-2008, 20:23
But the majority of players discussing warhammer on internetforums are tournamentplayers, which go to tournaments etc. Therefore the tier system is relevant on most of the internetforums.

the tier system has no relevance whatsoever except in competition. in tournaments.
And the dsicussion is very important to take as it can make GW change bad army books(like 6th ed DE...) And in one year from npw, or maybe two, the deamons will still kick everyones smelly bottom. The VC did that 6th ed all the time... Even though VC was one of the first armies in 6th they was one of the top5 armies until 7th ed book.

there ARE some armies which are stronger than others, and those armies will go in cycles... For example; 6th ed Deamons sucked big time... they were almost unplayable. and the BoC rocked the boat against almost all armies. But now, times are chaning. The beasts struggle for survive while the daemons are thriving.

Frankly
17-10-2008, 20:35
But the majority of players discussing warhammer on internetforums are tournamentplayers, which go to tournaments etc. Therefore the tier system is relevant on most of the internetforums.



Says who???

ZeroTwentythree
17-10-2008, 20:55
the tier system has no relevance whatsoever except in competition. in tournaments.


Because the imbalances of army books magically disappear when not used in tournaments? :eyebrows:

Heretic Burner
18-10-2008, 00:20
Top tier:
Daemons
Vampire Counts

Upper tier:
Dark Elves
High elves
Bretonnia
Wood Elves

Mid Tier:
Lizardmen
Empire
Dwarfs
Skaven

Low Tier:
Tomb Kings
Orcs and Goblins

Bottom Tier:
Ogre kingdoms
Beasts of chaos


Not a bad list. Don't see much reason for breaking it up beyond 3 however. Shift DE and possibly HE into the top tier. Combine upper and mid tiers. Combine Low and Bottom. Of course TK are WAY too low, dwarfs too high, and O&G are clearly on the very bottom by virtually any statistical evidence - and far more dreadful than even the second lowest scoring army.

Still, not too shabby and as it will agree with most reasonable ranking of tiers it is clear to see that any notion that army balance remains in this game is simply absurd.

Orcboy_Phil
18-10-2008, 02:51
I'll play nice guys using nicely painted VC, DE & DoC all day long rather than play a$$holes using O&G, BoC or OK or whatever.


The Deamon guy got both good painting and sportsmanship scores. He lost on comp by 8 points compared to the O&G army. His final score placed him outside of the winning podium by 0.5 points. I don't see how supifical elements like what army book you decide to take or how good a painter you are should influence how well you do at a tournament. Comp is a flawed system designed for losing opponents to punish there victors. Same with sportsmanship. As for painting, it has no place outside of painting compertions.

Kalec
18-10-2008, 05:43
The dismissal of painting and being a good sport as "crap" and "doesn't matter" is really pretty sad. As I said before, I'd rather play unbalanced books than idiots with unpainted figures.


I honestly do not know how you could have misunderstood Orcboy that badly.

gerrymander61
18-10-2008, 07:34
Nonsense. You're saying the O&G player had some sort of painting or sportsmanship advantage over the DoC player? The DoC player had every chance to paint and be a nice guy as the O&G player.

But Painting and sportsmanship dont have anything AT ALL to do with the power of the army. What I'm saying is that the Daemon army performed far better in game than any other army in the tournament you cited, which suggests that daemons are overpowered (when combined with other tournament results).



The sportsmanship score, buy the way, consisted of two things AFAIK. One was a simple "yes or no" question that was completely spelled out for the players. I think it amounted to whether or not your opponent brought all their stuff, showed up on time, didn't cheat, etc. At the end of the tournament, everyone got to vote for their favorite opponent(s), which gained some people bonus points.

I'm sorry, how is this objective? If a player cheated then they shouldn't be in the tournament. That's not sportsmanship, that's obeying the rules. Sportsmanship is things like being a good loser, not bragging over every good move, accepting a loss, etc. Things like that cannot be judged at an objective level.


Well, seeing as sportsmanship and painting are as much a part of the hobby as building a list and rolling dice, I don't see how this is irrelevent to winning tournaments. If painting figures and being a nice guy are "crap," as Orcboy_Phil so eloquently puts it :rolleyes: , then you may as well stay home and play the computer version of the game.


A part of the hobby yes, but not a part of the tournament metagame scene. Tournament score categories such as composition and painting are artificial impositions to give weaker armies a chance. They are there to make it possible that an army that lost a game, is a "better" army than beat it due to composition and painting scores. Let me say it one more time: COMPOSITION AND PAINTING have NOTHING to do with the overall power of an armybook. Composition can be rephrased as "not taking the best list possible" and painting scores are simply a reflection of how much time you spend at warhammer outside of making armies. They are fake measures put in place to give weaker armies a chance.


I'll play nice guys using nicely painted VC, DE & DoC all day long rather than play a$$holes using O&G, BoC or OK or whatever.

And you're more than welcome to do so, however, at a tournament level, at a WAAC level, some armies will perform better than other armies and there is data to support that. Tiers exist, but only at the tournament metagame level because by definition, tiers are simply a reflection of how well an army is EXPECTED to perform at a TOURNAMENT level.


Question: Who won that tournament?
The Daemon, VC, and DE players all brought better armies, but lost due to artificial measures that were put in place to give OnG players a chance.

najo
18-10-2008, 08:48
Why are Ogre Kingdoms, Tomb Kings, and Orc's and Goblins on everyone's low to bottom tier?

Ogre's need some love, Tomb Kings are fine, Orcs and Goblins a bit to random. The main reason is not enough people know how to play these armies effectively.


As for the tiers. They do and don't exist. GW does not purposely build them in or plan for army power creep (although some unit power creep occurs, usually with point increases to maintain balance). The tiers come about by the armies that cover their weaknesses the best and can be exploited by power gamers in tournaments. Usually this occurs when an army has better unit/ rule synergy than GW intended or the army's special rules counter common gameplay issues (like the undead and daemons with fear, immune to psychology and not breaking).

Although, it is important to note two fallacies in this thread: 1) Good warhammer players can consistantly win with most armies (broken builds or not) and the game is about controlling and minimizing chance through movement and combat result, thus avoiding randomness. The game is not about luck most of the time, it is about tactics and math. If you still think it is about lucky dice rolls, then you are not playing the game the way the good top players play.

With that said, if I were to tier the armies I would look at strength vs weakness and tactical flexibility. That list would look like this:

Tier 1: Daemons of Chaos, Dark Elves, Empire, Vampire Counts
Tier 2: Bretonnia, Dwarves, High Elves, Lizardmen, Tomb Kings, Warriors of Chaos, Wood Elves
Tier 3: Beasts of Chaos, Ogre Kingdoms, Orcs and Goblins, Skaven

In the hands of good power gamer players, I would say Empire, Vampire Counts, Bretonnia, Lizardmen, Tomb Kings and Orcs and Goblins shift up one level. Daemons almost want to, but their limited tricks and weak points start to hold them back. Dark Elves lack the numbers of Empire and staying power of Vampire Counts to push up another notch.

So the really good power gamer's tiers look like this:

Tier 1: Empire, Vampire Counts
Tier 2: Bretonnia, Daemons of Chaos, Dark Elves, Lizardmen, Tomb Kings
Tier 3: Dwarves, High Elves, Orcs and Goblins, Warriors of Chaos, Wood Elves
Tier 4: Beasts of Chaos, Ogre Kingdoms, Skaven

Overall, Empire is the strongest army in the game if you know how to play it well. Vampire Counts is the most "broken" army in the game (due to how well all of its current ediiton rules synergize - i.e. necromancy recasting, vampire units, saves vs crumbling, power/ item combos etc), followed closely by Daemons. Empire though has cheap troops, mid line stats, good equipment, the widest tactical options, diverse and cheap wizards, good leadership and morale, detactments, the steam tank, flagellants and greatswords, effective light and heavy cavalry, awesome warmachines which can be boosted with engineers. It is a very effective, well rounded army for the good warhammer general. Those that have mastered the game can play empire and win 75%+ of the time and without a steam tank too.

Frankly
18-10-2008, 13:53
But Painting and sportsmanship dont have anything AT ALL to do with the power of the army.

Do they have anything to do with tournament results, because I thought that was what alot of poeple were using the tier system for ... for rating tournament armylists?

The last three tournaments I went to had tounament points in sportmanship and painting. In 2 tournaments the winners had high marks in both catagories. I've been to tournaments where these to catagorias + fluff is 50% of the tournamnent points system, do we not count these tournament and tournament players, were they counted in the first place?

This really goes out to the people who look and tournamanet results and uses them as some kind of class system for armybooks, without including all the factors .... like not all tournaments are counted.

Storak
18-10-2008, 14:18
to judge the combat performance of armies in such tournaments, pure battle results are used. (as they should be)

a comp score environment will have other effects on combat performance though (people will bring different armies, to score comp points..), and this can t really be compensated for.

so any serious analysis will make a difference between tournaments with a comp score and those without....

Frankly
18-10-2008, 16:21
But there hasn't been any 'serious analysis' has there.

Storak
18-10-2008, 16:37
depends on whether you would call a look at 10000 battles (http://www.warvault.net/warhammer_realm/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4037) "serious" analysis.

Frankly
18-10-2008, 16:40
well thats "serious'.

/tips hat to Storak.


I'm off to the pub, but I'll read the method and data later.

Ymir
18-10-2008, 16:58
-What-? According to that analysis, Tomb Kings would seem to be, correct me if I'm wrong, one of the very best armies.

And here have almost everyone in this thread rated them rather low...I would certainly, I play them, and I have -never ever- won against Lizardmen, for example...

Although they are quite good at slaughtering Wood Elves, though...

Orcboy_Phil
18-10-2008, 17:03
Unfortuantly, that list is very much out of date, DE, DoC, VC have all been updated or even created since that list was last updated. It would be intreasting to see how it now looks after the ToS heats this year.

ZeroTwentythree
18-10-2008, 20:56
But Painting and sportsmanship dont have anything AT ALL to do with the power of the army. What I'm saying is that the Daemon army performed far better in game than any other army in the tournament you cited, which suggests that daemons are overpowered (when combined with other tournament results).



Here's a direct quote of what I was replying to and what I said:




That is not to say you can't win a game with them, just that you have a significant disadvantage and your chances of winning a tournament approach zero.


http://www.marauders-inc.com/~marauder/data/files/Marauders%20Mayhem/Fall2008/MMFall2008Results.htm

Approach but don't actually hit zero. ;)


As you can see above, I agreed that they approached zero, but cited an example that O&G can still WIN TOURNAMENTS. I didn't say they weren't weaker, and several times (both before and after that quote) I have directly stated that I agree that not all army books are equal.

So I don't see why you keep "disagreeing" with my non-existent opinion that they are equally powered in terms of winning games (as opposed to winning tournaments.) I never once said that painting and sportsmanship had anything to do with the "power of an army."




A part of the hobby yes, but not a part of the tournament metagame scene. Tournament score categories such as composition and painting are artificial impositions to give weaker armies a chance. They are there to make it possible that an army that lost a game, is a "better" army than beat it due to composition and painting scores. Let me say it one more time: COMPOSITION AND PAINTING have NOTHING to do with the overall power of an armybook.

First off, one more time, I never said that comp or painting had anything to do with the "power" of an army. I only referred to tournament scoring. Two separate things.

As for the "tournament scene," that is your opinion. The large number of tournaments that include sportsmanship and painting scores show that a significant number of people disagree with you. Most importantly, many of the tournament organizers.

Painting and sportsmanship are 100% part of the hobby, just like victory/battle points. So if tournaments are using these conditions to score, they are in fact, part of the "tournament metagame scene" because you need to factor them in if you want to win. Someone can't just factor them out because they don't care about one aspect or another.


Quick review:


I agree that some army books are more powerful than others - there is no perfection in the game.
Painting and sportsmanship are part of the overall hobby.
Because battle points are only one of several scoring factors in most tournaments, the power of an army book can make it easier for certain armies to win, but does not exclude the "low power" armies from winning tournaments.
Winning tournaments and winning games are two separate things.

najo
19-10-2008, 10:51
-What-? According to that analysis, Tomb Kings would seem to be, correct me if I'm wrong, one of the very best armies.

And here have almost everyone in this thread rated them rather low...I would certainly, I play them, and I have -never ever- won against Lizardmen, for example...

Although they are quite good at slaughtering Wood Elves, though...

I think alot fo people don't know how to play the tomb kings well. I personally think their one of the most powerful armies in the game with a good general running them. They also are the third most tactically flexible in types of units, right behind orcs & goblins (#2) and empire (#1).

Here is how I would rate the armies (as my post above):
Tier 1: Empire, Vampire Counts
Tier 2: Bretonnia, Daemons of Chaos, Dark Elves, Lizardmen, Tomb Kings
Tier 3: Dwarves, High Elves, Orcs and Goblins, Warriors of Chaos, Wood Elves
Tier 4: Beasts of Chaos, Ogre Kingdoms, Skaven

If I broke it down further rating armies by sheer raw power, potential hidden power, tactical flexiblity in unit selection and during game play and reliability of the units, I rank the armies strongest to weakest like this:

1. Empire
2. Vampire Counts
3. Daemons of Chaos
4. Bretonnia
5. Tomb Kings
6. Lizardmen
7. Dark Elves
8. Wood Elves
9. Dwarves
10. High Elves
11. Warriors of Chaos
12. Orcs and Goblins
13. Skaven
14. Beasts of Chaos
15. Ogre Kingdoms

So, Tomb Kings is in the top 33% in my book. Highly over looked and underestimated. Of course, all of the armies are good when played well, but some are harder to play than others, which puts would put some of the down on the list. I think the armies harder to play are Tomb Kings, Dwarves, Skaven, Beasts of Chaos and Ogre Kingdoms. These armies are not easy for new players to get a hold on and win with easily.

Frankly
19-10-2008, 11:34
Its funny to see skaven so far down so many lists, I remember when skaven were SO hated!!!! and thought to be OP, broken and cheezy.

A bit like DoC now and VC one or 2 months along.

Harwammer
19-10-2008, 13:06
Its funny to see skaven so far down so many lists, I remember when skaven were SO hated!!!! and thought to be OP, broken and cheezy.

A bit like DoC now and VC one or 2 months along.

Some fundamental rule changes, especially targetting rules, seriously impacted the way several armies perform. Indeed, several rules changes in 7th edition were intentional nerfs to units designers considered over powered (skaven weapon teams, beastmen raiders, etc.)

Foxbat
19-10-2008, 13:44
Based on my experiences I have the following tiering for tourney armies:

Tier 1: VC, DoC, and DE
Tier 2: Dragon/Dragon Prince/Teclis based HE lists, Brets, WoC, Empire Stank/Gunline, Skaven,
Tier 3: All other HE & Empire lists, Dwarf Anvel/Gunline, O&G, Lizzies, Certain TK & WE lists
Tier 4: All other army books and focused lists by above noted books.

My view is that Tier 2 and 3 are where the armies need to be (Tier 2 are tough battles but can be beaten). Tier 1 armies are just far too hard for way too many lists. Tier 4 army books will likely need some examination and possible refresh (a.k.a. more power creep).

The real problem arises when a Tier 4 book can build a Tier 3 focused list. When this occurs, the book likely needs minimal work otherwise the specific list may inadvertently move to Tier 1.

gerrymander61
19-10-2008, 16:02
depends on whether you would call a look at 10000 battles (http://www.warvault.net/warhammer_realm/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4037) "serious" analysis.

The problem with this data is it was current as of January 4, 2008, making it very inaccurate and mostly irrelevant to this discussion as DoC, VC, and DE were all stuck back in 6th then and were't the powerhouses they are today.

But good job finding data. It's always great to have something concrete to argue over.

Mireadur
19-10-2008, 23:10
Based on my experiences I have the following tiering for tourney armies:

Tier 1: VC, DoC, and DE
Tier 2: Dragon/Dragon Prince/Teclis based HE lists, Brets, WoC, Empire Stank/Gunline, Skaven,
Tier 3: All other HE & Empire lists, Dwarf Anvel/Gunline, O&G, Lizzies, Certain TK lists
Tier 4: All other army books and focused lists by above noted books.

My view is that Tier 2 and 3 are where the armies need to be (Tier 2 are tough battles but can be beaten). Tier 1 armies are just far too hard for way too many lists. Tier 4 army books will likely need some examination and possible refresh (a.k.a. more power creep).

The real problem arises when a Tier 4 book can build a Tier 3 focused list. When this occurs, the book likely needs minimal work otherwise the specific list may inadvertently move to Tier 1.

Nicely put, i quite agree with this but where would be WE in your opinion 4th tier??

Foxbat
20-10-2008, 02:45
Nicely put, i quite agree with this but where would be WE in your opinion 4th tier??

Based on what I have seen of WE, right now I think their Tier 4 with the ability to make focused lsits that are Tier 3. However, this is open to revision.

The fact I tend to see so few of these lists, adds additional support to a Tier 3/4 ranking.

Cartoon
20-10-2008, 03:05
WE are sort of like TK. Beginners probably won't fair to well with them but once you learn how to play them well they are an extremely powerful army. They probably aren't on the same level as VC or DOC but they can certainly hold their own once a player adapts to their play style. Or at least that was my general impression.

Orcboy_Phil
20-10-2008, 14:26
The former manager at my local GW often claimed he could beat any 2000pt army with 1000pts of wood elves. I never took him up on that and it was before the last most moaned about batch of army books came out. But ti goes to show how strong Wood elves are perceived to be.

BEEGfrog
20-10-2008, 16:21
Is there power creep?
In general, yes. Compare the last two lists for each army, how many of each got much worse, slighly worse, about the same, slightly better or very much better? If the armies getting better outnumber the armies getting worse then there is power creep upwards, if the other way round then the creep is downward (remember Ravenning Hordes!). If the difference is 1 or 2, or most differences are slight then the creep is mild, when the differences are all in one direction or most differences are in the "very much" category in one direction the the creep is significant and potentially damaging to the hobby.

Are there tiers?
Are the results of battles against similarly skilled opponents like stone, paper, scissors: i.e. are the numbers showing a balanced win/loss ratio averaged across all match ups even though they may be unbalanced with certain army pairs? I.e. if army A shows a trend of winning against army B does it also show a balanced trend or losing against army C? The people who have produced tiered listings believe that the win/loss results do not show this and some armies are significantly better than others.
But why tiers rather than a straight ranking? The ranking is lumpy, it is difficult to agree if similarly ranked armies are better than each other both due to the influence of luck, specific stone/paper/scissor match-ups and the way books respond differently to the skill level of the players. It is easier to see differences in armies further apart in the rankings, e.g. virtually everyone has DoC and VC in the top tier and there are at least a couple of gaps in the rankings where most people would agree on which lists are above or below the gap.

Is the relative power of your book/selected army the most significant factor in winning a game?
No! Skill is most important, selected army is second and luck third. Books are only important in that they determine which armies you can select. However, once you specify equivalent skill levels and a reasonably large number of battles the only significant influence left on the win/loss ratio are the armies you can build and thus the book used.

A final point, it is not in GW's interest to bring out a list that is worse than either the current list or the average of the current lists as this will discourage sales. Even if GW try hard to balance lists, this commercial pressure will tend to lead to at least minor power creep as the worst become at least as good as average and the good get no worse.

SolarHammer
20-10-2008, 20:22
No! Skill is most important, selected army is second and luck third. Books are only important in that they determine which armies you can select. However, once you specify equivalent skill levels and a reasonably large number of battles the only significant influence left on the win/loss ratio are the armies you can build and thus the book used.

I'd rank the importance of factors in determination of loss/victory as follows:
1.) Actual army taken (which units are chosen from the army book to the chosen points limit - the lists posted in the Army List subforum on this site)
2.) Player skill
3.) Army book (which army book is taken)
4.) Deployment
5.) Luck

W0lf
20-10-2008, 20:56
Wood elves were a top tier army untill recently.

Its almost impossible to play wood elves vs Daemons and Vampires and get a good win. With little/no static combat res (one unit has it) and the 'unbreakable' nature of both armies its hard to make a real dent.

Plus the lack of true ward save for forest spirits was commonplace in 6th but as of 7th seems a little.. cheap?

I think the inclusion of 2 Elf armies that have got majorly better and the inclusion of daemons, vampire has really toned down wood elves ability comparitivly.

Oh and skaven suffer for the same reason. Weapons teams went from ridiculous to almost pointless in 7th edition. Oh and 2D6 s5 seems less and less damaging with the release of daemons and vampires. Oh and with high LD and immune to psy becomming more common its less damaging psychologically aswell as physically.

Plus the problem with SAD is one O&G face on a more serious scale, they are more susceptable to dice rolls then most. As someone above rightly said the art of playing warhammer well is to reduce chance/risk. Skaven by nature leave somethings to chance.

cold0
20-10-2008, 21:09
11. Warriors of Chaos

Uhm, I'm wait before classified the new WoC as an underdog. The new army book was published jus some days ago and, while not as powerful (broken?) as Daemons and VC, it could be quite fine.

Aurellis
20-10-2008, 21:19
Uhm, I'm wait before classified the new WoC as an underdog. The new army book was published jus some days ago and, while not as powerful (broken?) as Daemons and VC, it could be quite fine.

The new Warriors of Chaos book is great and is already underrated, which is a good thing for WarSeer! It's definitely balanced and has it's strong unit choices and tactical flavoursome like all armies should. If i had to put them alongside another army for a competitive comparison though I'd put them alongside the Dark Elves and Skaven. Not quite breaking the VC/Daemon barrier but definitely a strong list

Mireadur
20-10-2008, 22:09
Im still amazed some people dont consider DE in the same level of VC... Oh wait, you play DE.

Caine Mangakahia
20-10-2008, 22:25
I think alot fo people don't know how to play the tomb kings well. I personally think their one of the most powerful armies in the game with a good general running them.
So, Tomb Kings is in the top 33% in my book. Highly over looked and underestimated. Of course, all of the armies are good when played well, but some are harder to play than others, which puts would put some of the down on the list. I think the armies harder to play are Tomb Kings, Dwarves, Skaven, Beasts of Chaos and Ogre Kingdoms. These armies are not easy for new players to get a hold on and win with easily.

Tomb Kings is great for an experienced general looking for a challenge. I do think that many parts have fundimental flaws though. The fact that many of the inherent flaws in the army (such as no marching, low WS, low to non existant armour etc) mean that even minor magic defense focused in the right areas expose TKs reliance on the "relentless" magic phase.
Also many of the more interesting choices such as chariots Ushabti CoS seem too fragile or low impact for cost.
I've found that they perfom very badly at low point games,especially against Heavy Cavalry (Chaos !) Magic Defensive or SAD armies (Dwarves !)

zak
20-10-2008, 23:36
Do tiers exist? - yes.
Can all armies win? - yes.
I believe that the second question is more important than the first in game balance. Other than an odd exception the tiers are very close and possibly exaggerated under tournament conditions.

Frankly
21-10-2008, 01:19
Wood elves were a top tier army untill recently.

Its almost impossible to play wood elves vs Daemons and Vampires and get a good win. With little/no static combat res (one unit has it) and the 'unbreakable' nature of both armies its hard to make a real dent.



What???

Are you joking?

Considering the best units in the WE are immune to pyche, have lots of attacks to over-ride ward saves (i.e dryds/wardancers eat up many DoC and VC basic unit types) and have the mobility to counter DoC king support units.

WE have a bad match up against large targets sure, but thats it. For the rest of VC or DoC the WE armybook has LOTS of options.

And when have tournament WE lists ever been centered around static CR? They're about mobility and concentrated charges and/or shooting.

The only problem I've seen WE have in tournies are with heavy casting VCs if the WE player is light on anti-magic.

If I'm taking my VC to a tournament, 'WE are a top of the look out list.' a simple over-run flank charge + frontal charge, or frontal charge and hammer in the flank will murder basic undead core units. WE have the ability to put units in positions to make these plays better than most every other armylist imho ...... DE ain't far behind.

W0lf
21-10-2008, 11:27
Dryads will hit hard but they need alot of kills to win due to lack os static and your forgetting most undead units happen to have vampires in them.

As i said wood elf units cant break vampires or daemons and so you need to kill the whole unit, funny enough that dosnt happen.

But hey feel free to disagree, im not going to argue with you because from your many posts ive read i disagree with you on almost everything you've posted so meh. You obviously dont play the same kind of people i do, only a noob vampire/daemons player will struggle to beat down wood elves.

Oh an yes of course if you have dryads in the front and wardancers int he side you will fair pretty damn well... but if your doing that your oppnent isnt up to much now is he?

Frankly
21-10-2008, 14:54
Oh an yes of course if you have dryads in the front and wardancers int he side you will fair pretty damn well... but if your doing that your oppnent isnt up to much now is he?


hmmm .... what exactly do you mean?

Problem is catching WEs with VC, once they're taken out their opponents supporting units i.e in the case of undead, dire wolves and bats then the flanks open up and create options. WE has then the option of pick and choosing combat and/or picking a soft score win.

Dryads + glade rides will usually mean a creation of RCs through flank and outnumber and then wounds while negating rank bonuses. WE are such a good armylist because they can create options and negate their opponents options.

I've seen undead core units drop through wounds alone against dryads + wardances.

The key area is the movement phases which WE are superb at controlling, using their own movement phase to set up options, while negating their opponents movement phase through match blocks and fleeing.

W0lf
21-10-2008, 17:45
Refused flank makes it pretty easy to protect your flanks if you anchor it properly.

kramplarv
21-10-2008, 20:39
The good WE player will probably kick most VC armies there are.

Somehow the WE army seems tailored to fight VC. mobile,fast, heavy hitters.
a standard Wardancer units makes about 10-12 wounds on skeletons with 4+sv.
and that's just one unit. everything in WE are fast and mobile and I'd say it is a n00b WE general to lose against VC.

Ixquic
21-10-2008, 21:16
a standard Wardancer units makes about 10-12 wounds on skeletons with 4+sv.


How do you figure?

kramplarv
21-10-2008, 21:19
24 attacks, 16 hits, 11 wounds, 3 saves.
okey, not 10-12 but not far from.

Frankly
22-10-2008, 00:02
Refused flank makes it pretty easy to protect your flanks if you anchor it properly.


So what are you going to anchor with then?

Dexter099
22-10-2008, 03:10
[QUOTE=W0lf;3025574]Wood elves were a top tier army untill recently.

Its almost impossible to play wood elves vs Daemons and Vampires and get a good win. With little/no static combat res (one unit has it) and the 'unbreakable' nature of both armies its hard to make a real dent.

Plus the lack of true ward save for forest spirits was commonplace in 6th but as of 7th seems a little.. cheap?

I think the inclusion of 2 Elf armies that have got majorly better and the inclusion of daemons, vampire has really toned down wood elves ability comparitivly.

QUOTE]

Watch and read Peegore's page where he massacres a vampire count army with his wood elves in no close contest.

The advantage that Wood Elves have more so over vampire counts than last addition is that the Vampire Counts have less of a chance of marching.

In the old edition, Von Carsteins could make their army march within 18".

Ymir
22-10-2008, 03:47
Ironically, I've found Tomb Kings have a pretty easy time versus Wood Elves though. Maybe it's just the players I normally face, it's possible we aren't very good, and I don't go to tourneys so I don't even know how Vampire Counts work...

but Tomb Kings ability to always hit on 5s with bows, combined with their movement-boosting magic, seems to be the bane of the wood elves I've faced. Their elite scouts whatever their name can't hide and gets shot down rather easily, and the army as a whole have a hard time trying to outmaneuver me. I realize in theory what it is that makes people consider Wood Elves so good, but I haven't really seen it work with my own eyes.

gerrymander61
22-10-2008, 05:50
The good WE player will probably kick most VC armies there are.

Somehow the WE army seems tailored to fight VC. mobile,fast, heavy hitters.
a standard Wardancer units makes about 10-12 wounds on skeletons with 4+sv.
and that's just one unit. everything in WE are fast and mobile and I'd say it is a n00b WE general to lose against VC.

Yeah, but WE can't compete at all with the VC magic phase and as such, most WE shooting (unless it's a REALLY dedicated bowline) won't really dent VC since they just raise back their troops. Also, undead won't ever break from combat, so it's much harder to eat a unit alive with combined charges; it's far more likely for the unit to have a few remaining troops and then the WE will be stuck in combat with a unit being forever re-raised until a vargulf comes over and eats the WE faces off.

Oh, and combined charges become much more unreliable when ever unit you charge causes fear.

Nicha11
22-10-2008, 08:52
WE players how do you deal with a unit of blood knights
with the Drakenhof banner? I've just been trying to focus
all my shooting on it, it this economical or even efficient?

Edit: The unit has a bsb with the banner in it.

Frankly
22-10-2008, 09:43
Yeah, but WE can't compete at all with the VC magic phase and as such, most WE shooting (unless it's a REALLY dedicated bowline) won't really dent VC since they just raise back their troops. Also, undead won't ever break from combat, so it's much harder to eat a unit alive with combined charges; it's far more likely for the unit to have a few remaining troops and then the WE will be stuck in combat with a unit being forever re-raised until a vargulf comes over and eats the WE faces off.

Oh, and combined charges become much more unreliable when ever unit you charge causes fear.


Good points gerry.

I don't think very many magic phases compete with with a strong VC magic phase to be honest if the go head to head. LM:Slann, HE for agressive raw power. I think its up to the WE(or any player for a matter of fact) to try to negate the VC players magic phase as much as possible than to compete with it head to head.

As for shooting, I can't really remember seeing alot of 'gunline'(for the leak of a better word)WE on the top tables on day 2 of tournaments, your right that shooting isn't great against undead, but its still is nice to help thin numbers, make him use his P.Dice more defensively to roll nefeks, instead of dances for example. Most importantly you've got some ranged attack answers for his supporting units like dire wolves which should be top of the target list for shooting. Combined CC does work though, its very affective against undead core units, like I've said before at tournies I've been on the reseiving end and also seen combined charges drop undead units in one turn.

Most charges against of fear causing enemy are 'hopefully/should be' worked out off your generals higher leadership. Off course thats alittle easier said than done on the table top, but WE have the mobility toset up those charges. In WEs credit alot of the units that are going to do the damage against VC core units are immune to fear.

@Nicha11, I'm not a WE player, but last night with my(... well friends) DE, I shot the meat shield of dire wolves guarding the B.knights and then my shades popped out of the forest insight of the B.knights, the knights add to charge the scouts and got stuck in the forrest for a major part of the game.

In other games I've funneled the B.knight unit off the table using their franzied against them.

For me atleast, its about murdering the blood knights support units and then using frenzied against them. It'll usually put you in a good position when it comes to CC.

W0lf
22-10-2008, 10:52
Blood knights are easy enough. You just need to bait and flee with a unit and then hit them in the flank with wardancers, its how we deal with knights.

Go dance of killing blow and 4 wardancers will easily kill one (often more) kinghts. Hopefully taking 2 down in a unit of 5 puts you on flank, outnumber, 2 kills.

Failing that treemen charge with wardancers and/or alter nobles work well.


I shouldmention i havnt played my wood elves for quite some time, infact since the new vamps book. I just dont see how it can be a good game for the elves. What exactly am i to do about a vargulf? Their magic phase?

You only have to fluff your combat attacks in one round and your ****ed. Grave guard are very very hard to take down when wardancers cant break them at S4 and when dryads have no save vs them.

Plus vampires really have no problems marching. Vargulf + the usual 3/4 vampires is easily enough ability to march.

Vargulf, black/blood knights and grave guard are all problem units for wood elves.

najo
22-10-2008, 12:06
I'd rank the importance of factors in determination of loss/victory as follows:
1.) Actual army taken (which units are chosen from the army book to the chosen points limit - the lists posted in the Army List subforum on this site)
2.) Player skill
3.) Army book (which army book is taken)
4.) Deployment
5.) Luck

I would put deployment over army book.

As for my placing WOC at 11 (referring to a qoute above), they are still right there with High Elves and Dwarves. WOC are a good army, but they suffer from a lack of diversity now. The WOC army lost its flyers and daemonic units which really hurt it. Everything in the army is now strong combat based troops with a mix of numbers and small heavily armored units supported by heavy cavalry and chariots. All the armies above them in my list have much more tactical flexibility or greater hitting power (in the case with Dwarves). The unit WOC needed the most it lost now is the furies. Most of the options they lost with the daemons are gained by the addition of chosen, forsaken and units marked by Tzeentch (ward save). Nothing replaces the loss of Mounted Daemonettes or Flamers though. Personally, I think GW should of let the Chaos books cross into each other more by allowing Chaos units from other Chaos armies as either rare units or allow core units as special and special as rare, but they cannot outnumber the core list's units from those sections.

As for Tomb Kings lacking comment above: They have very reliable shooting (always hitting on 5+), a variety of infantry and support units with tomb gaurd, tomb scorpions, bone giant, ushsbti, carrion, the casket of souls, screaming skull catapults (all of which are awesome). Not to mention magic that is very reliable and DOES NOT MISCAST. When you know what your doing with Tomb Kings they are fierce and can do some awesome stuff. Tomb Kings are very competitive.