PDA

View Full Version : Ranking the Races



AngelsPurgatos
08-02-2009, 19:07
Hello. I've seen a few posts talking about 'tiers' regarding how powerful races are in relation to one another. I was wondering if there was a general consensus about what armies fall in the tiers? How many tiers are there and who/what determines this?

I know its not a hard and fast ruling, just a measure of how powerful the current army rules and how tough they are perceived to be. I'm just curious.

Orcboy_Phil
08-02-2009, 20:00
Theres already been a number of posts on this with numerouse ideas about tiers but generally it goes like this.
Vampire Counts and Deamons top tier
Ogre Kingdoms and Orcs and Goblins bottom tier.
Everybody else inbetween with the Elves near the top of this middling tier.

Kerill
08-02-2009, 20:23
Dark elves are also top tier.
Beasts of chaos are also bottom tier.

Condottiere
08-02-2009, 20:59
DE, Daemons and VC top tier. BoC and OK bottom tier.

I expect the Lizards, Elves and WoC to be above average, and the rest of the factions struggling in the middle.

Drgn
08-02-2009, 21:04
i agree, DE, Daemons and VC are top tier, but O+G are much more mid-tier then bottom tier.
High elves are still close to a top tier army, and WoC are also close. BoC, Tomb Kings, and OK have some great list but overall do lack against some of the newly updated armies.

Misfratz
08-02-2009, 21:08
Just to say, I think it would really help if a solid consensus could be established on this - perhaps in a numerical way, with the top army rated at 100 and the bottom at 0.

Surely then it would be worthwhile trying to get a tournament to use it as part of a handicap system, so that a Dwarf general [for example] could win the tournament if they did a lot better than their handicap would suggest. This would help to encourage a wider variety of armies to be used in tournaments, which would be good I would have thought.

Rather than complaining about the [inevitably] unbalanced nature of Warhammer Fantasy, a handicap system would enable people to more fairly rate how good a general they were.

Dokushin
08-02-2009, 21:13
Do we really want to open that can of worms?

For instance, you talk about Dwarves. Dwarves have a lot of sub-par builds. Their cc is too slow and their special choices are looking worse and worse. But a hardcore Thorek gunline is a really tough opponent.

So what do you do? Do you rank Dwarves low because of the generic lists? Then the Thorek list will dominate by doing way better than the ranking suggested. Or do you rank them high because of Thorek? Then you punish all the people not wanting to field super-Anvil cheese.

The problem is that like it or not armies have good builds and bad builds, and usually one or two combo-type tourney builds. If you rate based on the top tourney lists you punish people for being different, fluffy, or innovative. If you rate based on average power level of all lists you make it even easier to exploit cheesy lists by upping the rewards.

Nomad
08-02-2009, 21:38
Just to say, I think it would really help if a solid consensus could be established on this - perhaps in a numerical way, with the top army rated at 100 and the bottom at 0.

Surely then it would be worthwhile trying to get a tournament to use it as part of a handicap system, so that a Dwarf general [for example] could win the tournament if they did a lot better than their handicap would suggest. This would help to encourage a wider variety of armies to be used in tournaments, which would be good I would have thought.

Rather than complaining about the [inevitably] unbalanced nature of Warhammer Fantasy, a handicap system would enable people to more fairly rate how good a general they were.

Far too subjective, and yet not tailored enough. First, the subjectivity. People will place different rankings on armies based at least partially on their power relative to their own armies and partially on the abilities of opponents who play those armies. While you may be able to get general agreement on some points, such as Daemons taking the largest handicap, the relative strength of middle tier armies especially will be nearly impossible to agree on.

The other problem is that the variety of lists possible in any army book means that any given handicap would be unfair in some way. For an Empire army, for example, should the handicap be based on the Empire player who brings two steam tanks and a war altar? Then it will unfairly penalise any more balanced Empire list. But if you base the handicap on the balanced Empire list, then the minimaxers will gain even more advantage than they otherwise would have.

King Thurgun
08-02-2009, 23:10
The dice are on the top tier. Always.

Ward.
09-02-2009, 01:19
I know its not a hard and fast ruling, just a measure of how powerful the current army rules and how tough they are perceived to be. I'm just curious.

As a soft ruling it can be said to go as such:

God tier:
DOC, VC, DE

High tier:
Brets, WE, HE

Mid Tier:
Empire, dwarves, Chaos dwarfs, lizardmen, Woc, skaven, tomb kings

**** tier:
OK, Ong, Boc, dogs of war

Condottiere
09-02-2009, 01:48
I'd stick DoW in the mid-tier somewhere., WoC in the High-tier.

vinny t
09-02-2009, 01:58
I would say

Top: Daemons, VC, Dark Elves

Upper-midde: Bretonia, High Elves, Wood Elves, Lizardmen

Middle: Empire, Dwarves, Woc, skaven, tomb kings

Lower: Ogres, BoC, Dogs of War, Orcs and Goblins

Cypher, the Emperor
09-02-2009, 02:09
Top Tier:
Daemons, Royal Air Force, Vampire Counts, certain Special Character lists, Dark Elves.

Mid Tier:
Everyone Else

Bottom Tier:
Orcs and Goblins, Beasts of Chaos, Ogre Kingdoms, all overpriced special character lists, Tomb Kings.

Sub Terrain Tier:
Goblins

I don't know where Lizzies are going to be, but I suspect theyw ill stay in the upper mid tier with WoC. Points are also an issue too, Chaos is much better the more points you have too spend and Empire, Dwarfs and Goblins are better than average in small point games.

Maskedman5oh4
09-02-2009, 03:59
Needs more Poll.

silentarrow12
09-02-2009, 05:12
My rankings go as such:

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

People will certainly argue with this order but this is how I perceive the current balance of power.

Johnnyfrej
09-02-2009, 05:18
I would say you should rank the people playing the armies into tiers.

Rodman49
09-02-2009, 05:28
Just to say, I think it would really help if a solid consensus could be established on this - perhaps in a numerical way, with the top army rated at 100 and the bottom at 0.

Surely then it would be worthwhile trying to get a tournament to use it as part of a handicap system, so that a Dwarf general [for example] could win the tournament if they did a lot better than their handicap would suggest. This would help to encourage a wider variety of armies to be used in tournaments, which would be good I would have thought.

Rather than complaining about the [inevitably] unbalanced nature of Warhammer Fantasy, a handicap system would enable people to more fairly rate how good a general they were.

I made a post where we took the average rankings for armies (this is before the current DE book) but take a look at this post:

http://warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2669268&postcount=1

Halelel
09-02-2009, 05:40
The only way to do this would be to list every race and compare them using both tourney lists and casual gaming lists. Even than, it is highly subjective and interpretations of what a typical tourney/casual list is can be debated forever as well.

The whole idea of tiers is misplaced, honestly. I'm never quite sure what the point of a tier system would prove anyways, as it changes not only from edition to edition but with the release of each and every army book as certain armies just don't match up well against others on a consistent basis. Further, some armies have multiple tiers based on list composition.

For example, Beasts of Chaos are generally considered one of the weaker armies at the moment due to the separation of Chaos more than anything. However, they do have several powerful builds still, such as Morghur spawn lists, chariot spam, and Doombull + Mino lists. So, where do they rank tier-wise? Do they rank low tier if they take an ambushing-based beast herd army? Do they rank mid-tier with chariot based armies? Or are they upper-tier with tourney competitive heavy Khorne Mino lists?

Basically, you could say that BoC are :
Casual list = low tier
Tourney list = mid-upper tier

Or something to that effect, but again, it's highly subjective.

pcgamer72
09-02-2009, 05:50
This topic has come up so frequently lately that it's getting to be a bit annoying.

I attend a lot of tournaments, because I thoroughly enjoy them, so that is where most of my opinion comes from. There are certainly some armies that are the best (Daemons, VC, DE imo), and there are definitely some that are weaker than others (Ogres, Beastmen), but I don't feel like it is very easy to put a definitive rank to each army. As has been said a zillion times, there are certain builds for some armies that make them much stronger, but I firmly believe that the VAST majority of lists have some weakness that can be exploited by a cunning opponent in most situations. There are some situations where this is most likely not possible, but I believe those situations are an exception to the general gaming atmosphere.

Dokushin
09-02-2009, 14:38
You know, I think armies may not be fine-grained enough, since there are so many builds.

We should take individual units and rank them into tiers, per army, and apply a handicap. We could rig up games such that you can't take too many of the weird things, and you have to take the fluffier stuff that is supposed to be more common. Like you have 'basic' units that you have to take at least two or three of, and then you've got your 'uncommon' stuff that you can take at most three or four of, and then you've got your 'elite' stuff that you can only take one or two of. Something like that.

:D

Gazak Blacktoof
09-02-2009, 15:05
Just to say, I think it would really help if a solid consensus could be established on this - perhaps in a numerical way, with the top army rated at 100 and the bottom at 0.

Surely then it would be worthwhile trying to get a tournament to use it as part of a handicap system,

They've already implemented a system like this in some Australian tournaments.

FredNo.1
09-02-2009, 15:45
1. Daemons
2. Vampire Counts
3. Dark Elves
4. Lizardmen
5. Empire
6. High Elves
7. Warrios of Chaos
8. Bretonnians
9. Wood Elves
10. Skaven
11. Beasts of Chaos
12. Tomb Kings
13. Orcs and goblins
14. Ogre Kingdoms

Shamfrit
09-02-2009, 16:25
1. Daemons of Chaos
2. Dark Elves
3. Vampire Counts
4. Wood Elves
5. Lizardmen
6. Warriors of Chaos
7. Skaven
8. Empire
9. Brettonians
10. High Elves (If no Prince on Stardragon.)
11. Tomb Kings
12. Beasts of Chaos
13. Ogre Kingdoms
14. Orcs & Goblins

Repsajanus
09-02-2009, 16:26
What's the point of making this rank?

If you lose, you learn... And you learn untill you win.
If you can't win, maybe your army doesn't fit your play style and try another.

do not hide behind a ranking of "strongest" armies, it sounds to me you are searching a lame excuse for losing most of your games...

Arguleon-veq
09-02-2009, 17:00
Whoever said that DoW are middle tier and Warriors are top is way off.

I reckon;

1 - DoC, DE, VC
2 - Brets, HE, Some Empire Builds
3 - Everyone Else
4 - O+G, OK, BoC, DoW

CaliforniaGamer
09-02-2009, 17:02
1. Daemons of Chaos
2. Dark Elves
3. Vampire Counts
4. Wood Elves
5. Lizardmen
6. Warriors of Chaos
7. Skaven
8. Empire
9. Brettonians
10. High Elves (If no Prince on Stardragon.)
11. Tomb Kings
12. Beasts of Chaos
13. Ogre Kingdoms
14. Orcs & Goblins

this ranking is almost right on from my theoryhammer analysis and games played.

PS-LOL@at the guy who ranked the RAF, everyone knows US Marine Corps>ALL

Nuada
09-02-2009, 17:15
1. Daemons of Chaos
2. Dark Elves
3. Vampire Counts
4. Wood Elves
5. Lizardmen
6. Warriors of Chaos
7. Skaven
8. Empire
9. Brettonians
10. High Elves (If no Prince on Stardragon.)
11. Tomb Kings
12. Beasts of Chaos
13. Ogre Kingdoms
14. Orcs & Goblins

Where did the Dwarfs go? :p

InsideReticle
09-02-2009, 18:20
this ranking is almost right on from my theoryhammer analysis and games played.

PS-LOL@at the guy who ranked the RAF, everyone knows US Marine Corps>ALL

RAF is a specific brettonian army build using lots of pegasus knights, he wasn't commenting on the relative military power of modern governments.

Condottiere
09-02-2009, 18:27
Whoever said that DoW are middle tier and Warriors are top is way off.

I reckon;

1 - DoC, DE, VC
2 - Brets, HE, Some Empire Builds
3 - Everyone Else
4 - O+G, OK, BoC, DoWThat would probably be me. I find WoC when properly handled a very hard list. And DoW with a little bit of luck still viable in the mid-tier.

yabbadabba
09-02-2009, 18:29
RAF is a specific brettonian army build using lots of pegasus knights, he wasn't commenting on the relative military power of modern governments.

Besides which too many cases of "Blue on Blue" makes RAF>USAAF

Shamfrit
09-02-2009, 18:43
Dwarves go around 10ish...

But CGamer, out of interest, what did you place them as?

Dokushin
09-02-2009, 19:53
Besides which too many cases of "Blue on Blue" makes RAF>USAAF

USAF is totally what I'm going to start calling Terradon heavy builds, maybe with the Horn of Kygor to make stubborn. I can see it already...

Harwammer
09-02-2009, 20:37
Besides which too many cases of "Blue on Blue" makes RAF>USAAF

"Blue on blue"? Chosing to be the blue team is bad. It has been demonstrated that red team is almost always statistically better.

My go at Tiers, starting at the best and working down:
Unholy baddies
Elves
remaining Goodies
remaining Baddies

Condottiere
09-02-2009, 20:42
USAF is totally what I'm going to start calling Terradon heavy builds, maybe with the Horn of Kygor to make stubborn. I can see it already...You can rename the terradons aardvarks and the stegadons warthogs. The ancient stegadon could be puff the magic dragon.

Coram_Boy
09-02-2009, 20:52
It's interesting that nobody has said that dark elves are top yet. while none of their choices are ridiculously overpowered, the army has incredible synergy, and hardly any of their units do not work together. incidentally, the australlian system a poster referred to is comp, where players see lists before tournaments and rate them - so a list with 2 varghulf, weaponskill hat, Hasslehoff banner etc would be more harshly marked than one that chose to take the less powerful choices.

Condottiere
09-02-2009, 21:34
I'd stick DE as second, behind Daemons. Once you play against a Daemon list, even a cheesy Dark Elf army doesn't stink that bad.

evilamericorp
09-02-2009, 22:19
HOLY ****! I just had a great idea on how to fix all these issues!

1. Fire all the current GW staff.

2. Hire people who will actually playtest new rules in a hardcore tournament setting (preferably Americans).

3. Hire writers and editors who understand how the english language works, and who also actually play the game so they can write the rules in a clear, unambiguous fashion.

4. Assign each unit a statistic, we'll call it a "point value," that accurately represents the unit's abilities not only in the context of the book being written, but books previously published as well.

5. Profit.

Nomad
09-02-2009, 22:46
H
2. Hire people who will actually playtest new rules in a hardcore tournament setting (preferably Americans).

3. Hire writers and editors who understand how the english language works, and who also actually play the game so they can write the rules in a clear, unambiguous fashion.

*Emphasis mine*

I think I'll just sit back and bask in the irony for a while.

;)

Anyway, I think you place far too much faith in the abilities of any game design team to come up with a perfectly balanced game that maintains the degree of variety that Warhammer has.

evilamericorp
09-02-2009, 22:52
*Emphasis mine*

I think I'll just sit back and bask in the irony for a while.

;)

Anyway, I think you place far too much faith in the abilities of any game design team to come up with a perfectly balanced game that maintains the degree of variety that Warhammer has.

I've been basking in the irony for years, but the sad fact is, the English no longer speak it.

I'm not saying the game isn't fun, and there certainly isn't a better system out there, or i'd be lurking on forums for it instead, but GW could do a much better job catering to audiences other than the guys who want to play the game in their living rooms over a pint.

Nomad
09-02-2009, 23:00
I've been basking in the irony for years, but the sad fact is, the English no longer speak it.


I agree to a certain extent, but at least some of us still do.




[I'm not saying the game isn't fun, and there certainly isn't a better system out there, or i'd be lurking on forums for it instead, but GW could do a much better job catering to audiences other than the guys who want to play the game in their living rooms over a pint.

Really? It's always seemed to me as if the tournament scene is a niche within a niche. Of course they could balance the rules more finely without alienating casual gamers (so long as they didn't sacrifice the variety of armies and units), but the time between Army Books, already fairly long, would have to increase drastically for all the additional playtesting to be done. I can't see that making the game more popular.

However, what I think could work quite well is greater use of trial lists, such as the recent Warriors of Chaos interim list after the Daemons book was released, and the Wood Elf trial rules last edition. By allowing the wider Warhammer community to test their lists to destruction while they're still in beta, they could probably improve both the internal balance (fixing such problems as the almost total abandonment of Silver Helms in favour of Dragon Princes) and the external balance (fixing the problem of Daemons pwning all other armies) of the game.

Condottiere
09-02-2009, 23:00
I've been basking in the irony for years, but the sad fact is, the English no longer speak it.

I'm not saying the game isn't fun, and there certainly isn't a better system out there, or i'd be lurking on forums for it instead, but GW could do a much better job catering to audiences other than the guys who want to play the game in their living rooms over a pint.Maybe pass it on to people who have had to program computer games. Through their work experience, they know that if you screw up one line of code, you usually see the result fairly soon once you test the program.

Arguleon-veq
09-02-2009, 23:06
Americans are part of the playtesting scene, why would it make a difference though? anybody not american cant playtest on account that they arent american so cant do it well as only americans can?

The UK GT is possibly the biggest most competative GT there is. I am fairly certain GW ships the list to america for playtesting too. I know a guy from another site who got some Apoc rules to playtest and he is american.

selone
09-02-2009, 23:27
Indeed, geeze I mean its not like we have over-competitive tournaments over here or something ;)

Neckutter
09-02-2009, 23:37
I've been basking in the irony for years, but the sad fact is, the English no longer speak it.


i agree. all you british blokes out there say "schedule".

no really... say "schedule" :P



at any rate, im just joking!

i think the best way to do it, is to have a weekly FAQ catch-all for scenarios. kinda like warseer has stickys. have a pdf file for certain scenarios and make the game-design team update it with as much as possible. people could email with questions, or call the 1800 number... and they would eventually see their question answered in PDF FAQ format. that might be the cheapest way to go.

W0lf
10-02-2009, 00:05
I didnt read the last 3 pages because quite fankly i cba. This is all personal oppinion but i will add my 2 cents;

TIERS do exists. Some armies are simply > others.

W0lfs 'Tiers'

Daemons
Vampires, Dark elves
High elves, Wood elves, Bretts
WoC, Lizardmen, Skaven, Dwarfs
Tomb kings, Empire (non-gunline, cheese variety up with HEs)
Orcs and goblins, ogres, beasts of chaos

Thats the 15, right?

Only thing im not 100% on is wether brets and dwarfs should swap places.

to further condense it id look at;

Daemons, Dark elves, vampires
HE, WE, Brets, Dwarfs
WoC, Lizardmen, Skaven, empire
tom kings, orcs n gobbos, ogres, BoC

TheDarkDuke
10-02-2009, 01:07
My rankings go as such and are based off of average list building... eg. removing the best and worst builds to deem army strength.

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

As for tiers I put them numerically as followed:

Top tier = 1-3
2nd tier = 4-10
3rd tier = 11-15

Aunshiva
10-02-2009, 01:32
Wow. It amazes me that you place DE so highly. I must suck with the army. Certainly no DE player has given my VC pause (except one, but having a 98% success rate on your dice rolling will have a substantial effect on the outcome of the game. The first time I have ever seriously suspected some one of loading their dice.) Then again, I have done nicely with DE against vamps, and demons, but neither was "appropriately" played. IE no terror bomb, no plague bunkers, no caster vamp lord, no blood thirster, no blood knights, a necromancer used and a vamp lord in a unit of grave guard.

With such a handicap (and the fact that both players had less than 10 games under their belt and I was playing in 6th), naturally I would win...

Then again, it's hard for me to rate my armies against the others in my area. Lots of new players here.

Also, Skaven and TK are feared in my area, but that is due to the skill of the man running them.

Voodoo Boyz
10-02-2009, 01:40
Dwarfs belong very close to the bottom of any tier list you make. They are a terrible army in terms of playing in a competitive environment.

Boogyboy
10-02-2009, 02:07
Sweden actually has a quite advanced Comp-effort going on.

http://whfb.roguetrader.nu/documents/RT_WPS_Comp.pdf

It's in English too (well, there is some spelling here and there, but it is all perfectly legible)!

Lizards ain't ranked yet, but I'd put them somewhere with Dark Elves w. High Elves, WOC... etc. under them.

Alathir
10-02-2009, 02:20
Demons on top for me... WAY on top.

Then pretty much everyone else.

Ogre Kingdoms and beasts at the bottom

evilamericorp
10-02-2009, 15:39
It's really interesting to see how differently people rate armies depending on where they're from... everyone in my local area gave up on brets years ago, I don't think I've seen them win a game since the orc book came out, and that's not from a lack of competent generals. My ranking of the local tourney scene would have to be:
Top tier- Vamps and Demons
Competitive- HE, DE, and Dwarves(which everyone else seems to rank pretty low), maybe WoC and Lizzies, but they haven't been out long enough to really tell...
Everyone Else
Absolute Bottom Tier- O&G, Skaven, and Ogres

Gazak Blacktoof
10-02-2009, 16:07
I've never understood how people fail to do well with brets.

The cavalry are brilliant, your wizards have magic resitance, the infantry are cheap and you've got one of the best flying units in the game in addition to being able to take 5 characters.

With the alterations to great weapons I can see why people might avoid fielding questing knights but everything else in the army is somewhere from fair to excellent in terms of its power : cost ratio.

Kerill
10-02-2009, 16:11
I've never understood how people fail to do well with brets.

The cavalry are brilliant, your wizards have magic resitance, the infantry are cheap and you've got one of the best flying units in the game in addition to being able to take 5 characters.

With the alterations to great weapons I can see why people might avoid fielding questing knights but everything else in the army is somewhere from fair to excellent in terms of its power : cost ratio.

Agreed

And a core heavy army is just scary.

evilamericorp
10-02-2009, 16:40
I've never understood how people fail to do well with brets.

The cavalry are brilliant, your wizards have magic resitance, the infantry are cheap and you've got one of the best flying units in the game in addition to being able to take 5 characters.

With the alterations to great weapons I can see why people might avoid fielding questing knights but everything else in the army is somewhere from fair to excellent in terms of its power : cost ratio.

I have never lost a game to them, and I normally play orcs. They have too few units to deal with real horde armies, and are too easy to charge block and bait with cheap fast cav units. It is so easy to throw away 60 points of wolf riders/chaos hounds/whatever to draw a huge lance into flanking range.

Gazak Blacktoof
10-02-2009, 17:33
A lance formation doesn't cost any more than a unit of boyz.

I've used brets and played against them and they're no easier to divert than any other army and can run a frustratingly long way if you attempt to charge them.

Cavalry, infantry and fliers for the costs and abilites available to a bret army makes an excellent force capable of a wide variety of tactics and I wouldn't rate them any lower than a high elf army.

AngelsPurgatos
10-02-2009, 23:40
A lance formation doesn't cost any more than a unit of boyz.

I've used brets and played against them and they're no easier to divert than any other army and can run a frustratingly long way if you attempt to charge them.

Cavalry, infantry and fliers for the costs and abilites available to a bret army makes an excellent force capable of a wide variety of tactics and I wouldn't rate them any lower than a high elf army.

I have to agree with you. I play very balanced lists and do quite decently playing against my main group of friends (daemons, DE, and WoC).

Misfratz
10-02-2009, 23:59
I've never understood how people fail to do well with brets..The most interesting thing about most people's lists is how low down Bretts are. I know that they now have one of the oldest army books out there, but I did think they were still pretty strong for all that.

Is part of the perception of power creep the fact that a fair number of the best generals in the tournament scene will build new armies fairly regularly?

PiousVanDorn
11-02-2009, 13:07
I think that Australia has a tier system for Warhammer... they also have a ranking system for players.

Check out http://www.irresistibleforce.com.au/ it's what they all play for in Oz apparently and I think that something like the top 16 players are invited to a special tournie each year just for them

Storak
11-02-2009, 14:17
Dwarfs belong very close to the bottom of any tier list you make. They are a terrible army in terms of playing in a competitive environment.

i agree.

whether the army already got a 7th edition upgrade makes a difference...

i think real rankings of the armies don t make any sense. but top groups (daemons et al) and worst group (O&G and co..) make sense IF you are playing in a competitive environment.

Kerill
11-02-2009, 16:04
Dwarfs are not a terrible army in competitive play because the army sucks, but because it's very hard to get a massacre. On the other hand it's hard to get a massacre against them either. This doesn't make the army necessarily underpowered, just not well suited to how tournaments calculate scores and rankings.

valdrog
11-02-2009, 20:55
Only way to "balance" the game will be by releasing all the Army Books at the same time, none of this "one now and next 7 months later" crap. By releasign all army books at the same time they can either make them all crap together or cheese them all to hell together, no more "Damn we made VC and Demons to damn strong, lets not make the other books so strong so people wont complain abut how broken they are"

Nomad
11-02-2009, 21:07
Only way to "balance" the game will be by releasing all the Army Books at the same time, none of this "one now and next 7 months later" crap. By releasign all army books at the same time they can either make them all crap together or cheese them all to hell together, no more "Damn we made VC and Demons to damn strong, lets not make the other books so strong so people wont complain abut how broken they are"

That wouldn't by any means guarantee that the army books would all be balanced against each other. The army books are written by different authors, have radically different styles of play, and include a wide variety of units. Furthermore, the gaming community is generally able to find all sorts of options in the book that, when taken in certain combinations, produce something unbalanced or even plain broken, and the playtesters may not notice these during production, particularly if they had the additional pressure of releasing fifteen or so army books at once.

valdrog
11-02-2009, 21:35
I think it would help tremendously in making the books as balanced as possible, they would be able to actually pit units and characters against each other from different armies and see how they do against each other in their 'upgraded' version and make adjustments accordingly.
I rather they take 6-7 months to come out with all the books than wait 3-4 years to come out with the book for the army im playing with and then find that book totally broken or weak.

Condottiere
11-02-2009, 21:40
GW has a publishing schedule for both marketing reasons and to allow sufficient time to playtest the new book.

I'd still go with publishing pdfs that can be updated instantaneously when warranted.

Voodoo Boyz
12-02-2009, 02:46
Dwarfs are not a terrible army in competitive play because the army sucks, but because it's very hard to get a massacre. On the other hand it's hard to get a massacre against them either. This doesn't make the army necessarily underpowered, just not well suited to how tournaments calculate scores and rankings.

No, I don't think that's the reason at all.

Problem is that so many armies have very cheap, very fast, and sometimes unstoppable Warmachine Hunters.

Furies, Harpies, Gutter Runners (tunnelling + poison), Scorpions, Eagles, Bats, Direwolves, Carrion, etc.

Warmachines can be gutted early in the game, and generally if a unit is good enough to kill a WM crew, it's good enough to kill some Missile troops.

Once you kill the WM's, you can pretty safely win the game based on Table Quarters & the points from the WM's. Ditto on killing a Missile unit or two.

Just don't ever fight a block you can't beat (ie flank) or know you can't break (Hammerers/Slayers). It's not hard. I've done it with Ogres for crying out loud.

Sure it makes for a terrible game for the Dwarf player, and for you probably, but you will get a win out of it.

Voodoo Boyz
12-02-2009, 02:51
I've never understood how people fail to do well with brets.

The cavalry are brilliant, your wizards have magic resitance, the infantry are cheap and you've got one of the best flying units in the game in addition to being able to take 5 characters.

With the alterations to great weapons I can see why people might avoid fielding questing knights but everything else in the army is somewhere from fair to excellent in terms of its power : cost ratio.

An army like Vampire Counts basically screws a good Brett army over, Daemons do as well.

Bretts in general will struggle against large monster lists along with other cav armies as long as the opposing list has good diverters/throw-away units.

Sure, they will rock the casba against most "normal" style armies, but they can fail against things that are unbreakable (or are basically that) across the board.

sroblin
12-02-2009, 03:43
No, I don't think that's the reason at all.

Problem is that so many armies have very cheap, very fast, and sometimes unstoppable Warmachine Hunters.

Furies, Harpies, Gutter Runners (tunnelling + poison), Scorpions, Eagles, Bats, Direwolves, Carrion, etc.

Warmachines can be gutted early in the game, and generally if a unit is good enough to kill a WM crew, it's good enough to kill some Missile troops.


While all those warmachine hunters are cheap and fast, few of them are unstopabble for dwarves in particular. Furies (1xS4 attacK), Harpies (2xS3 attack), Eagles (2xS4 attacks), Bats (2xS3 attacks), and Direwolves (1xS3 attacK) are all going to have a hard time against T4 + armor crew, and you can only get a limited number of models in base contact with 3 dwarves. And dwarves have a lot of tricks for making their war machines difficult to beat in close combat!

Meanwhile, Dwarf missile troops are known for being amongst the least vulnerable ranged units in the game, especially when they take shields.

Now against other armies (Empire say), the above warmachine hunters are perfectly adequate versus machine crews and basic missile troops. But against dwarves in particular (which are the army being discussed), I just think it odd that they are cited as evidence of their vulnerability.

Tomb Scorions, Gutter Runners, maybe even carrion are more formidable to be sure, but they are in a different class and not representative of the kinds of cheap warmachine hunters available to most armies.

Gazak Blacktoof
12-02-2009, 11:40
An army like Vampire Counts basically screws a good Brett army over, Daemons do as well.

Bretts in general will struggle against large monster lists along with other cav armies as long as the opposing list has good diverters/throw-away units.

Sure, they will rock the casba against most "normal" style armies, but they can fail against things that are unbreakable (or are basically that) across the board.

I'm not sure about vampire counts and daemons, nobody in my group plays them, but I know I can beat tomb kings with them. As I said previously I don't think they're any easier to divert than other armies its just that you are forced to if you don't want to get run-over.

Storak
12-02-2009, 13:32
Dwarfs are not a terrible army in competitive play because the army sucks, but because it's very hard to get a massacre. On the other hand it's hard to get a massacre against them either. This doesn't make the army necessarily underpowered, just not well suited to how tournaments calculate scores and rankings.

the massacre claim comes up all the time, and is simply false. there are plenty of tournaments, that don t give extra points for massacres. (GT HEAT jumps to mind). dwarfs (and O&G, for which the claim has been made as well) don t perform better under such conditions.

dwarfs have a real problem with many scenarios. (move a unit over your opponents table edge...)
their units just aren t in line with the current power level of elite infantry/cav.

their sole real advantage over orcs is the existence of a single list (thorek) that does somewhat better than the rest. their performance in tournaments is horrible.


I'd still go with publishing pdfs that can be updated instantaneously when warranted.

GW approaching the 21th century. yes, this would be the best solution..


An army like Vampire Counts basically screws a good Brett army over, Daemons do as well.

older cav struggles against unbreakable troops. expect the 7th edition brets to get "2 attacks of high strength without lance cav" as well..

Nomad
12-02-2009, 14:11
While all those warmachine hunters are cheap and fast, few of them are unstopabble for dwarves in particular. Furies (1xS4 attacK), Harpies (2xS3 attack), Eagles (2xS4 attacks), Bats (2xS3 attacks), and Direwolves (1xS3 attacK) are all going to have a hard time against T4 + armor crew, and you can only get a limited number of models in base contact with 3 dwarves. And dwarves have a lot of tricks for making their war machines difficult to beat in close combat!

You don't necessarily have to kill the crew in order for your war machine hunters to prove their worth, though. Yes, units like harpies and furies may struggle to wipe out dwarf crewmen, but while those crewmen are in combat they aren't firing their war machine.

Embalmed
12-02-2009, 15:29
older cav struggles against unbreakable troops. expect the 7th edition brets to get "2 attacks of high strength without lance cav" as well..

Any takers that Questing Knights will get 2 attacks?

Storak
12-02-2009, 17:43
You don't necessarily have to kill the crew in order for your war machine hunters to prove their worth, though. Yes, units like harpies and furies may struggle to wipe out dwarf crewmen, but while those crewmen are in combat they aren't firing their war machine.

the furies cause fear and should actually do quite well.


Any takers that Questing Knights will get 2 attacks?

lol, even i doubt that. (or at 60-80 point a pieces..)
what i expect is some advantage in following turns of combat..

Voodoo Boyz
12-02-2009, 21:10
While all those warmachine hunters are cheap and fast, few of them are unstopabble for dwarves in particular. Furies (1xS4 attacK), Harpies (2xS3 attack), Eagles (2xS4 attacks), Bats (2xS3 attacks), and Direwolves (1xS3 attacK) are all going to have a hard time against T4 + armor crew, and you can only get a limited number of models in base contact with 3 dwarves. And dwarves have a lot of tricks for making their war machines difficult to beat in close combat!

Furies & Harpies will statistically beat Dwarf Warmachine crew when charging.

All 5 Harpies will get to attack, which means 1.38 Dwarfs dead. The Dwarfs swing back, kill .66 harpies and then lose by outnumber at a minimum, or draw combat. Protracted combats don't favor the dwarfs and as stated fighting WM crews aren't shooting.

Furies will do even better, winning combat by 1, even with 4 of them attacking instead of 5, and then they win by fear/outnumber which means that stubborn means nothing.

Eagles are harder to do things with, yes, but then you throw two of them in there. Or fire at the crew with RBT's.

Direwolves and bats come into the combat with outnumber and fear on their sides, and even if they don't win, they're not going anywhere since they'll likely draw or just lose by 1 or two and continue to hold up the war machine crew.

And as you said, the others are a LOT better at their job.



Meanwhile, Dwarf missile troops are known for being amongst the least vulnerable ranged units in the game, especially when they take shields.


Best in class of units that die easily is still pretty bad. Sadly enough a unit with near no static CR, T4, and 4+ Armor don't hold up well to any kind of unit that gets at them that people actually field.

Dokushin
12-02-2009, 21:22
T4 Stubborn warmachine crew are not easy to deal with. All it takes is one turn of not breaking to screw up most people's anti-war machine plans.

Quarrlelers have a 36" range and can be armed with great weapons, fer christ's sake. T4 means some are still going to get to attack back.

Thunderers are (essentially) BS4 S4 AP core shooters with T4. That's not bad at all.

Also, 8 bolt throwers = a few hundred points.

The Dwarf army has problems, but shooting isn't one of them. Their shooting is still (barely) holding par with even the new shooty stuff (DE repeater crossbowmen). You can still make a competitive shooty army. What they need is a little more ground intercept and not just endless types of can't-kill-em troops.

Condottiere
12-02-2009, 21:52
Dwarves XB-GW-HASh with leadership 9 are the toughest missile troops I can think of.

sroblin
13-02-2009, 16:32
Furies & Harpies will statistically beat Dwarf Warmachine crew when charging.

All 5 Harpies will get to attack, which means 1.38 Dwarfs dead. The Dwarfs swing back, kill .66 harpies and then lose by outnumber at a minimum, or draw combat. Protracted combats don't favor the dwarfs and as stated fighting WM crews aren't shooting.

Furies will do even better, winning combat by 1, even with 4 of them attacking instead of 5, and then they win by fear/outnumber which means that stubborn means nothing.

Eagles are harder to do things with, yes, but then you throw two of them in there. Or fire at the crew with RBT's.

Direwolves and bats come into the combat with outnumber and fear on their sides, and even if they don't win, they're not going anywhere since they'll likely draw or just lose by 1 or two and continue to hold up the war machine crew.

So already the eagles and undead aren't doing so well, but yes the furies or harpies will still win a battle on average against 3 dwarf crewmen, I will concede (and the fury's autobreak is an important advantage I hadn't considered.) Nor do I deny the usefulness of preventing the machine from firing.

That said, you aren't considering a number of factors that would tilt the balance of these already close combats the other way- high ground, being deployed in cover, having a master engineer in the army to place a piece in cover, having an engineer attached to increase the crew size and get a stand and shoot (he's not that expensive overall), the valiant rune (unbreakable), or the stalwart rune (+1cr). That' s alot of factors, and deploying warmachines in hills or cover is pretty common in most battles I fight- nor are the defensive upgrades especially expensive.



Best in class of units that die easily is still pretty bad. Sadly enough a unit with near no static CR, T4, and 4+ Armor don't hold up well to any kind of unit that gets at them that people actually field.

I can't believe I'm actually hearing complaints about T4 4+ armor saves for a shooting unit! If they were better than that it would be ridiculous. Here are a number of kinds of units that people field (and that would often get a charge against them):

Weak skirmishers or fast-beasts
with WS3/4 S3 attacks. 7 in BTB=.56 kills
Skirmishers/beasts with 2 hand weapons/attacks
7 wide=1.12 kills
Average Light cavalry:
5x WS3 or4 3 S4 spear attacks, 5xS3 horse attacks=1.23 kills
Average Heavy Cavalry attacking!
6x WS4 S5 lance attacks, 5xS3 horse attacks=2.05 kills

So even a unit of charging Empire Knights or Silver Helms is going to kill only 2 on average. Nw consider the ways that Dwarf ranged units can win by CR:
killing them back (particularly with great weapons on Quarellers), outnumbering (especially if 12 or more), rank bonus (easy by being on hill or reforming), high ground (that hill again, remember), and taking a standard (for 12 points). And a unit of say 15 handgunners deployed on a hill could easily reform for a +2 rank bonus.

Now of course, there are deadlier unit that could deal with them- units with large static CR, multiple attack heavy cavalry, or large beasts. But ranged units aren't supposed to be able to stand against them, and Dwarf Handgunners by far have a better chance than most. It doesn't make sense to complain about them being broken by Blood Knights or ranked units of Saurus warriors with spears.

pcgamer72
13-02-2009, 19:23
The biggest hit that the Brets have taken has to be the increase in the number of stubborn, unbreakable, regenerating, ward saving units. Items like the Drakenhoff Banner and ASF items, and units like new Plaguebearers, Black Guard, and Temple Guard w/Slann can really tie up those buses. Once you get them locked up, it's pretty much over for the Brettonians.

Volker the Mad Fiddler
13-02-2009, 20:03
SNIP

I can't believe I'm actually hearing complaints about T4 4+ armor saves for a shooting unit! If they were better than that it would be ridiculous. Here are a number of kinds of units that people field (and that would often get a charge against them):

Weak skirmishers or fast-beasts
with WS3/4 S3 attacks. 7 in BTB=.56 kills
Skirmishers/beasts with 2 hand weapons/attacks
7 wide=1.12 kills
Average Light cavalry:
5x WS3 or4 3 S4 spear attacks, 5xS3 horse attacks=1.23 kills
Average Heavy Cavalry attacking!
6x WS4 S5 lance attacks, 5xS3 horse attacks=2.05 kills

SNIP
It doesn't make sense to complain about them being broken by Blood Knights or ranked units of Saurus warriors with spears.

Actually, it does somewhat, because with the dwarf warmachines tied up, there is little stopping a competent player from using his huge movement advantages to attack these missile troops with his actual combat units, or set up multiple [flank] charges on the Dwarf blocks. I love my dwarfs, but they get stale to play in serious WAAC environments, because they are so tactically limited.

Note also that in all those cases above, while the Dwarfs probably don't break, they are no longer a ranged threat. Instead, the Dwarf player usually has the choice of charging one of his actual units in to break the enemy [who will generally escape and give up no VPs] but expose his battleline in the process, OR he can hold the line and hope the missile troops eventually win the fight [perhaps helped by a character joining them from the combat troops] and again score no VPs as the enemy gets away.

And that unit of 15 Thunderers costs about the same [225] as a unit 18 Sauri with spears [216], or even two units of 20 Free Company with full command (240) [at least one of which will get there with its full +5 CR ], or both will arrive still viable so that one may flank. Further, without a hill, they are deployment liability [especially for Dwarfs].

Dungeon_Lawyer
14-02-2009, 01:06
Do we really want to open that can of worms?


no, the system is fine using points alone.

Condottiere
14-02-2009, 10:57
And that unit of 15 Thunderers costs about the same [225] as a unit 18 Sauri with spears [216], or even two units of 20 Free Company with full command (240) [at least one of which will get there with its full +5 CR ], or both will arrive still viable so that one may flank. Further, without a hill, they are deployment liability [especially for Dwarfs].

I've seen sixteen Thunders deployed slightly right of centre in two ranks; the opponent attacked on the left.

Kerill
14-02-2009, 11:38
Whilst I'm not trying to suggest that dwarves are super powered, your opponent needs to actually get fliers into a position to charge the crew without getting trashed and the dwarf player has quite a lot of things to do so. They don't even need to wipe out the unit, just reduce it to 3 or less.

Dwarves also have quite a lot of tools to reduce the effectiveness of the opponents fliers. Don't get me wrong if your opponent has 5 units of harpies or furies you are in serious trouble. But they do have:
Shooting from missile units
The organ gun
Rune of challenge
Deploying so that if your opponent charges a war machine they will have to charge the unit next to them as well.
And if you take the anvil, the rune of wrath and ruin.

As someone mentioned, missions can really shaft the dwarves in tournaments and terrain and deployment are insanely important for dwarves, but I still don't see them as being a weak army as such.

Rank&Foul
15-02-2009, 08:33
I would say you should rank the people playing the armies into tiers.

Spoken like a true top tier army player.

Surgency
15-02-2009, 18:08
The biggest hit that the Brets have taken has to be the increase in the number of stubborn, unbreakable, regenerating, ward saving units. Items like the Drakenhoff Banner and ASF items, and units like new Plaguebearers, Black Guard, and Temple Guard w/Slann can really tie up those buses. Once you get them locked up, it's pretty much over for the Brettonians.

QFT. While I can charge an average Infantry block, and probably win, break them, etc, against most blocks from the newer books it becomes more an issue of "who do I NOT charge" The amount of fear causing, ASF, Stubborn, Unbreakable units has gone way up since the Brettonian book came out, and we're just not equipped to deal with it. Not only that, but the relative power of those infantry models has gone up. Now, I'll admit it's as much an issue of Rubber Lance Syndrome, but there's been many occasions when I've charged a unit, killed only 1-2 models, lost SCR by 1-2 points, and then fled because I was outnumbered by a fear causing unit. That is the real kicker for Brets, if we don't win, they're running away, and have no staying power