PDA

View Full Version : The WHFB Competitive Environment.



Noobie2k7
16-01-2012, 18:25
I noticed that in here there isn't a thread discussing what armies are the best in a competitive environment. There is a thread for this in the W40K GD but not here and i wondered why. Are there any armies that are distinctly better than others when it comes to tourney play? Or are armies generally even and depend more on player skill than in 40K.

I am new to WHFB and well am still wondering what army to get my claws into and finding it hard to choose. I am certainly not a WAAC player but i don;t really want to get tabled every game either just cause i ended up picking a useless army.

TL;DR: what WHFB armies are the best in a competitive tourney environment? Discuss.

Ctuchik
16-01-2012, 19:17
You won't get an objective answer here, mostly people's opinions. Warhammer (Fantasy and 40k) as a game system is not very suited to true competitive play, but people still atttempt it of course.

The best data available is probably from ETC and rankingshq.

Army rankings from ETC 2011 in Poland is here:
http://www.rankingshq.com/etc/tournamentprofile.aspx?EtcId=3&GameSystemId=2

Full ranking for the UK tournament scene is here (click on army ranking):
http://www.rankingshq.com/rankings/default.aspx?GameSystemId=2&RegionId=9#

How accurate this data is I don't know.

With some digging you can also find the army lists used by all teams in the ETC. Should give you an idea of the standard tournament builds.

Noobie2k7
16-01-2012, 19:24
That's all i wanted from this thread, opinions and debate. I wasn't really after an objective answer as it were, i wanted to know what people thought.

Malorian
16-01-2012, 19:26
Trust me, if you search there have been MANY threads on this issue. Just search for 'tier' and 'army'.

The Low King
16-01-2012, 19:28
I believe that Fantasy is much more balanced than 40k in terms of its armies. The new 8the edition books in paticular seem nicely balanced.

That said, there are a few armies generally weaker than others (woodelves) and a few generally stronger than others (Dark elves, Skaven, Lizards)

tmarichards
16-01-2012, 19:30
One big problem with these sorts of threads is that it's difficult to get an objective answer because they tend to devolve in arguments about comp, because with/without comp can create completely different army tiers.

Malorian
16-01-2012, 19:32
One big problem with these sorts of threads is that it's difficult to get an objective answer because they tend to devolve in arguments about comp, because with/without comp can create completely different army tiers.

Exactly.

Are you using comp?

What kind of comp?

Are you using missions?

What kind of missions?

Are you using terrain?

What kind of terrain?

And then you get into the triangle games where A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A. So who is better?


At the end of the day it's best to stick with Orcs are da Best! :D

Caelas
16-01-2012, 19:35
Also, it's highly dependent on the player's skill, even the woodies can do well under the control of a strong player.

Noobie2k7
16-01-2012, 20:22
I have heard that wood elves and beatsmen are generally weakest and dark elves and skaven are up near the top. I'm currently looking into what army i'd like to start with, reading fluff and working out various armies preferred playstyles and seeing what fits. I'm a competent enough WHFB player i've just never used my own army :P

Duke Ramulots
16-01-2012, 20:29
A lot has to do with this question, "is your army list built to fight your opponent?". If it is, while your opponent is an "all commers" list, than you should win and vice versa.

Ctuchik
16-01-2012, 20:46
A lot has to do with this question, "is your army list built to fight your opponent?". If it is, while your opponent is an "all commers" list, than you should win and vice versa.

Not really an issue in tournament play, where you will have to face many opponents with the same list.

Snake1311
16-01-2012, 22:57
Not really an issue in tournament play, where you will have to face many opponents with the same list.

Erm, no. At the high tables, every 'faction' has a different list, because if another army book could run the same army better people would take it instead. At the low(er) tables there tends to be 'fluff' players who take what they like, so yay for more variation. Its only on very rare occasions, usually when there is something wrong with the comp, that you get a lot of people playing with virtually the same list.

Caelas
17-01-2012, 07:39
A lot has to do with this question, "is your army list built to fight your opponent?". If it is, while your opponent is an "all commers" list, than you should win and vice versa.

What? The most effective lists are balanced lists that can deal with a variety of opponents, not one trick pony lists built to deal with a specific army.

Ctuchik
17-01-2012, 08:33
Erm, no. At the high tables, every 'faction' has a different list, because if another army book could run the same army better people would take it instead. At the low(er) tables there tends to be 'fluff' players who take what they like, so yay for more variation. Its only on very rare occasions, usually when there is something wrong with the comp, that you get a lot of people playing with virtually the same list.

Huh? I mean that your own list will be the same. You won't have the option to tailor your list for each opponent, so you have to bring somewhat of an "all comers" list.

Obviously you will face a variety of opponents.

Duke Ramulots
17-01-2012, 12:56
Huh? I mean that your own list will be the same. You won't have the option to tailor your list for each opponent, so you have to bring somewhat of an "all comers" list.

Obviously you will face a variety of opponents.

If your local meta has a ton of players that bring deathstars, you will tailor your list to counter that and so on. That was all I meant. Like I hadn't played against anyone with ethereal units since switching back to playing my Orcs n Goblins, so my list started to include less magic weapons and it bit me square in the behind...lol