PDA

View Full Version : Current Tier Rankings



Elric101
25-08-2007, 13:22
I was just wondering if there was an up-to-date tier list for WHFB that anyone knew of.

Or what people's opinions were of the armies as they are.

Feel free to contribute.

sigur
25-08-2007, 16:33
What are you talking about?:eyebrows:

Slaaneshi Slave
25-08-2007, 16:35
He wants to know which armies are uber powerful and which armies are crap.

The strongest army is foot slogging Chaos Warriors. Make sure you give them every upgrade you can and they will beat everybody, in every game. Go buy an army of them right now!

theunwantedbeing
25-08-2007, 16:38
Yeah slaaneshi slave is right.
Thats why you see few of them,they are simply too powerful and compeltely unfair against anyone they play against.

More so than a gunline.

Fideru
25-08-2007, 16:45
Yeah slaaneshi slave is right.
Thats why you see few of them,they are simply too powerful and compeltely unfair against anyone they play against.

More so than a gunline.

He speaks truth!

pcgamer72
25-08-2007, 18:23
Hey Elric. Of course there is always debate on which armies are the best and which are the worst. However, since everyone is entitled to their opinion.... here is mine:

Tier 1:

Brettonians
Wood Elves
Dwarfs

Tier 3:

High Elves, Dark Elves

Tier 2:

Everyone else

blurred
25-08-2007, 19:27
Tier 1: Chaos army with lots of chaos warriors
Tier 2: Archer-heavy high elf army with big units of phoenix guard and white lions.
Tier 3: Foot-slogging vampire counts with no characters

These are not my own opinions, but the ultimate truth. :p

Bingo the Fun Monkey
25-08-2007, 19:52
Tier 1: Cenarion
Tier 2: Moonrage
Tier 3: Dreamwalker

Finnigan2004
26-08-2007, 03:21
If you want a serious answer, you might look at the standings from U.S. and U.K. grand tournaments for the last few years. You should be able to find them if you poke around the GW sites. Then you can see what races tend to win at high levels of competition.

Griefbringer
26-08-2007, 07:18
Tier 3: Foot-slogging vampire counts with no characters


Luckily this uber-powerful nightmare combo is no longer allowed by the rules: vampire counts are required to field at least one character!

And let's not get started on common goblin armies of doom - with 7th edition O&G army book those have become total cheddar for anyone willing to paint the 400 little gits.

Then there is the all-cavalry tomb king army that can make a grown man weep - and it is even all core so you can get top composition points in tournaments!

Gorbad Ironclaw
26-08-2007, 07:40
If you want a serious answer, you might look at the standings from U.S. and U.K. grand tournaments for the last few years. You should be able to find them if you poke around the GW sites. Then you can see what races tend to win at high levels of competition.

Maybe, maybe not. The curent style of UK GT's are very different from most other tournaments I know of, both in the scoring system and generally and so might not tell you very much about what armies would be good in different settings.

Ultimately, it's a bit of a pointless question, as it's so dependent on the general, the specific list, terrain, scenarioes, scoring system etc.

Change them and the ranking might look very different.

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
26-08-2007, 07:55
WHAAAAAT?!?! No one for da orcs?!?! Fine, I'll do it...


Tier 1: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!
Tier 2: destroyed by Tier 1
Tier 3: see Tier 2

Chaplain Mortez
26-08-2007, 08:12
.....

Tier 2: Archer-heavy high elf army with big units of phoenix guard and white lions.

....

These are not my own opinions, but the ultimate truth. :p

Really? I can't tell if that was is sarcasm or if you're dead serious! On one hand, that sort of army may be crazy enough to work. On the other, why not throw in Lothern Sea Guard and have all of the worst units in the book at one spot?

I mean, really? Is THAT tier two? I just don't know what else to say....

(If you are serious, please explain as I have about 20 Phoenix Gaurd and 30 Archers lying about in my case. All I'd need are White Lions of DOOM!)

bluesky322
26-08-2007, 09:17
heres my tiers just my opinion

tier 1 - vampire counts(any, i just love these little undea buggers there so cute)

tier 2 - orcs and gobbos(waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh)

tier 3 - empire (i dunno mabey cause i play them when i dont feel like one of the other 2 )

tier 4 - forest spirits ( not the elves just the spirits)

tier 5 - deamons ( i want a deamon army)

tier 6 - ogres ( i cant seem to beat them )

tier 7 - everything else (except elves)

tier of i hate these wretched things they bug me so much- all elves

those are my tiers ;)

devolutionary
26-08-2007, 09:48
Haley
eHaley
Deneghra
Goreshade
Severius
Kreoss
eKreoss
Vla... oh, wrong forums. Damn, I thought I was in the PP forums for a second there.

WHYYYYYYYYY? Why do you need some kind of imaginary list of opinions to justify which armies are teh uberz and which is teh suckz!1!? It's pointless and slightly pathetic.

Saying that, I'm a Bretonnian player, and apparently we're OP :rolleyes:

Important
26-08-2007, 12:00
Hm I don't seem to know why chaos warrior list are so power full...I faced an all slaneesh one with O&G and I beated the crap out of them. 1500p My magic phase was horrible for him (2 shamans 1 orc and 1 gobbo) he got smashed in it. In shooting my doom diver removed atleast 2 every round. close combat was horrible for him against black orcs and everything else since I had so much units that I could flank him in every combat.

but anyway the worst army I faced is an fire oriented Dwarf army.

Slaaneshi Slave
26-08-2007, 12:08
Chaos Warriors aren't a powerful army, I play them, but it sounds like whoever you played didn't know how to play his army. Those Black Orks should never have made combat (Delusions), and he should have dominated the Magic phase, since it is what Slaanesh is good at.

sigur
26-08-2007, 15:29
...
WHYYYYYYYYY? Why do you need some kind of imaginary list of opinions to justify which armies are teh uberz and which is teh suckz!1!? It's pointless and slightly pathetic.

Oh so true. Not just true, more like TRUE. I think some people have wrong ideas about the hobby when entering it.

gOOmba
27-08-2007, 19:53
Why be snobs about it?

Im sorry if I burst your bubble but tabletop games, with as many rules and variables that they have are one of the most unbalanced mediums of gameplay. There will always be a king of the hill and a bottom feeder

There is nothing pointless or pathetic about wanting to rate/tier and compare armies because it's an interesting point of conversation

And if the OPs only goal is to go and buy the most overpowered army and expect automatic victory why should it matter to anyone?

anyway in my opinion it would be (in no particular order)
top
-brets
-wood elves
-skaven
-lizardmen

mid
-vampire counts
-chaos
-dwarfs
-empire
-tomb kings
-orcs

low
-dark elves
-high elves (will probably be top after the changes heh)
-ogre kingdoms

although this thread has probably been killed. You could do a search for "tiers" or something along those lines and come up with threads that go into alot more detail...

Heretic Burner
27-08-2007, 20:24
Not a bad list gOOmba. I'd change a few around a tad, again grouping them by tiers consisting of released armies at 2K points (no order within tiers besides associated comments):

TIER 1
Brets
Skaven
WE
Vampire Counts

TIER 2
Lizardmen (High tier 2)
Chaos (includes BoC and HoC, considerably stronger in high point games)
Dwarfs (High tier 2)
High Elves (Current)
Empire

TIER 3
Tomb Kings (Suffer <2K points, much stronger 3K and up)
Dark Elves
Ogre Kingdoms
O&G

Of course all these take into consideration lists chosen with some thought to them. Expect HE to leapfrog into tier 1 dropping VC down into tier 2 upon release.

prince_dios
27-08-2007, 22:42
The players praising Chaos warriors to the high heavens are joking, right?

At the risk of kicking off another wankfest over the usefullness of heavy infantry - I've seen lots of Chaos players complain that they're overcosted. What I do know is that they're not much better off than an orc or human soldier once the cannonballs and bullets start hitting them.

'Tiers' represent the sort of dumbed down gaming we see with simpler wargames and CCGs, where players focus on construction over all else. Saying that the Skaven are in tier one, for instance, is sort of an oversimplification - it's referring to Gunrats.

Halelel
28-08-2007, 00:11
It's just sarcasm prince_dios, :)

Anyways, ranking army in "tiers" is always a bit tricky. As some have noted, some armies are really bad at certain points (TK at 1k or less, ewwww) while getting better at higher points. Therefore, you could have TK from anywhere from Tier 2 to Tier 4 (yes, they are that bad at 1k or under).

Elric101
28-08-2007, 00:49
First of all, sorry if I started a conversation which some people think is stupid and frankly, pointless.

I was just curious as to whether or not there was a general concensus of where each army falls competitively.

Me, I play Orcs and Goblins. They may not be ranked at the top or even the middle, but I love them for what they are, and what they represent, not how well they play,

But by all means, let's continue.

Heretic Burner
28-08-2007, 16:29
First of all, sorry if I started a conversation which some people think is stupid and frankly, pointless.

No need to apologize at all. It is an important consideration for many choosing a new army. If anybody should apologize it should be the trolls who have attacked and sidetracked your thread.


I was just curious as to whether or not there was a general concensus of where each army falls competitively.

From the serious replies given, yes. The armies fall generally in line, the powergamer armies in particular seem quite obvious.


Me, I play Orcs and Goblins. They may not be ranked at the top or even the middle, but I love them for what they are, and what they represent, not how well they play,

But by all means, let's continue.

Many people should be forewarned that O&G perform near the bottom of the heap. It is good you can overlook the deficiencies of the list to find enjoyment in whatever you hold important, however winning is certainly a consideration for many and they should be knowledgable about the facts before spending money on an army that simply isn't right for them. Different strokes for different folks.

Highborn
28-08-2007, 17:28
Tier 1:
Bretonnian RAF
Skaven SAD (debatable now that their guns can be shot at)
Wood Elf forest spirits
Wood Elf dual trees
Vampire Counts zombie hordes

Tier 2:
Lizardmen (skink-heavy)
Bretonnian all-cav
Empire gunline
Dwarf gunline
Tzeentch dragon and magic
[some other random lists]

It's hard to go to a tier 3, because it's possible to build many variants of bad lists with every army. Even tier 2 will see some surprise builds that will do quite well (Leonidas on Asrai.org runs a 60+ man unit of Eternal Guard that is quite nasty by all accounts). There are some lists that are accepted as being strong - however, rather than label them 'strong', people will tend to label them 'broken'.

Also, I wouldn't put O&G at the bottom of the list for strength. I think they're just too unpredictable to consistently perform across 6 matches. You're going to fail animosity tests, you're going to miscast and you're going to fail leadership tests. For those matches, you will lose badly, and they will ruin your chance of ever placing highly in a tournament setting. They're not all that bad a force though.

sigur
28-08-2007, 17:58
No need to apologize at all. It is an important consideration for many choosing a new army.

What many do not consider is that the "game" is about 40% the game itself (varies from player to player of course). The main part is modelling, painting, background and talking about it (on- and offline). You surely will spend more time with doing that stuff than actually playing.

Two things that make "tier lists" a problem is what people call "codex creep" (may it be real or just imagined) and the tremendeous differences between gaming areas/groups (we all know the threads by people who have this really unbeatable VC player in their group so VC must be totally powerful) and their demographics, habits, house rules and ways of thinking.

And finally, WHFB depends on skill or at least thinking much more than 40k. You can copy and paste army lists off the internet, sure, but you can not make those all-knowing internet people do the movement phase for you.

If someone starts WHFB or 40k and asks for what army he should play, I'm one of those persons who tell them to go for the army they like the looks and background of. If you want to play tournament games, there are enough TCGs or computer games out there for you but any kind of Warhammer won't be the best choice.

Heretic Burner
29-08-2007, 22:54
What many do not consider is that the "game" is about 40% the game itself (varies from player to player of course). The main part is modelling, painting, background and talking about it (on- and offline). You surely will spend more time with doing that stuff than actually playing.


Clearly this is not the case for many. Countless players play with hastily put together unpainted models interested only in playing the game. To say that modelling, painting, or background is remotely important to the choice of army as its relative strength or even just its playability is ridiculous! Clearly having a tier ranking will be of vital interest to this segment of the Warhammer player base. And in this case, the background, painting, etc will be of very little value indeed!

The game is not 40% of the hobby, it is whatever % of interest to the player. If playing to win is all important than a tier ranking is crucial to their selection. Would I personally want to play thise people? Of course not, but they exist and can be seen by the sudden bulge in popularity of powerful armies (see the masses suddenly choosing to play Iron Warriors and Wood Elves).

One might even argue the most time consuming part of the hobby is actually paying for it. A player with a limited budget wanting to assemble a powerful force may be forced to mix and match units available on a budget based on available bargains. Clearly in this case an important consideration is selecting an upper tier army where most unit choices are effective, once again drawing a player towards Brets/WE and away from such choices as O&G and OK. Obviously there are exceptions, but undoubtedly a tier list is vitally important to a massive segment of the Warhammer player base.

zak
29-08-2007, 23:13
I think that if you asked 100 people this question you would get 100 different replies. There are lists that can be abused more than most and these have been pointed out.
On a spearate note, locally, Ogres are doing very well and are not seen as a bottom tier army. I think that a poster made a good point a few posts back when they highlighted that it's a regional/game group thing and will very largely hence the 100 different answers you'll recieve.

DeathlessDraich
30-08-2007, 13:06
Good question Elric. Unfortunately only 2 have made an attempt reply.

The answer is indeed very difficult but have a look at the last few UK GT results and that would be a good guide.
The army lists in the GT are probably the strongest possible for that army. These armies were used by some of the best players around, making it the best way to assess relative army strengths.

IIRC in the last tournament:
1) Lizardmen won. Wood elves occupied 3 of the top five places.
2) Skaven were 4th and VC, Dwarves and Orcs were in the top 10.
3) DE, Ogres, Brets, Beasts were in the top 12 while High elves, Chaos and Empire were close behind. The lowest ranking army was Tomb kings at around 24th but all TK armies were above the bottom 3rd.

As you can see, there is very little to distinguish strength of armies in tournaments.