# Top Tier Lists



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

Assuming there's three or four tiers of fantasy armies what are they?

As far as I know VC's and Daemons are top.

Who next?


----------



## Nato13 (Aug 9, 2008)

A well thought out Dark Elf army is always a fun/hard task to beat,and well those stubborn old Dwarfs also spring to mind, however in my opinion WHFB armies are a bit more on par with each other compared to 40k and if one spends the time to make a decent list he/she can go toe to toe with any race(although some, no doubt will disagree) :victory:


----------



## Othiem (Apr 20, 2008)

Tier 1:
Daemons of Chaos
Vampire Counts

Tier 2:
Dark Elves
High Elves
Skaven
Wood Elves
Warriors of Chaos
Lizardmen

Tier 3:
Beastmen
Empire
Dwarves
Bretonians
Tomb Kings

Tier 4:
OK
O&G

Yes some of the tier 3 can get pumped up to tier 2 if they take certain builds (dual STank popemoble, thorek, etc) however imo a single build doesn't justify over-exaggerating an armies power level. Dwarves are actually competitive with the tier 2, the problem is since they can't really run down enemy units reliably, often a dwarf will end up with a tactical massacre, however by victory points barely a win. 

Also, the distance separating tier 3 and tier 2 is much less than that separating tier 1 from the rest, and tier 4 from the rest. As in the whole tier 2/3 range is quite competitive, it's just the outliers that stand out from the rest in a major range.


----------



## Snorri O'dubhda (May 14, 2008)

I have to agree with nato 13, as he said armies tend to be on par with each other, and as each army has it's own list of tactical advantages and dissadvantages to over come, if feel it comes down to the experience of the player and their ability to use their army correctly.
True that each list has its own possibility to max out and be super competetive, such as shooty army of death (skaven / empire) or I have got so many zombies it will talke you a week to kill one unit army (ancients VC army as an example), but this tends to leave weeknesses open to for experienced armies to exploit.
On the teir system, towards the top are the armies with newer rules, so they tend to be armies that other players haven't yet fully figured out how to fight, or will become more even when the rest of the new rules come out.
Therefore in my humble opinion, in fantasy, experience and intelligence is always key.


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

You missed out Chaos dwarves from the list and while they have been unsupported for a long time (mainly due to them not being given the attention that all other races get on a release more just a half assed WD release) Even with the disproportionate cost of equiptment and command groups and complete lack of magic items I still find it relatively easy to beat deamons and most of the tier 2 lists but struggle against most of the tier 3 armies.


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

Ah great response guys.

Looks like Vampire Counts for me then. It was a toss up between them and Dwarfs. I played both when I first started (well undead not vampire counts).

Vampires have always been a big interest.


----------



## Druchii in Space (Apr 7, 2008)

Like being on top of the pile then Jez? :grin:

Although to be fair, I can dig that, at least we'd (as in Dark Elves - and I'd say thats about right as well Othiem, nice list) be considered tier 2 now. Where as before the new book, we where probably pushing tier 4, nice to be at least competitive now.


----------



## Lord Sinkoran (Dec 23, 2006)

this thread makes my head hurt. when you say teirs do you mean difficulty to play as?


----------



## squeek (Jun 8, 2008)

Tiers as in how effective the army is compared to any other army, so a tier 1 is very effective and is likely to be seen a lot at GT, whereas a tier 4, like my beloved O&G is quite likely to loose badly most of the time 

It doesn't actually mean much really though since any ranking system assumes that the players are of roughly equal ability and have picked sensible builds, etc, etc. I would imagine loads of O&G players could wipe the floor with any of those armies if played by a less able player, for example. It's just for comparison.


----------



## Seth the Dark (Aug 27, 2008)

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. The armies are only as good as the person playing them. You can take a vet playing O+G against a newbie playing Demons and I would place my money on the vet.


----------



## KrythosMJarenkai (Jun 16, 2008)

experience always comes first. but when you get people of equal experience with their armies playing. yes, the tier's listed are about right I think, or from what ive seen anyway. VC = way too overplayed.


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

Seth the Dark said:


> I'm sorry but I have to disagree. The armies are only as good as the person playing them. You can take a vet playing O+G against a newbie playing Demons and I would place my money on the vet.


Sure they are.

But when you put the lists in the hands of equally experienced players ones more powerful. We're talking about lists, not experience :wink:




> Like being on top of the pile then Jez?


Absolutely. You don't give yourself a disadvantage by buying a shit army.


----------



## torealis (Dec 27, 2006)

ive heard that of the top 10 at GT heat 1, 7 were Daemons, and the last game at the top table had the same build, using the special Lord of Change, Kairos.


----------



## Othiem (Apr 20, 2008)

torealis said:


> ive heard that of the top 10 at GT heat 1, 7 were Daemons, and the last game at the top table had the same build, using the special Lord of Change, Kairos.


And that's why I only play non-SC games now....

VC is a really strong way to go right now IMO. With all the focus on daemons, everybody is trying to tune their armies to counter demons with things like bringing as much light shooting as possible, something VC don't really suffer from. Also, it's looking like WoC may do to WFB what the new Orks codex did to 40k. WoC look very strong against daemons, but balanced vs most other lists, so you may see the daemon ranks getting thinned out a bit in the near future. That parts just a guess though, have to wait and see.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

everything's beaten by the grudge pony.... Epecially when HE's mad:angry:


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

About the tier split ups id really say that O&G are atleast tier 3. The classical waagh-orc build is still a good list that gives many armies headaches. 
The only list that really are bottom crap are OK, that list was designed at the height of the "nerf list" era, and on top of that a "1st list for the race" book. All in all summing up for a completly useless book which is sad since ogres are kewl :angry:


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

I think that the O&G are in the right place as yes you can build a really competative list but its always going to have its random aspect and a balanced list will usually struggle. The thing that makes the lists top tier is generally based on which core rules it allows you to break and how effective that is in game terms for example high elves let you strike first which is helpful deamons all count as magical attacks which can be helpful in some situations, and brettonians can ignore the rules for ranks which puts them in or around the top tier other less helpful race traits are the Skavens ability to shoot into combat and the O&G ability to either get extra movement or stand and argue both of which are too random to be totally reliable


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

Well, tbh its quite easy to build around many of the Orc misshaps. Blackorc characters dont cost extra character slots anymore, small wolfrider units can easily stop your important blocks from running of at wrong turns and so on and forth, but yea, there is always that element of fuckups that can occur. Sadly i still think that the OK army is by far worse then O&G and play in its own "i r teh suxx0r division" :ireful2:


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

but the only real problems with the ogre kingdoms stem from the rule change that came after its release meaning you needed 5 ogres for a full rank which makes them to unwieldy to use effectively and the really crap selection of magic items that focussed on character killing and strenght when what they really need is troop killers to negate rank bonusses and leadership bonuses to keep them fighting. plus all their shooting has a random element especially leadbelchers which can do more damage to the firer than the enemy.


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

The problems really wasnt the 5 model wide rank rule, its alot more :angel:

Imho:
*Ranks:* If Ogres ever were designed to be allowed ranks they'd have the Bret-cav 3 models wide rnf rule. Trying to buy ranks with 8 ogres was a joke, 10 aint even thinkable.
*Ironfist+Ogre Club synnergy:* Like the new Orc choppa rules these 2 need to work together, not like the shoddy mix that it is nowdays.
*Leadbelchers:* Yea the missfire needs to be nerfed, but the unit needs to be allowed to fire each turn. Not allowed to fire each turn for that price/model is silly.
*Bull Charge:* Bull Charges scarecly hit home. Why? If your opponent has done his l2play he'll walk towards the Ogres he knows he'll be charged by next turn. And since you really dont out-unit many armies you rarely have a "spare unit" to take advantage of that flank. And even if you do its not terribly hard to angle units to stop that too. Result? Bull charges aint, they need to work on all charges disregarding how long the unit moved.
*Psycology:* Ogres really should have some "reroll panic caused by smaller folks" rule. Ogres aint supposed to run away from the archers every other time 1 dies due to shooting.

*All in all:* Its as clear as vodka that this is a 1st time list, its full of 1st time list issues, just like tau was. The sad part of the story is that Tau sold good, hence got a new 'dex after some 3 years. Ogres sold rather bad which really dont improve chances of new 'dex :shok:


----------



## squeek (Jun 8, 2008)

Nice one Maiden, I had wondered why Ogres were quite so bad (having never played with or against them), it makes a lot of sense now  +rep to you sir!


----------

