Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Tiarna Fuilteach wrote:
The second etc draft for this year is up and has the daemons in it


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=111991

SO glad they limited the cheese cannon to 1!

Yay for 100 more points for O&G

Awesome changes overall.

Hmmm usually it depends on the area your playing at but if I had to list them here is how I would put it:

Top Tier:
-Lizardmen
-Ogre Kingdoms
-Skaven
-Dark Elves

Mid Tier:
-High Elves
-Orcs and Goblins
-The Empire
-Warriors of Chaos
-Dwarfs
-Daemons of Chaos

Lower Tier:
-Tomb Kings
-Vampire Counts
-Bretonnia

Bottom of the Pile:
-Beastmen
-Wood Elves

Now to explain my reasoning. Currently, the top Tier armies to me are top tier for various reasons. Ogre Kingdoms not only are popular since they are very easy to play and collect, but they are very effective against most opponents and are the most popular army at my store at the moment. Lizardmen Saurus Warrior Lists are brutal to deal with, and there Magic is off the charts with the Slann, and the DE and Skaven also benefit from great magic, with DE getting access to a lot of special units like the Hydra and the Cauldron of Blood, and Skaven with there Doomwheel and Hellpit Abominations. Plus, all of these armies hot units are pretty dang cheap point wise, as they can run a lot of scary things in a single list that many armies can only dream of.

Mid Tier Armies are not bad, but in my experience they are a lot more beatable then the armies mentioned above. Empire is the generic middle-of-the-road army, and the Orcs and Goblins, along with the Dwarfs, have a lot going for them but have plenty of ways to exploit them, which in turn makes them balanced. Plus Im surprised that many people think O&G are a bad army. The players at my store who run them always give me competitive games and run some powerful lists so I have to disagree with people on that part, and Dwarfs are just a pain for anyone to deal with as the pretty much destroy your magic and play "come get me" most of the time, and are very good at doing it. Reason I put Deamons and Warriors of Chaos in the Mid-Tier is that for the most part, I have yet to really see what they can do, however from looking through the book and talking to players of both armies, they say that: Warriors of Chaos is a lot more balanced, while the Daemons got a major nerf ( in his terms, but they needed one bad ) and arent as big of a powerhouse they once where. HE have good magic and some good elite troops, however they come at 15 points a model, and from what I have seen, they tend to struggle against various lists such as gunlines and hordes. They also run very similar lists most of the time, with the only slight variation being a different type of Elite troop, making it pretty easy to play them as I take the same list against them. Plus, many HE players are using the Book of Hoeth as a crutch to cast spells. Really hope they get rid of this item as no one but Teclis should be able to do this lol.

Tomb Kings CAN be pretty good, but they are nowhere near amazing, and I have yet to have any issue with them and the Vampire Counts yet, and I play Bretonnia! The Undead armies can be good, however they suffer from the lack of any hitting power besides a few elite units amongst there shuffling hordes, and yes they are supposed to be dead, but there really inst anything that scares me other then the BLood Knights, which your limited to how many you can take due to point cost, and the Necrosphinx, which isnt scary if you focus fire it to death. Biggest reason however, is that there is so much out there that can kill characters that they struggle against various opponents, which is why there are only 1x of each at my game-store. Bretonnia is another army that struggles, as being a Cavalry army makes it a lot harder for them to win games. Granted, I have had good success with my Bretonnian's against Top Tier armies, but the other 2x Bret players at my store have yet to be satisfied with them in this edition, as Bretonnia faces an uphill battle with point costs, restrictive special rules, and the genius who came up with the current steadfast rule ( seriously, that guy needs his head examined and need to FAQ that rule ASAP ), but my store plays it more realistically in the sense that getting flanked with a unit of Cavalry wont make you steadfast, even if they do have more ranks. Its realistic and plan FACT that no infantry formation will maintain discipline when getting hit in the flank by heavy Cavalry.

Finally WE and Beastmen are where they are at because besides the fact the only Beastmen player on shows up every 3 months or so and a new WE player is still trying to learn her army and collect enough to play in bigger games, the books are just plain bad. If I had a say in it, I would have to say that the WE and Beastmen need a new book more then anyone at the moment, and I'm a Bretonnia player saying this! We need one too, but they need it a lot more in my opinion.

I did some statistical analysis from the Crossroads GT and VC, Dark Elves and Empire were the top performing armies. OK did horribly. But they was very little LM and Skaven there. Dwarves were by far the worst (below O&G and TK).

With that analysis informing but not determining my views, here's how I'd rank them.

High:
-Lizardmen
-Ogre Kingdoms
-Skaven
-The Empire
-Warriors of Chaos
-Vampire Counts

Mid:
-Dark Elves
-Daemons of Chaos
-High Elves
-Bretonnia

Low:
-Dwarfs
-Tomb Kings
-Orcs and Goblins
-Beastmen
-Wood Elves

Ranks are only approximate within tiers, but I feel pretty good about the tiers themselves.

I'm honestly pretty curious for this and the reasons for it again. I'd like to see more of your opinions on this again and for reasons why each army is or could be.

Killjoy00 wrote:
I did some statistical analysis from the Crossroads GT and VC, Dark Elves and Empire were the top performing armies. OK did horribly. But they was very little LM and Skaven there. Dwarves were by far the worst (below O&G and TK).

With that analysis informing but not determining my views, here's how I'd rank them.

High:
-Lizardmen
-Ogre Kingdoms
-Skaven
-The Empire
-Warriors of Chaos
-Vampire Counts

Mid:
-Dark Elves
-Daemons of Chaos
-High Elves
-Bretonnia

Low:
-Dwarfs
-Tomb Kings
-Orcs and Goblins
-Beastmen
-Wood Elves

Ranks are only approximate within tiers, but I feel pretty good about the tiers themselves.

Dark Elves really belong in the top tier, in uncomped play they are just filthy. Beastmen should be in mid tier, they can actually hold their own if used by a skilled player. Otherwise I mostly agree with the list except I am a little uncertain that Empire are top tier, definitely solid army though.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Tiarna Fuilteach wrote:
The second etc draft for this year is up and has the daemons in it


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=111991

SO glad they limited the cheese cannon to 1!

Yay for 100 more points for O&G

Awesome changes overall.

Yeah the latest draft seems quite good, played in an etc tournament last weekend and we were averaging four draws a round so their getting a lot right

Tiarna Fuilteach wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Tiarna Fuilteach wrote:
The second etc draft for this year is up and has the daemons in it


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=111991

SO glad they limited the cheese cannon to 1!

Yay for 100 more points for O&G

Awesome changes overall.

Yeah the latest draft seems quite good, played in an etc tournament last weekend and we were averaging four draws a round so their getting a lot right

I looked through the rules and comments by teams that gave feedback so far. Seriously rolled my eyes at some of the restrictions in that document. Some of the armies are not so hot and the need to comp them is a joke. I really get the idea that a lot of restrictions are more due to people just complaining a lot rather than that there is a real imbalance issue.

Case in point is the demon army. That army is just not reliable and comping the cannon to one means that people really do not understand that the cannon makes up for some other things that are not so good or overpriced in the book. Complaining about beasts of nurgle is just as silly, yeah they are good unit, so what, they are not game breaking. The demon army has the fatal tournament flaw of inconsistency, I like playing the army in casual play but it is nowhere worth my time to take to a tournament I am serious about winning.

Skink skirmishers comped to 0-3, lol. They really should call the ETC comp document the Goldilocks comp because we sure cant have our warhammer too hot or too cold it has to be juuuust right. Thank sigmar that system is not used around here.

We use the document I linked its far less restrictive.

But your not necessarily building game breaking lists for the etc, every team will have one or two lists that are blt specifically to get draws out of opponents. Points denial so that your opponent doesn't reach the 13-7 threshold and daemons are perfect for that

Tiarna Fuilteach wrote:
But your not necessarily building game breaking lists for the etc, every team will have one or two lists that are blt specifically to get draws out of opponents. Points denial so that your opponent doesn't reach the 13-7 threshold and daemons are perfect for that

Well I would certainly rather play against an uncomped opponent that was trying to win rather than a comped opponent that was trying to get a tie, or just trying "not to lose". If I understand what you are saying then the ETC environment is much worse than I thought before.

It is a team event though so if your team is terrified by some list in your opponents repertoire (which is probable) it helps to have some list there with a realistic chance of grinding out a 12-8 loss (which is a point each and classified as a draw in etc format) then having one of your better lists getting hit for a bagel (0) because of a bad match up

Tiarna Fuilteach wrote:
It is a team event though so if your team is terrified by some list in your opponents repertoire (which is probable) it helps to have some list there with a realistic chance of grinding out a 12-8 loss (which is a point each and classified as a draw in etc format) then having one of your better lists getting hit for a bagel (0) because of a bad match up

That doesnt make it any less boring. It is just personal opinion but I really hate when people dont play to win. It often means they are running away and avoiding actually playing the game. Usually when this has happened to me at a tournament it is because the scenario/terrain/deployment rules were very poorly thought out.

If playing for a tie is a valid strategy then it seems to me that there should be more time spent coming up with scenarios and objectives and less time spent on comping stuff.

It is very clear to me from the etc comp rules that you are not playing warhammer as I know it. Some of the restrictions just do not make any sense at all and I have a very thorough familiarity with all the armies.

Even though I do not play in warmachine tournaments I really like the idea that their scenarios force people to get to grips and actually engage in battle.

JWhex wrote:

Tiarna Fuilteach wrote:
It is a team event though so if your team is terrified by some list in your opponents repertoire (which is probable) it helps to have some list there with a realistic chance of grinding out a 12-8 loss (which is a point each and classified as a draw in etc format) then having one of your better lists getting hit for a bagel (0) because of a bad match up

That doesnt make it any less boring. It is just personal opinion but I really hate when people dont play to win. It often means they are running away and avoiding actually playing the game. Usually when this has happened to me at a tournament it is because the scenario/terrain/deployment rules were very poorly thought out.

If playing for a tie is a valid strategy then it seems to me that there should be more time spent coming up with scenarios and objectives and less time spent on comping stuff.

It is very clear to me from the etc comp rules that you are not playing warhammer as I know it. Some of the restrictions just do not make any sense at all and I have a very thorough familiarity with all the armies.

That's your opinion. We're talking about competitive games here, not personal preference. People sometimes go for a draw in order to win. There are lists you clearly cannot win against e.g. a footslogger list vs. dwarf corner fortress. The only way to get out of this with a good result is to play points denial. It might not be "fun" to you, but it is competitive. You obviously do not seem to like a competitive environment and that's totally fine, no offense, it's just that it differs a lot from normal games and requires more tactical thinking / planning.

In regards to the rules and restrictions making sense or not....again, no offense, but when it comes to making good rules, I rather prefer to rely on seasoned, veteran, competitive players than people who haven't played in a highly competitive environment before

JWhex wrote:

Tiarna Fuilteach wrote:
But your not necessarily building game breaking lists for the etc, every team will have one or two lists that are blt specifically to get draws out of opponents. Points denial so that your opponent doesn't reach the 13-7 threshold and daemons are perfect for that

Well I would certainly rather play against an uncomped opponent that was trying to win rather than a comped opponent that was trying to get a tie, or just trying "not to lose". If I understand what you are saying then the ETC environment is much worse than I thought before.

ETC is pretty harsh, we play a lighter comped version than ETC but you still need to play comp to balance out this edition.

I completely disagree with y on only ever playing for a win mate. Say your top table at the last round of a tournament and a only need a 8 points to win the tournament your not going to go balls deep and you'll give him very few points so that you win overall

 Sigvatr wrote:

There are lists you clearly cannot win against e.g. a footslogger list vs. dwarf corner fortress.

That is why in a competitive event you have scenarios and objectives. When a bunch of kids get together they line their toys on each side of the table and just try to kill each other. Of course when you play like this a dwarf corner fortress will defeat a footslogger list.

 Sigvatr wrote:

In regards to the rules and restrictions making sense or not....again, no offense, but when it comes to making good rules, I rather prefer to rely on seasoned, veteran, competitive players than people who haven't played in a highly competitive environment before

First of all, you have no idea how long I have been playing or what the competitive level of my play environment is. I have been going to tournaments since 4th edition and have seen and played against just about every type of competitive list you can imagine in uncomped environments. I own thousands of points for 8 fantasy armies and play them pretty regularly even though I do play some a lot more than others.

No offense but the games between me and my friends are probably more competitive than most of the ETC games played because we play every game as a practice game for uncomped tournaments. Again no offense, but warhammer is not a deeply strategic game and I can predict the entire likely movement phase for both sides through 4-6 turns after I have seen the final deployment. Indeed, anyone should be able to do this, it is no great feat in such a simple game, so I suggest you get off your high horse. Warhammer has been consistently dumbed down in recent editions with the reduction of the impact of psychology and now with steadfast. I am quite sure that games played in 4th, 5th and 6th edition were more "competitive" than anything you are doing with the watered down ETC format. But again, even then playing warhammer was no great test of tactical skill.

Once again, no offense but a lot of the restrictions in the ETC document are plainly stupid because they are restricting units that are in no way overpowering or abusive.

The ETC doesnt really fix the magic system. They make it harder to get irresistable force and make it harder to cast spells. I think their fix of the magic system is very poorly executed. Instead of just fixing the most broken spells or flat out removing them from the game they try and tweak the whole magic system.

They put all kinds of restrictions on units but all they really needed to do was enable disruption of steadfast by rear and flank charges. In other words they have about 50+ rules that I could condense down to two universal rules.

1) Disruption of steadfast by flank and rear charges

2) Ban spells x, y and z

There is very little that the ETC document "fixes" that my two rules dont fix, and my two rules fix a lot of things that the ETC rules dont fix as well as encouraging more strategic movement and tactics.

Just like people are whining about the khorne cannon in this thread, from reading ETC forum posts you can tell that a lot of restrictions are due to the tears of crybabies that couldnt deal with some situation their list wasnt prepared for.

JWhex wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

There are lists you clearly cannot win against e.g. a footslogger list vs. dwarf corner fortress.

That is why in a competitive event you have scenarios and objectives. When a bunch of kids get together they line their toys on each side of the table and just try to kill each other. Of course when you play like this a dwarf corner fortress will defeat a footslogger list.

 Sigvatr wrote:

In regards to the rules and restrictions making sense or not....again, no offense, but when it comes to making good rules, I rather prefer to rely on seasoned, veteran, competitive players than people who haven't played in a highly competitive environment before

First of all, you have no idea how long I have been playing or what the competitive level of my play environment is. I have been going to tournaments since 4th edition and have seen and played against just about every type of competitive list you can imagine in uncomped environments. I own thousands of points for 8 fantasy armies and play them pretty regularly even though I do play some a lot more than others.

No offense but the games between me and my friends are probably more competitive than most of the ETC games played because we play every game as a practice game for uncomped tournaments. Again no offense, but warhammer is not a deeply strategic game and I can predict the entire likely movement phase for both sides through 4-6 turns after I have seen the final deployment. Indeed, anyone should be able to do this, it is no great feat in such a simple game, so I suggest you get off your high horse. Warhammer has been consistently dumbed down in recent editions with the reduction of the impact of psychology and now with steadfast. I am quite sure that games played in 4th, 5th and 6th edition were more "competitive" than anything you are doing with the watered down ETC format. But again, even then playing warhammer was no great test of tactical skill.

Once again, no offense but a lot of the restrictions in the ETC document are plainly stupid because they are restricting units that are in no way overpowering or abusive.

The ETC doesnt really fix the magic system. They make it harder to get irresistable force and make it harder to cast spells. I think their fix of the magic system is very poorly executed. Instead of just fixing the most broken spells or flat out removing them from the game they try and tweak the whole magic system.

They put all kinds of restrictions on units but all they really needed to do was enable disruption of steadfast by rear and flank charges. In other words they have about 50+ rules that I could condense down to two universal rules.

1) Disruption of steadfast by flank and rear charges

2) Ban spells x, y and z

There is very little that the ETC document "fixes" that my two rules dont fix, and my two rules fix a lot of things that the ETC rules dont fix as well as encouraging more strategic movement and tactics.

Just like people are whining about the khorne cannon in this thread, from reading ETC forum posts you can tell that a lot of restrictions are due to the tears of crybabies that couldnt deal with some situation their list wasnt prepared for.

Someone give this one a medal please.
I wholeheartly agree on 1 not so much on 2. Magic is or can be superstrong but back in the days 5th edi that means I feared Chaos Knights the most since they chopped through my empire like nothing else "supported" by Mr. 14" charge dragon ogre to the flank. I never played on plain flat tables so shooting was an option but never a game winner. So for me magic is well, game winning sometimes but as I mentioned in another thread already, some days ago I lost my block of 43 BO´s with general and BSB because I lost the melee brawl by 2points and failed both rolls so they fled and got overrun - cost me the game. Gak happens same with magic, sometimes it will pwn whole regiments but that´s the game for me. I love the odds in this game and if I want to rely on stuff I go play chess with my roomate or in the club.

As soon as I saw that ETC gave high elves an extra 100 pts but gave no points break to Bretonnians I closed the tab.

 captain collius wrote:

Hargus56 wrote:
This is what happens when the kids from the 40k forums come to the adult forums. Do not feed the trolls.

No I'm not a troll I want to read peoples opinion. I happen to believe Skaven, DE, and LIzardmen in light of the new codices that have come out are Extremely Powerful with skaven being outright broken, (bouncing area of effect cannons for the win et cetera.)

I personally see the list as this

Best To Worst (based on an average player in control of the army.) (Also our local meta is very Chaos heavy so this does affect my opinion.
Top
Skaven
Dark Elves
Ogres
Lizardmen

Middle tier
Chaos Demons
Vampire Counts
Chaos Warriors
High Elves
Orcs and Goblins

Low-tier
Tomb Kings
Empire

BAD
Dwarves
Beastmen
Brettonians
Wood Elves

empire low tier??? sometime i wonder if y'all even play WFB

Come Saturday, you can pretty much just remove Daemons from the entire Tournament scene altogether.

Personally, I'd list the Tiers as;

Top:
- WoC/OK
- High Elves (new book - BotWD will be horrendously effective in a couple builds ment to really exploit it)
- Lizzies/Skaven
- Dark Elves

Middle:
- VC's/Empire
- Orcs & Gobbos
- Beastmen
- Dwarfs/Bretonnians
- Tomb Kings

Low:
- Wood Elves

Don't bother with at tournaments anymore due to the new Skill Banner on top of a crap army book:
- Daemons


Now, overall I don't consider there to be that much of a gap really between the top and middle tiers. The main differences setting them apart IMHO is that the 'Top Tier' books typically have more access to undercosted units and game-changing Magic Items like the Hellheart or BotWD or Doom Rocket etc... This makes them slightly more forgiving in the long run because you have more options that can become true hard-counters to certain aspects of the game. (ie: Cupped Hands for avoiding a miscast or Pendant+Crown of Command Lord of instant tarpit!)

The top armies are not unbeatable and they still have their bad match-ups that will thrash them. But they're a 'safer' bet if you're looking for an instant power-play army since there's less of an issue requiring you to really learn the ins & outs and synergies of your army.
Unlike the middle tier armies which tend to require a bit more thought with their lists and/or have a few more hard-counters they need to be aware of and plan ahead for.

Wood Elves are simply hamstrung badly by being two editions old and the current ruleset further smacking them with an un-needed nerf bat!

As for Daemons... Well, not only do they have their internal issues, (the new book is a disastrous mess of internal balance), but they can't make real use of their BSB or General's Inspiring Presence unless you go for a more or less mono-God build. Add to this more overcosted units and the God of Magic being merely passible at it and the restriction in magic lores AND the Reign of Chaos table with can double-slap the army or else make opponents rage-quite...
Now take the above and give the new High Elves a unit-availible banner that renders one of their hardest hitting units plus any attached characters almost completely immune to any damage from the entire Daemon army!!!
Yes, not all games a Daemon player plays in a tournament will be vs High Elves w/Alarielle-led White Lion SkillBannerstar, but the fact that you know that list and others like it may very well show-up means you don't want to bring your already random army to any event unless you're going just for beer & lolz.

phoenixrisin wrote:

 captain collius wrote:

Hargus56 wrote:
This is what happens when the kids from the 40k forums come to the adult forums. Do not feed the trolls.

No I'm not a troll I want to read peoples opinion. I happen to believe Skaven, DE, and LIzardmen in light of the new codices that have come out are Extremely Powerful with skaven being outright broken, (bouncing area of effect cannons for the win et cetera.)

I personally see the list as this

Best To Worst (based on an average player in control of the army.) (Also our local meta is very Chaos heavy so this does affect my opinion.
Top
Skaven
Dark Elves
Ogres
Lizardmen

Middle tier
Chaos Demons
Vampire Counts
Chaos Warriors
High Elves
Orcs and Goblins

Low-tier
Tomb Kings
Empire

BAD
Dwarves
Beastmen
Brettonians
Wood Elves

empire low tier??? sometime i wonder if y'all even play WFB

Well I have to base it off my meta too and i should say that everytime i've played empire i run right over them. Whether it is the player or the list I don't know but in truth i never see Steam tanks or demigryphs s my opinion is modified by that.

It's your meta, not the army

Empire is a solid mid tier.

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's your meta, not the army

Empire is a solid mid tier.

Exactly why I wrote I personally see this indicates its opinion not fact.

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's your meta, not the army

Empire is a solid mid tier.

+1 this.
VC's for example apparently suck according to my meta, but then the only guy currently playing the army is a complete dumb*** who runs only the bare minimum 1 Lore of Vampires caster so that he can max-out on his Death magic. (ie: Purple Sun ftw! mentality. )
Guess what? His general which he stupidly puts front and center because it's a tooled-up Blender Lord in a unit of equally expensive Blood Knights gets a cannonball/bolt thrower/'insert other sniping ability here' to the face every single game, dies, then the army crumbles because he won't listen to advice and build a proper list. (instead he simply moans that VC's aren't 'uber enough and other players are cheese mongers...)

But look at things from just the army book perspective, and I'd say that both VC's & Empire are the two best overall balanced books of 8th edition!
Both are solid with some neat tricks they can pull, maybe one or two slightly undercosted abilities, but nothing really overpowering or completely 'no-brainer' about them. (and almost all of their Magic Items are damn usefull!)

Nobody takes the "Best balanced 8th army book" title from Orcs and Goblins!

 Sigvatr wrote:
Nobody takes the "Best balanced 8th army book" title from Orcs and Goblins!

Your magic items are big fat fail, hence you're not the best balanced by default!

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Nobody takes the "Best balanced 8th army book" title from Orcs and Goblins!

Your magic items are big fat fail, hence you're not the best balanced by default!

Well yeah, true, O&G magic items are kinda shatty. On the other hand, that means we get to use some good BRB stuff!

While I personaly do not see the point of these treads I can agree with a good deal of what is mentioned in this tread though. But I will say this, as a Beastman player who has played them for years I can and will ruin anyone's day! Granted I do not have the fancy stuff other armies have but we ar by no means a bad army.

 Trondheim wrote:
While I personaly do not see the point of these treads I can agree with a good deal of what is mentioned in this tread though. But I will say this, as a Beastman player who has played them for years I can and will ruin anyone's day! Granted I do not have the fancy stuff other armies have but we ar by no means a bad army.

I have also played bst for years and like the army but the book still sucks. It has the same major failure of demons, limited choice of effective builds. gor herd with ahw and str banner + bestigor herd + herdstone + misc other stuff, thats it, that is the best build by far. This list by the way just gets crushed by an epidemius nurgle build.

The bst army actually has one of the better army specific forums (Herdstone) but traffic has been a bit slow the last year or so. By better, I am mean the average quality of stuff posted there by the community. I suppose this is because you have to be fairly devoted to the army to keep playing it because of the lameness of the armybook.