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.

With a new edition, comes new tiers!

Last edition we saw Vampire Counts and Daemons clean house, but how do they fair now?

Here is the 8th edition tier list. The will be updated constantly due to FAQ's or via good old fashioned who wins the most tournaments.

Thus in order they go.

1. Dwarfs

2. Skaven

3. Empire

4. Dark Elves

5. Lizardmen

6. High Elves

7. Daemons of Chaos

8. Warriors of Chaos

9. Ogre Kingdoms

10. Vampire Counts

11. Orcs and Golbins

12. Tomb Kings

13. Beastmen

14. Bretonnia

15. Wood Elves

Comment below for any changes!

Will only consider changing with good reasons.
So.... "SKAVEN SUCK!" is not a good reason.

Sooo where did you get this list???

Cause some of those placements are actually pretty hilarious.

Lizardmen are still a top tier army.

Orcs and goblins should probably be lower, Animosity still plagues them. Until they get a new army book that removes animosity they will struggle.

Dwarves, skaven and empire i do agree fight for the top 3 slots.

High elves are strong now, but I still dont agree they are top tier, they just keel over to shooting and high toughness high strength elite infantry.

Beastmen should be lower.

Ogres should be a tad higher.

ShivanAngel wrote:Sooo where did you get this list???

Cause some of those placements are actually pretty hilarious.

Lizardmen are still a top tier army.

Orcs and goblins should probably be lower, Animosity still plagues them. Until they get a new army book that removes animosity they will struggle.

Dwarves, skaven and empire i do agree fight for the top 3 slots.

High elves are strong now, but I still dont agree they are top tier, they just keel over to shooting and high toughness high strength elite infantry.

Beastmen should be lower.

Ogres should be a tad higher.

alright thank you for the comments ill change the list right away. The whole point of this project was to establish the list, not to dictate it.

Generalian wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:Sooo where did you get this list???

Cause some of those placements are actually pretty hilarious.

Lizardmen are still a top tier army.

Orcs and goblins should probably be lower, Animosity still plagues them. Until they get a new army book that removes animosity they will struggle.

Dwarves, skaven and empire i do agree fight for the top 3 slots.

High elves are strong now, but I still dont agree they are top tier, they just keel over to shooting and high toughness high strength elite infantry.

Beastmen should be lower.

Ogres should be a tad higher.

alright thank you for the comments ill change the list right away. The whole point of this project was to establish the list, not to dictate it.

Ok that was not clear. The last statement made it seem like it was fairly set in stone and would require a hell of an argument to change it.

If I knew it was just a baseline list not really based off of much I would have replied differently.

Also instead of 1,2,3,4.

I would do it in tiers.

Tier 1
Skaven
Dwarves
Empire
Lizards

Tier 2
High Elves
Daemons
WoC
Dark Elves

Tier 3
Ogres
VC (!)
TK
O&G(!)

Tier 4
Woodies(!)
Beastmen
Brets(!)

The ! points are armies i have not seen in practice, but am going off of battle reports and QQ...

I do think its a little early in 8th edition to be making a list like this, as the metagame is still shifting very heavily.

I think it's not really very helpful to arrange the books in a sequential list like that, it's much more useful if you actually use tiers of armies who share a similar perceived / performed power level. I'm really not in a place to rank the books, particularly since spamming the obvious things in certain lists (2x 6 flamers DoC, 2x hydras DE, 2x HPA SK, 2x stank EM, 3x mortar + 3x cannon EM, 6+ war machine DW, 2x hellcannon WoC) makes for much "better" armies than taking actual armies. Partially this is the old debate over whether tiers should be established by the most powergame-beardy-cheesy-WAAC version of lists or more balanced versions.

Totally off the top of my head, here's a shot at a more compact tiering:

Tier 1
Dwarfs, Empire, Warriors of Chaos, Daemons of Chaos, Dark Elves, Skaven

Tier 2
High Elves, Brettonians, Lizardmen, Vampire Counts

Tier 3
Beastmen, Tomb Kings, Ogre Kingdoms, Orcs & Goblins*

Tier 4
Wood Elves

*O&G are especially hard for me to rank, as animosity still blows but they have some serious artillery support and some of the most worthwhile troops to horde up (night gobs w/ bows).

Hell, all of the lower brackets are fairly tough. I feel bad sticking WE down in the lowest of the low but there's really nothing I fear in that list, apart from treemen spam but even that is a bad idea competitively with all the flaming artillery.

- Salvage

Haha beat me before i could finish editing salvage....

Now we must do internets message board battle argueing our differences of opinion as internet E-Peen stroking protocol requires....

GO

I did not want armies to be put into High, Mid, and Low tier because it is not specific enough.

its really as specific as you can get with games like this,,,

There is no "best army book" (yet at least), tiers is the best way to do it.

At a certain level, more granularity in differentiation (individual ranks) is actually less useful than broader categories (tiers). This is because when things are very close to the same ranking, the particular strengths and weaknesses are matters of opinion, playstyle, and metagame, thus are basically arbitrary.

I've had personal experience playing Orcs against High Elves, Demons, and Empire, and I'll say that Demons and Empire have been much more impressive than High Elves (which fits the mold established).

High Elves were actually so unimpressive that I'm almost loathe to put them in Tier 2. They are so expensive, and so vulnerable to shooting and close combat. With 2 ranks fighting, "Step Up", and steadfast, even the most basic blocks of troops can absorb casualties and bring High Elf units down.

At the same time, I'll make a case for Orcs to be Tier 2, if low Tier 2.

Orcs have great Horde troops. Sure, goblins are cheap, but Orc Boyz are also cheap, have T4, and S4 the first round of combat. They also have big bases, meaning the unit is somewhat less maneuverable, but those big bases mean you take a lot fewer hits against template based war machines. This reduces the negatives of animosity also, as forming your troops into larger blocks means fewer animosity mitigating Black Orcs can keep the majority of your army in line easier.

Combine this with price effective artillery (especially Doom Divers now) and worthwhile magic and you have an army that can compete in all phases of the game.

This isn't 40k. I think 8th went a LOOONG way to make almost every army have a pretty solid chance at competing.

What I might say is some armies have fewer options to build competitive lists because they have fewer choices or outdated rules or are difficult to use or whatever. Tomb Kings comes to mind. Ogres have very few lords and not a whole lot of viable models, but I still consider them very effective--you just might run into trouble if your enemy knows he's facing you and tailors his army.

I've got maybe 6-7 army books and I feel very confident any of those armies could beat the crap out of any of the other ones. A lot comes down to what happens on the battlefield and dice rolls.

Like if you're magic-heavy, you're placing a lot of power in the hands of the dice gods. 8th ed. Wizards are like massive black powder war machines.

DukeRustfield wrote:This isn't 40k. I think 8th went a LOOONG way to make almost every army have a pretty solid chance at competing.

What I might say is some armies have fewer options to build competitive lists because they have fewer choices or outdated rules or are difficult to use or whatever. Tomb Kings comes to mind. Ogres have very few lords and not a whole lot of viable models, but I still consider them very effective--you just might run into trouble if your enemy knows he's facing you and tailors his army.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Lexx wrote:

DukeRustfield wrote:This isn't 40k. I think 8th went a LOOONG way to make almost every army have a pretty solid chance at competing.

What I might say is some armies have fewer options to build competitive lists because they have fewer choices or outdated rules or are difficult to use or whatever. Tomb Kings comes to mind. Ogres have very few lords and not a whole lot of viable models, but I still consider them very effective--you just might run into trouble if your enemy knows he's facing you and tailors his army.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Despite that their are still tiers.

If Army A brings a WAAC list against army B's WAAC list, one of them will most likely start at a disadvantage due to army book and what not. Assuming equal general skill, deployment, etc.

This is where the tier system comes from.

I agree on the use of tiers as the rating system as opposed to a 1-15 lineup; however someone mentioned basing tiers off WAAC lists or average lists. It needs to be said that tiers are used for competetive play discussion.

Thus, the tier needs to represent a WAAC army build. Each book can bring a massive pile of trash to the table, or a refined list that wastes no point and puts in force multipliers. Tournies obviously are more likely to be won by a well designed list, thus tiers should only reflect well designed lists.

Back when 7th just got the daemons book, I was big into the tourney scene with metagames and whatnot. When daemons came out in full force, the tourney scene metagame changed signifigantly with the big 3 armies showing time and again who the best was.

Now, however, 'ard boyz I believe is the first major event with the new rules and FAQs, so the tiers are pretty much up for grabs until the semifinal and final 'ard boyz rounds are finished and real data can be complied from something like 20+ events.

I agree with Boss_Salvage's tiers (although I dislike the tier system in general because most people misinterpreter it to be an all or nothing thing).

You can't place number them 1-15 because eventually dice have to be rolled and when two armies are close together, you can't really figure that out.

ShivanAngel wrote:its really as specific as you can get with games like this,,,

There is no "best army book" (yet at least), tiers is the best way to do it.

I agree with this. 3 tiers is about as specific as you can get given differences in play skill/style, local metas, and terrain. Possibly a 4th tier to accomodate a standout army or two, either amazingly good or amazingly bad. DE and DoC likely occupied this tier (high version) last edition, and WE likely occupy it (low version) now.

ShivanAngel wrote:If Army A brings a WAAC list against army B's WAAC list, one of them will most likely start at a disadvantage due to army book and what not. Assuming equal general skill, deployment, etc.

Nah. Because, from my view, WAAC has a lot more limitations than it used to. Like the debate going on now about purple sun. If you build your army around that and the enemy is Dwarfs with mega dispel or high initiative WOC or you flub your rolls and blow yourself up, not much you can do. Or the former godmode of masses of warmachines, but now everyone charges a random amount, including up to your machines, they still blow themselves up, and you're limited to the number of duplicate models you can take.

Put another way, you design a WAAC Tier 1 army. And someone else design a Tier 2 or 3 WAAC army. I'm betting we can eyeball them and say a lot will come down to events on the table. But put your money where your pixels are at. Throw down an army that has an innate advantage over all the tier 2/3 races.

"Tier" is the most stupid concept ever.

Either your army has structural flaws and cannot compete, or can compete.

Soooo.... Tiers suck, so either Tier 1 or Tier 2?

With a few adjustments on how orc animosity, Wood Elf flaming problems and Lances being ineffective for bretonnians, 8th edition is incredibly balanced, with even lower tier armies able to compete effectively.

tokugawa wrote:"Tier" is the most stupid concept ever.

Either your army has structural flaws and cannot compete, or can compete.

I agree, it is the stupidest concept ever. Such as global warming, 9/11, and AIDS, and yet they still exist.

In any complicated game, there will always be a group of people making the absolute balance claim. It is the stupidest concept ever.

It somehow assumes
1. Game designers are perfect
2. Game designers can design hundreds of different units with them all equally effective
3. Army books written BEFORE 8th somehow have all the point costs correctly tuned for a system that did not exist.

I.E. - They'd somehow argue that Skeletons somehow were completely balanced at 8 points each with awesome fear and are somehow completely balanced at 8 points each with garbage fear that no longer autobreaks, no longer prevents charges, etc.

Army books are written by different people, at different times, with different levels of experience, and certainly not with the thousands of hours of testing that'd be needed for a completely even game to be created.

This doesn't say there are any army books that have a 100% win chance or anything, but there are certainly books which have had noticeable advantages.

(The same "every unit is exactly equally competitive." argument is used in most all multiplayer by a large group. Things get buffs and nerfs over time to compensate for imperfect design.
If there's a spell in a game and it is nerfed, there's only two possibilities:
- Either it was too strong. So after the nerf drastically weakens it, it isn't too strong.
- It wasn't too strong. So after a nerf drastically weakens it, it's too weak.
It's not possible for it to be both or neither.)

But the people arguing for the tiers are also assuming you took 8 point skeletons both before and after the nerf and that no other changes took place, like horde or supporting ranks.

Yes, you can go out of your way and make a gak army using the worst possible models. But fortunately, army books have a large array of choices and if one piece gets nerfed, often others get buffed.

there are certainly books which have had noticeable advantages.

Then it should be no problem for you to demonstrate this by building an army for everyone to see and comment on that has this noticeable advantage.

DukeRustfield wrote:But the people arguing for the tiers are also assuming you took 8 point skeletons both before and after the nerf and that no other changes took place, like horde or supporting ranks.

Yes, you can go out of your way and make a gak army using the worst possible models.

Skeletons (8 pts each) are at least slightly worse stat-wise than Clanrats (4 pts each.)
Skaven troops can get horde twice as easily as skeletons, because they cost half as much. They get more supporting ranks than skeletons, because they cost half as much.

Clanrats have +1 movement, +1 weapon skill, +2 initiative over skellies, and skaven who lose combat don't take extra damage, while if skeletons lose combat by 5 points, they suffer 5 extra wounds (no saves any kind.)

Zombies have an even worse stat-line than skeletons, but at least they are as cheap as skaven (though skaven troops would obliterate zombies cost-for-cost.)

I guess an undead player could use nothing but ghouls, but I don't know how many undead people will never bring those units of skeletons and zombies that they bought and painted even if they're awful now.

You admit that within an army some models are automatically more effective than others, but at the same time make the silly claim that between the armies there aren't any differences in effectiveness at all.

Undead isn't even a particularly good army for the horde rule. Their extra attacks go last, are weak, rarely ever hit, and skellies/ghouls aren't cheap. Skaven are a high tier because while a lot of undead core became sucky, skaven were already good and their troops weren't made worse they were just made better. Skeletons pay points for unbreakable and it kills them. They didn't benefit from free Stubborn special rule given to ranked infantry. The skaven battle line can be Ld9-10 rerollable stubborn and if they lose combat, a ton of them don't suddenly explode like skeletons do.

Wood elves are another army which was balanced around 7th mechanics, not 8th and because of that there are lots of fights they're not competitive in.

You can tell yourself that the "good choices" in one army are never superior to the "good choices" in another army, but that's a joke.

But tiering things only means that people go out nd buy £300 of 'tier 1' army just to mangle at tournaments. Usually the high tiers have few in number, high in metal/cost minis (the DoC and VC armies of yore) For a time you could determine who would win by weighing thier army (DE executioners hydras and RBT?).

It serves no purpose. Why does anyone need to know or care what armies are 'the most powerful'? It will change in 8 years with the next edition.

Look at the lists :
Tier 1 Skaven Dwarves Empire Lizards

Tier 2 High Elves Daemons WoC Dark Elves

Tier 3 Ogres VC (!) TK O&G(!)

Tier 4 Woodies(!) Beastmen Brets(!)

Tier 2 - well selling old tier '1',
Tier 1 - buffs from rules. Rush out and buy them NOW!
Tier 3 - need updated army books
Tier 4 - will be brilliant with new army book (esp bret and beastmen)

It's marketing... all of it... rush out an buy your gunline now but in 3 armybooks time you'll be back at 'tier' 2/3....

Phototoxin wrote:But tiering things only means that people go out nd buy £300 of 'tier 1' army just to mangle at tournaments. Usually the high tiers have few in number, high in metal/cost minis (the DoC and VC armies of yore) For a time you could determine who would win by weighing thier army (DE executioners hydras and RBT?).

It serves no purpose. Why does anyone need to know or care what armies are 'the most powerful'? It will change in 8 years with the next edition.

Well, it serves a purpose in that often new people are just getting into fantasy and don't want to play a somewhat neglected army for several years (and no guarantee they won't be neglected in next ed either.)

People often have 2-3 choices of armies they like and sometimes it's nice to a new person knowing that his army won't go feet-up the first little mistake he makes.

DE executioners have never been known as powerhouses, so the "power by how heavy it is" thing is just silly. I'm sure every army has units without plastic kits. Metal kit squads aren't automatically more powerful. I have a metal griffon rider. He might weigh as much as a War Hydra, but he certainly is nothing like it on power. RBT also are heavy and generally considered weak in 8th edition. So you're 1 out of 3 on that example. (Really... is there any army that does not have metal squads or war machines or elite units at all? Name one.)

It's not mandatory to play competitively. That doesn't mean it is wrong to play competitively either. You could field an army of nothing but skeletons and necromancers if you have the most fun that way, all the power to you. I certainly wouldn't try to trash someone if they don't want to spend hundreds of dollars on an army which will be at disadvantage against their friends army for a long time.

Being weak in one edition doesn't guarantee you'll be one of the scary armies on the next edition either.

If you think all armies are exactly equal in power, then I don't see why you need to post in a thread where people are trying to find what the scary armies in 8th currently are, because you're not into competitive tweaking. It's fine if you aren't, that doesn't make people different from you bad.

Yeah, I agree with TheBloodGod. Tiers are more for tourney metagames, and if this does not appeal to you, then you are not forced into it. I for one enjoy building a list to trash my friends, then after a few games they update their lists and trash me, ect.

The challenge of the give and take is one of the only things keeping me in the game... if it wasnt a challenge, what kind of game is it?

Compare to a driving game. Do you want to play a simulation of a safe drive, where you drive 55mph around a track, and if people pass you or lap you its ok, or do you want a challenging game where you take the most pimped out car and push it as hard and as fast as you can against opponents doing the same?

TheBloodGod wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:But tiering things only means that people go out nd buy £300 of 'tier 1' army just to mangle at tournaments. Usually the high tiers have few in number, high in metal/cost minis (the DoC and VC armies of yore) For a time you could determine who would win by weighing thier army (DE executioners hydras and RBT?).

It serves no purpose. Why does anyone need to know or care what armies are 'the most powerful'? It will change in 8 years with the next edition.

Well, it serves a purpose in that often new people are just getting into fantasy and don't want to play a somewhat neglected army for several years (and no guarantee they won't be neglected in next ed either.)

People often have 2-3 choices of armies they like and sometimes it's nice to a new person knowing that his army won't go feet-up the first little mistake he makes.

DE executioners have never been known as powerhouses, so the "power by how heavy it is" thing is just silly. I'm sure every army has units without plastic kits. Metal kit squads aren't automatically more powerful. I have a metal griffon rider. He might weigh as much as a War Hydra, but he certainly is nothing like it on power. RBT also are heavy and generally considered weak in 8th edition. So you're 1 out of 3 on that example. (Really... is there any army that does not have metal squads or war machines or elite units at all? Name one.)

It's not mandatory to play competitively. That doesn't mean it is wrong to play competitively either. You could field an army of nothing but skeletons and necromancers if you have the most fun that way, all the power to you. I certainly wouldn't try to trash someone if they don't want to spend hundreds of dollars on an army which will be at disadvantage against their friends army for a long time.

Being weak in one edition doesn't guarantee you'll be one of the scary armies on the next edition either.

If you think all armies are exactly equal in power, then I don't see why you need to post in a thread where people are trying to find what the scary armies in 8th currently are, because you're not into competitive tweaking. It's fine if you aren't, that doesn't make people different from you bad.

EXACTLY~!

Oh I agree the tier system is flawed, but there isnt a better system for rating armies...

The last major 7th edition tournament in the Houston Area had an Ogre player take 1st place...

Ogres were unanimously agreed to be the worst army in 7th edition...

ShivanAngel wrote:Oh I agree the tier system is flawed, but there isnt a better system for rating armies...

The last major 7th edition tournament in the Houston Area had an Ogre player take 1st place...

Ogres were unanimously agreed to be the worst army in 7th edition...

And its results like that I love hearing about in fantasy and 40k. Even with tiers to gauge effectiveness it isn't guaranteed.

TheBloodGod wrote:You admit that within an army some models are automatically more effective than others, but at the same time make the silly claim that between the armies there aren't any differences in effectiveness at all.

Didn't make that claim at all.

Dwarf artillery is better than pretty much any other artillery in the game. That doesn't make Dwarfs better than any other army in the game.
Lizardmen magic is better than pretty much any other magic in the game. That doesn't make tLizardmen better than any other army in the game.

See how this works? Because armies are just that...armies. They have lots of units. Choosing Skaven RatOgres is not as cost-effective as Ogres choosing Bulls. But they are still viable because they are complimented within the race. If you chose nothing but RatOgres then yes, you would have a substandard army. But the game doesn't even allow you to do that. You can't just look at one model or even a few and say they suck. You need to look at the way the entire list of choices harmonizes.

And again, for all the talk everyone keeps on making about how blatantly obvious the imbalances are, no one will put together a list to prove it. So this is all gum-flapping