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.

So, I want to start warhammer fantasy, and I have about 1000 pts of lizardmen so far. I wonder where all the armys rank as far as competitiveness. I am wondering this, because I will probably want to start another fantsy army for freinds to use(no one i know playes fantasy(yet!)) Also, what are some good lizardmen tactics that I could use? Thanks in advance!

8th edition shook up the ranks quite abit. there are armies that are better then others, but the actual difference between their power isn't as much as it was in 7th so don't think that a low ranking army is an easy victory(quite often, low ranked armies are led by good generals)

1st tier: High Elves, Lizardmen, WoC, Dark Elves, and Skaven.

Empire and Dwarves.

2nd tier: Ogres, Vampire Counts, Orcs and Goblins, and Deamons

Brettonia

3rd tier: Tomb Kings, Beastmen, and Wood Elves.



Empire and dwarves and somewhere between tier 1 and 2.

Brettonia is somewhere between tier 2 and 3.





Lizardmen are basically an army that ties the enemy up with solid blocks of Saurus while harrassing the enemy with Skinks and using devestating magic(best in the game)

Lizards have very good basic infantry, and get a decent number of attacks. You can have one of the strongest mages in the game, who can either make you incredibly resilient (Life) or make up for your short comings and make you SCARY (Light; seriously, WS10 I10 ASF saurus ROCK)

Grey Templar wrote:
3rd tier: Tomb Kings, Beastmen, and Wood Elves.

What's the deal with Tomb Kings? Why the low tier?

Squash wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:
3rd tier: Tomb Kings, Beastmen, and Wood Elves.

What's the deal with Tomb Kings? Why the low tier?

Older army book. They just aren't able to match up well against the more updated armies.

Is power creep really that big a deal?

Not so much power creep. Just that the rules system having changed so much over the last 2 editions tomb kings didn't get anything major changed in their favour. Yes they have incantations but some of their units don't seem to be great performers this edition. They seem pretty limited on what they can field that is also competitive.

The nerf on fear hit them pretty bad.

I don't think it was Fear.


it's probably a combination of Fear, older book making their Skeletons waaaay overcosted, not having access to raise undead spells like VCs have...

one good thing is the ability to combine Khalida with their Archers. always hitting on 5+ regardless of anything is pretty solid, especially when they are poisoned.

I think the elephant in the room is this:

Warhammer is no longer a game that relies on Tactical deviousness or outmaneuvering your opponent anymore.
If you can't win the battle through attrition, you have to win through being better at combat. Tomb Kings can do neither.

IF Tomb Kings Chariots had d6 impact hits instead of d3 (There's a quasi-argument suggesting they do, but it's decidedly a loser, and no-one wants to hear it anyway, and GW won't clarify it in their Errata). it would help, but still probably wouldn't be enough to level the playingfield.

Steadfast broke the game for small elite armies that rely on maneuvering instead of combat for CR. (Kings, WE's, Beasts.)

Ragnar4 wrote:
IF Tomb Kings Chariots had d6 impact hits instead of d3 (There's a quasi-argument suggesting they do, but it's decidedly a loser, and no-one wants to hear it anyway, and GW won't clarify it in their Errata). it would help, but still probably wouldn't be enough to level the playingfield.

I'd like to hear it! Is there a link?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/304876.page#1744904

The Very Final Post is the "anti-d6" argument in a nutshell. Very well worded.

The Final Word that the "pro-d6" crew relies on is "It's still a conflict of Special rules versus unit type which clearly should get the better of the 2."

That thread is hilareous.

Light chariots are chariots are light chariots.

I thought the funniest part of the argument was that all of the argumentation from the anti side was clearly under the warrant of:

"ZomG I don't want Khemri to be any stronger!!!"

Back to on topic: I think that Khemri actually gets exponentially stronger as army size goes up. Which may even move them into 2nd tier at the extremely high points levels. (at 8k you still only have ~10 dispell dice, but I'll be casting somewhere in the nighborhood of 30 spells, and 25 of which will be magic missle spam)

Ragnar4 wrote:
Back to on topic: I think that Khemri actually gets exponentially stronger as army size goes up. Which may even move them into 2nd tier at the extremely high points levels. (at 8k you still only have ~10 dispell dice, but I'll be casting somewhere in the nighborhood of 30 spells, and 25 of which will be magic missle spam)

The magic phase is pretty good; but the problem is that the magic missile just isn't that impressive.
IMO, the way to go is the with wizard hat on the tomb king.
A horde of tomb guard with smiting tosses out 21 to 30 attacks, depending on the enemies width. That's pretty good.
Tomb kings replace losses fast enough to really grind through troops with tomb guard.
I like ubshati, but smiting pretty much points to a tomb guard build.
Throwing 10+ free dice, followed by the king throwing the actual power dice at spells is pretty awesome.
The core isn't exactly spectacular, but it doesn't need to be.

-Matt