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'm just curious, with all the competitive play that goes on with this game, and, lets face it, (how do I say this without seeming like a complete donkey...) how some aspects of this game are poorly balanced, why is there so little talk about tier lists?

Think of all the other genres that have a competitive scene which all go and make tier lists:

Fighting Games like Super Smash Bros, Blazblue, etc
Online MOBAs like League of Legends, Dota2
Card Games like Yu-Gi-Oh and Magic
and so on...

Now, anyone who knows what a tier list is can immediately tell you that a tier list is in no way a be-all end-all distribution of power, and that player skill factors in WAY more than power of a particular character, or race, or army. But still, these lists are constantly made and in the end they DO give a decent overview of a game's distribution of power.

Anyway, why does our community not do this as much? I mean, its obvious that a tier list could be made and would work its purpose fairly well considering some of the skewy balance, but...

First off, it just doesn't matter that much. It has been statistically shown that white has a greater chance of black in winning at chess because they get to move first. But it'd be pretty silly to say that white is a higher tier. The difference is so slight.

I've seen at least a bazillion tier lists made here and I don't think I've agreed with one of them and not one of them has agreed with each other. So if there tiers, they are as many of them as there are players and viewers and followers of this game. Which makes them a pointless concept.

Lastly, who cares? The game is a simple game whose First Rule is pretty much not to be a dick. TFG and power gaming pretty much goes against it. It's not an esport. It's a step above (below?) putting model ships in bottles. Maybe there are some ships that are harder to put in than others, but who cares?

Well if there is a competitive scene within a game, that doesn't immediately mean that its filled with TFGs.

And there is a pretty significant difference between White having that slight advantage in chess VS a "top tier" vs a "low tier" choice in a competitive game

Now, anyone who knows what a tier list is can immediately tell you that a tier list is in no way a be-all end-all distribution of power, and that player skill factors in WAY more than power of a particular character, or race, or army. But still, these lists are constantly made and in the end they DO give a decent overview of a game's distribution of power.

They also give detractors alotta things to work with, not to mention in general while they are useful, they are never fully agreed upon and they can cause fractures within a gaming community (You mentioned SSB, one of the games that started "The Tiers are for X" movement). Also a game that tiers are only marginalized to being down to "Base, Safe area's" with no items in a 1v1 setting.


Not to mention tiers are pretty much understood to be Gak, sure mechanically you can see it work out that way, but in the DOTA 2 match everyone had pudge as the low "pub stomping" tier. But then he was taken by a tournament player and ended very well. So tiers are not balanced around their own mechanics, but by whatever the tournament players are using at the time...Same with league with several new standouts coming just because a tournament player used them.

DukeRustfield wrote:
First off, it just doesn't matter that much. It has been statistically shown that white has a greater chance of black in winning at chess because they get to move first. But it'd be pretty silly to say that white is a higher tier. The difference is so slight.

I've seen at least a bazillion tier lists made here and I don't think I've agreed with one of them and not one of them has agreed with each other. So if there tiers, they are as many of them as there are players and viewers and followers of this game. Which makes them a pointless concept.

Lastly, who cares? The game is a simple game whose First Rule is pretty much not to be a dick. TFG and power gaming pretty much goes against it. It's not an esport. It's a step above (below?) putting model ships in bottles. Maybe there are some ships that are harder to put in than others, but who cares?

Mostly this.

Tiered lists tell players little to nothing. Sometimes a unit is good because of outdated rules, sometimes bad. Sometimes FAQs make a bad army good or vice versa. More often than not, a great player can make a bad army play better than normal. And tiered lists are usually either opinions or states compiled from tournament results, neither of which is reliable.

If you're looking for out-of-the-box winning armies, newer armies would be the best. Older armies getting an update are also good. However, be warned, this is not a game that guarantees success just because you bought the right army. If it were, there would only be one army. Learn by experience.

I have my own. I call it the fascist tier!

1. Ogres and Skaven

That is all.

There are "Tier Lists"

But it is highly opinionated. For example some people view Bretonnians as low tier while others say low middle tier, etc

8th did make most armies go to mid tier though (cough 7th edition Vampires and Daemons cough)

The problem with the chess analogy is that it would only work if both players had the same army.

Playing Dark Elves against Beastmen is like playing Black against White, but White doesn't get a queen or rooks.

There are a few notable imbalances that dramatically alter how difficult it is to win.

There are a few universal facts of things: Empire is always middle of the road, and right now WE, Brets and Beastmen require skill as a general on top of a proper list in order to not get slaughtered, let alone win.

That isn't to say that those armies CAN'T win, just that it takes more effort and planning. Dark Elves on the other hand have like 2 unit choices that are suboptimal overall, but can still be worked into a useful tool.

So perhaps a "competitive" tier rank would be incorrect. A more apt ranking system would be how hard it is to win against all comers with a given army.

 Aerethan wrote:
The problem with the chess analogy is that it would only work if both players had the same army.

Playing Dark Elves against Beastmen is like playing Black against White, but White doesn't get a queen or rooks.

If that was the case DE would beat Beastmen 100% of the time. There would be no question whatsoever about balance as it would be obvious. No one would even post it because it would be self-evident. Tournaments would comp Beastmen an extra 50% points to make it competitive and no one would disagree.

None of that is true or remotely true. It sounds like you're just ranting about a matchup.

I'm not sure how many D6 rolls are made in the typical game. Let's say it's something like: a lot. And in characters who stats are probably 90% within 2-5 (except LD and move), you have armies that are incredibly similar to each other subject to a massive amount of chance. Couple that with random terrain (the chess board changing every time). And generals who make good/bad decisions, and you have a very difficult time saying who is best. It's a beer and pretzels game.

If it was a deterministic game, you would not only see the same army but the same few builds win ever tournament always. Because it is the best. If I had a choice in poker, I would always take a royal flush.

As soon as random chance (dice) gets involved, the chance of determining a 100% accurate tiers goes out the window.
Will certain units beat other certain units most of the time – yes, does that mean the opposite can't happen – i'll tell you the next time i see 10 skinks shoot 4 chaos knights dead in a single turn.
Do some armies have access to better unit options than others – yes, does that make them unbeatable – i'll tell you the next time i see beastmen beat lizardmen.

DukeRustfield wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
The problem with the chess analogy is that it would only work if both players had the same army.

Playing Dark Elves against Beastmen is like playing Black against White, but White doesn't get a queen or rooks.

If that was the case DE would beat Beastmen 100% of the time. There would be no question whatsoever about balance as it would be obvious. No one would even post it because it would be self-evident. Tournaments would comp Beastmen an extra 50% points to make it competitive and no one would disagree.

None of that is true or remotely true. It sounds like you're just ranting about a matchup.

I'm not sure how many D6 rolls are made in the typical game. Let's say it's something like: a lot. And in characters who stats are probably 90% within 2-5 (except LD and move), you have armies that are incredibly similar to each other subject to a massive amount of chance. Couple that with random terrain (the chess board changing every time). And generals who make good/bad decisions, and you have a very difficult time saying who is best. It's a beer and pretzels game.

If it was a deterministic game, you would not only see the same army but the same few builds win ever tournament always. Because it is the best. If I had a choice in poker, I would always take a royal flush.

Are you suggesting that it is 100% impossible to win a chess match without a queen and rooks? Surely you jest. Just as there are minds out there who can with with such a handicap in chess, so too are there those who can do it in WFB.

I don't play competitively at all. I play rarely, and when I do it's casual. I have very little interest in winning compared to my interest for fun things to happen in a game. Recently my local GW had a wizards duel for their birthday and I watched a lv2 WE mage win against a LV4 Lord of Change who got himself sucked into the warp. The narrative behind that duel is hilarious. Far more interesting than winning.


At the same time, I don't deny that certain armies are at a disadvantage before models ever hit the table. If you want balance in armies, play chess.

EDIT: Also, I don't play BM, my wife plays DE. I play HE and it takes far more effort for me to beat my wife's DE than it does for her to beat the Asur.

It's as close to 100% as not being worth mentioning otherwise, yes.

Unless you're playing a grandmaster vs. a preschooler. But that's not a starting point of balance. You don't balance beastmen assuming a great player is on them and a mentally slowed player is on DE.

Tiering is more difficult in fantasy than 40k due to the sheer magnitude of equipment available as well as the diverse builds that each codex presents......I play tournament beastmen and while I wouldn't go as far to say we have no queens or rooks (although off topic my cousin used to play in international chess tournaments and even he said pawns were your most important pieces) the builds that I can take that won't see me getting well beaten in tournaments are no more limited than some of the other army books that are considered higher tiers.......show me a competitive lizzies list that doesn't revolve around a slann and blocks of saurus or a dwarf list that isn't gunline or a skaven list that doesn't vastly outnumber you.......There are certain lists that are difficult to beat with other lists and while it is easier to build power lists from dark elves, daemons, vampires etc. you can build lists from all the army books that won't see you losing all your enthusiasm for the game...

Tiarna Fuilteach wrote:
Tiering is more difficult in fantasy than 40k due to the sheer magnitude of equipment available as well as the diverse builds that each codex presents.

I don't think that's the reason. I like the 40K fluff a lot, but the game is horrendously unbalanced. Fantasy doesn't have those rules for the most part and each new book takes more and more away. But 40K has way more equipment options.

WFHB is rock paper scissors, but everything can fight everything. A single skaven slave can walk through 1000 bloodthirsters if you roll well enough. But if you guess wrong on what the enemy will bringing in 40K, you can lose before you put a single piece on the table. You can build vegas odds on game outcomes just looking at lists on 40K. But I don't see that nearly as often in WHFB. IMHO.

There are many reasons for there not being a tier list in WHFB, as several have mentioned here. But one of the things that decides a FB game more than anything else is the skill of the player who commands the army. Also dice luck and knowing how your enemy works and plays also mater very much.

I play Beastmen and Bretonnia, and I find that they are still very much a viebal army. if a choice that takes some serious amount of games to master.

That is the point I was trying to make. Every army CAN win, but some require some serious experience and finesse to win consistently once you remove the variables of dice.

There will always be the odd time where that one Ungor keeps dodging attacks and rolling snakes eyes the entire game while your Hydra tries it's damnedest to kill it but those are anomalies.

I have more respect for someone who consistently wins with BM than I do for someone who always steamrolls with Dark Elves or some UberSlann build.

 Aerethan wrote:
That is the point I was trying to make. Every army CAN win, but some require some serious experience and finesse to win consistently once you remove the variables of dice.

There will always be the odd time where that one Ungor keeps dodging attacks and rolling snakes eyes the entire game while your Hydra tries it's damnedest to kill it but those are anomalies.

I have more respect for someone who consistently wins with BM than I do for someone who always steamrolls with Dark Elves or some UberSlann build.

Indeed, you made a good point I think. But it seems many folks miss the point we both attempt to show. I have played Beastmen for some years now, and to this day I can somewhat proudly say that I have mroe wins than losses with by BM. Although it took a few years to get a good grip on them, same goes for my Bretonnian army, although I found it easier to get them rolling than BM:

Maybe its more that the "higher tiered" armies are just easier to pick up as supposed to them being simply better off the bat.....sure are a lot of my brothers in arms running beastmen

It also doesn't help that even some of the "Lowest Tiers" have a build that lets them win.

Beastmen have the Monobus and herdstone mages. Which has actually won some of the major tournaments.

Wood elves have "Point Denial" and "treekin" however this takes a very excellent general to pull off (Considering that the ones that stay are those that have learned how to pull these off. It's very likely.)

Brettonia have good artillery due to the Trebuchets. They don't have any "Builds" but most of their units unlike the others are generally more decent. Problem is it takes a more skilled person to play the army to get the charges off.


The truth about the higher tiers for warhammer is that the current higher tier armies have plenty of options, and good to go units. However some are in the upper tiers due to broken lists that allow them to compete far better. (Teclis HE for example). While some lists were just broken when they were originally made (DoC). Generally you'll often either find High Magic (Daemons, Dark elves, WoC), High amounts of Cheaper, Powerful artillery (Skaven), or just very strong units that one could push along without tactics (WoC). As being the deciders on how high the tiers they go, but a skilled general and a properly built list can beat even these.

 HoverBoy wrote:
As soon as random chance (dice) gets involved, the chance of determining a 100% accurate tiers goes out the window.
Will certain units beat other certain units most of the time – yes, does that mean the opposite can't happen – i'll tell you the next time i see 10 skinks shoot 4 chaos knights dead in a single turn.
Do some armies have access to better unit options than others – yes, does that make them unbeatable – i'll tell you the next time i see beastmen beat lizardmen.

To be fair, that's a bit of a strawman. No proponent of tiers I know of has ever claimed what you claim they've claimed. In fact, you're supporting the general notion of tiers.

 Aerethan wrote:

If you want balance in armies, play chess.

I don't like chess all that much. The last edition totally retconned the fluff...can I alternatively call GW?

Even brettonians can be strong especially if skaven are common in your area as they are the anti-skaven army

zeekill wrote:
So I'm just curious, with all the competitive play that goes on with this game, and, lets face it, (how do I say this without seeming like a complete donkey...) how some aspects of this game are poorly balanced, why is there so little talk about tier lists?

Think of all the other genres that have a competitive scene which all go and make tier lists:

Fighting Games like Super Smash Bros, Blazblue, etc
Online MOBAs like League of Legends, Dota2
Card Games like Yu-Gi-Oh and Magic
and so on...

Now, anyone who knows what a tier list is can immediately tell you that a tier list is in no way a be-all end-all distribution of power, and that player skill factors in WAY more than power of a particular character, or race, or army. But still, these lists are constantly made and in the end they DO give a decent overview of a game's distribution of power.

Anyway, why does our community not do this as much? I mean, its obvious that a tier list could be made and would work its purpose fairly well considering some of the skewy balance, but...

It's rather simple; because in all of those other things you don't really lose out much. In the video games you simply cannot use your favourite character maybe. And in cards one or two cards you have cannot be used, but you still would have gotten them anyway due to random draw in the boosters. With Warhammer, if you tell someone they can't use a certain army, that's maybe €400 down the drain and a tournament they cannot attend. This is why we have comp instead.

Tiarna Fuilteach wrote:
Even brettonians can be strong especially if skaven are common in your area as they are the anti-skaven army

You're quite the comedian.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

Tiarna Fuilteach wrote:
Even brettonians can be strong especially if skaven are common in your area as they are the anti-skaven army

You're quite the comedian.

They have that one banner that denies rank bonus, which means no strength in numbers. I guess it'd be useful, i don't see how they'd stop an assassin from demolishing the unit it's in though.

Skaven get through heavy armour by sheer mass of attacks, brets only need three wide to form a rank drastically limiting the attacks that skaven get in and when you throw in s5 trebuchets they can decimate mass skaven blocks