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.

In 40k it's generally accepted that the Tau and Eldar are two of the strongest armies due to very cheesy lists and great synergy with the 6th edition rules. I'm just wondering if WHFB has the same type of thing happening.

It isn't as bad as 40k. But Dark Elves and Ogres tend to be the best armies at the moment. But unlike 40k, any army led by a good general will beat a weblist led by a noob 9/10 times.

The concept of a tier system within Fantasy is a completely flawed one. Literally every single army has one or several builds that abuse specific combinations or choices to the point where they are hard to beat. But notice that I said 'hard to beat' and not 'easy to win with'. Fantasy is not a glorified game of dice throwing to the same extent as 40k. Noobs with net-lists in Fastasy are still relative easy beats.

With that said, some armies are in desperate need of new army books, to the point where they are pigeon-holed into certain builds due to many of their units being inferior or useless as they were created to be used in a prior edition.

alex87 wrote:
The concept of a tier system within Fantasy is a completely flawed one. Literally every single army has one or several builds that abuse specific combinations or choices to the point where they are hard to beat. But notice that I said 'hard to beat' and not 'easy to win with'. Fantasy is not a glorified game of dice throwing to the same extent as 40k. Noobs with net-lists in Fastasy are still relative easy beats.

While true for the most part, Fantasy still suffers from the two big hard-counters;
1. Any majority I2 or worse army vs. Purplefun.
Even complete noobs can easily abuse it and turn 1 auto-win against armies like Ogres or Undead.

2. Any BotWD abusing army vs. DoC, as outside of tailoring to counter it, the Daemon player will typically spend the game running away from the 2++ save unit of 'uber doom and simply aim for the draw or minor victory. In tournies it's not nearly as huge of an issue, because most DoC lists feature the right tools as standard 'auto-includes', but in other environments like pick-up games it becomes a much bigger issue. (ie: dude playing mono-Khorne just gets destroyed)
Adding in the Everqueen makes things about as big of a foregone conclusion as you can get in Fantasy, due to the only real counter being a 6-diced Cacobomb.



Overall the game is fairly well balanced, but the above are probably the current biggest problems that need some major toning down.

Not really. Tiers are really a thing in Fantasy. As Experiment 626 mentioned, there are a few matchups or combinations that make for a really tough game for one player or another, but there is nothing in the way of the 40k netlists or tiers.

Looking at it like a sports bookie:

I find nearly everything 8th edition is about top tier. They're close enough in power that if you made your living gambling, you wouldn't give a handicap to any of them because you'd lose your money.

The exceptions might be O&G and TK. And they are only marginally worse. Which isn't to say they can't and don't win, it's more like, out of a 1000 games of random TK vs. WoC, the WoC is going to win more. I'd make that bet right now.

But if you asked me to bet who would win more HE, DE, Ogres, WoC, DoC, Dwarfs, Empire, VC, Lizardmen, I wouldn't give even 3:5 odds on any of those matchups because I think I'd end up in the hole.

Except of course HE vs DoC and that's only using one item and SC.

In no particular order, Warriors of Chaos, Daemons of Chaos, Dark Elves, High Elves and Empire are near the top. Wood Elves, Bretonnians, Beastmen, and Tomb Kings are near the bottom. Everyone else hangs out in the middle.

 SkaerKrow wrote:
In no particular order, Warriors of Chaos, Daemons of Chaos, Dark Elves, High Elves and Empire are near the top. Wood Elves, Bretonnians, Beastmen, and Tomb Kings are near the bottom. Everyone else hangs out in the middle.

I agree with this, except poor demons lose to BotWD like 4 out of 5 which is dumb. Should get an errata, but it will never happen.

Wheres the love for Hashut? (Evil Dwarves)

 SkaerKrow wrote:
In no particular order, Warriors of Chaos, Daemons of Chaos, Dark Elves, High Elves and Empire are near the top. Wood Elves, Bretonnians, Beastmen, and Tomb Kings are near the bottom. Everyone else hangs out in the middle.

I agree with this, I also believe that a good list and good general of any army is a formidable thing to fight, as the above have said all armies CAN be played VERY well

Duke's sport bookie analysis is actually really aptly put. There are definitely a few severely skewed matchups within the game but this is not the same thing as a tier system. Pretty much all the books that have been re-written within 8th Ed. are on relatively even ground, aside from the afore-mentioned specific imbalances and possibly Tomb Kings.

The reason tier systems work well in 40k and poorly in fantasy is because of each games innate mechanics.

40k is a game of easy decisions and hard counters. Fantasy is a game of difficult decisions and balanced counters.

Current 40k is far and away shooting. The top tier lists bring the biggest and baddest guns they can, on the toughest platforms, that deny the most saves. And they can do this, and they form a hard counter to a large portion of all other units. Examples include common combinations of AP3, ignores cover, with either large blasts, lots of accurate shooting, and great range. It takes little to no effort to pick a target, roll your dice, and watch models leave the table.

Fantasy has some similar opportunities, but they tend to come in issolated match-ups or as last-resort efforts, and they are not without their drawbacks or risks. The most common example is using unit-ending spells with many power dice when no dispel scrolls are present.

To that end, the reason a tier system isn't the same in fantasy is a game mechanic issue. You cannot just bring a netlist to the field and win. Deployment must be correct. Movement must be correct. Deciding when to and not to charge, who to charge, and with what, must be correct.

Fantasy is largely a game of combo's, whereby a seasoned veteran can easily see a game unfold from the deployment phase, but a rookie will be wondering who is going to engage who when.

The only tier system present isn't the kind that states "this army has a better chance against the lower tier armies", but instead helps indicate the level of balance and overall usefulness of ALL units, items, abilities, and other factors that a particular army can bring to bear on the battlefield. This factors in such things as unit costs, special abilities, unique army builds or mechanics, and other such things. The skill a general must posses to reliably defeat opponents on a regular basis is also present.

-Top Tier-

These armies have little to no issues with their entire range of units. They can be fielded in a number of different ways effectively, and rarely face something they are not prepared to handle or are incapable of dealing with.

Dark Elves
High Elves
Warriors of Chaos
The Empire
Vampire Counts
Ogre Kingdoms

-Mid-Tier-

These armies have a slight to moderate issue with some aspect of the game, and can find themselves in a tight spot because of it. They can be fielded in several ways, but typically a couple general builds stand out far above the others, and certain units are auto-include simply by how the army functions or how undercosted\over-effective they are. There are times where they will face something they cannot handle or are ill prepared to deal with, but this rarely happens.

Dwarfs
Daemons of Chaos
Lizardmen
Skaven
Orcs and Goblins

-Bottom Tier-

These armies typically require a seasoned general to function correctly. Many units in their respective army books are rarely fielded from being far too overcosted\under effective, or just ineffective all together. Very few viable builds exist, and the ones that do take a high amount of skill to be effective. Army builds will depend on special rules and abilities unique to the army. There are many occasions where the army will face something they cannot handle or are ill-prepared to deal with. These armies are not recommended for new players.

Beastmen
Bretonnia
Tomb Kings
Wood Elves

To wrap it all up, the tier system in fantasy can be better understood as a difficulty setting. There are normal, hard, and extreme difficulties when commanding your army to victory, representing the top tier, mid tier, and bottom tier armies, respectively.

 Aipoch wrote:
To wrap it all up, the tier system in fantasy can be better understood as a difficulty setting. There are normal, hard, and extreme difficulties when commanding your army to victory, representing the top tier, mid tier, and bottom tier armies, respectively.

I agree with almost all of this post, a great analysis. The only thing is this, it seems to down play the skills of a 'normal' army compared to a hard army. This is me speaking as a Wood Elf player I'd also say that while High Elves could make a list that took just as much skill to play as Wood Elves, they have the variety of units to make this something only for fun games. This is what defines the tiers to me, the variety of effective lists. Us Wood Elves have Glade Guard Spam, Tri-Tree Man and and ineffective all fast cav point denile list. Most Wood Elf Tournie Lists will fall into one of these categories, while most other armies can have far, far more variety in choosing a list that won't totally and utterly fail, well, more then the usual for Wood Elves that is.

Skaven are usually seen as the top tier army in 8th edition, because they can field many large units, which have rules that make them extermaly difficult to defeat.

I don't agree that variety of good units = higher tier. If an army only has 1 good core, 1 good special, 1 good rare, and the rest are garbage...BUT those good units are better than anyone other armies' for less cost, then it's going to win.

Any player can go out of their way and make a crappy army. Just like they can turn their units around and walk backwards to the enemy led by their general who spent all his points on a folding fortress he doesn't use because he's waiting for a real estate boom.

Ogres, for instance, don't have a lot of units. Compared to WoC or Empire they have way less solid troop configurations. But they're still really good.

@Alex, no down-play intended. All armies require skill to play well, the connection I was trying to make is that an average general playing a top tier army battling a highly experienced general with a low tier army could be considered an even match up; I'd bet even money on who would win. In the opposite situation, where a brand new player is using a bottom tier army, and a veteran player is using a top tier one, I wouldn't bet a dime on the new player to win.

@sing, the ability to field large units in and of itself is not enough to be top tier. Orcs and Goblins, Tomb Kings, and Beastmen also have this ability. What keeps Skaven mid-tier (in my opinion, of course) is the fact that they are one of the most unpredictable armies in the game. Where most armies suffer minor mishaps when things go wrong, it isn't uncommon for a Skaven mishap to wipe out half his army. Coupled with the fact that several units are over-costed\under performing (jezzails, night runners, doom flayers, etc.), the lack of cavalry, lack of traditional ranged firepower, and limited spell lores, they remain mid-tier to me.

@Duke, again the tier system, in my eyes, isn't about which army stands a better chance of winning. Going back to the 40k comparison, fantasy is very much a dynamic game and system, where as 40k is very static. It is entirely possible to fairly judge who will win a 40k game based on lists alone (assuming average generalship on both parties). This is not possible in fantasy. Yes, you can see who brought what kind of nasties, how much cheese there is, etc., but you cannot judge if they will come to fruition.

The armies I placed in top tier position have fewer faults than the mid tier and bottom tier. They have the potential to create the largest amount of effective lists, and tend to provide the fewest headaches; they are reliable and dependable. They represent the level of competency I wish all army books were given.

The true purpose of this post was to decide on an army to start playing fantasy with, I decided WoC because Vikings. I was thinking dwarves or chaos dwarves but WoC look better. Thank you all =)

 DukeRustfield wrote:
I don't agree that variety of good units = higher tier. If an army only has 1 good core, 1 good special, 1 good rare, and the rest are garbage...BUT those good units are better than anyone other armies' for less cost, then it's going to win.

No, that's still a garbage book. Being able to field a top-notch, hobby-wrecking list doesn't automatically make a book top tier at all.
If my only real 'stand outs' that can viably compete are so badly undercosted and/or OTT that every single game I'm apologising to my opponent for how obnoxious they truly are, (as is the case with DoC and our Beasts/Khannon/E.Blade Kipper/6-dicing Horrors shenanigans), then my book is still a pile of garbage because it's so unbalanced. (ie: the good stuff is far too good, but if I don't take at least 2-3 of them, my army sucks to the point my opponent feels they're not getting any kind of challenge from the game.)

On the other hand, a true top tier book is able to produce not only hobby-wrecking list(s), but also gives a player the option to try out a vast array of different units & combinations, without resorting to requiring a handful of obnoxious BS.
Hence why books like WoC, High/Dark Elves, etc... are considered 'top tier'. They can steamroll tournaments with the best of them, but there's also a lot of variance to play different themes and/or styles of list, and the level of disparity between the 'best' stuff compared to the 'not good' stuff is far less glaring than the likes of say DoC or O&G's or TK's who tend to get pigeonholed into specific styles & set-ups.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 DukeRustfield wrote:
I don't agree that variety of good units = higher tier. If an army only has 1 good core, 1 good special, 1 good rare, and the rest are garbage...BUT those good units are better than anyone other armies' for less cost, then it's going to win.

No, that's still a garbage book. Being able to field a top-notch, hobby-wrecking list doesn't automatically make a book top tier at all.
If my only real 'stand outs' that can viably compete are so badly undercosted and/or OTT that every single game I'm apologising to my opponent for how obnoxious they truly are, (as is the case with DoC and our Beasts/Khannon/E.Blade Kipper/6-dicing Horrors shenanigans), then my book is still a pile of garbage because it's so unbalanced. (ie: the good stuff is far too good, but if I don't take at least 2-3 of them, my army sucks to the point my opponent feels they're not getting any kind of challenge from the game.)

On the other hand, a true top tier book is able to produce not only hobby-wrecking list(s), but also gives a player the option to try out a vast array of different units & combinations, without resorting to requiring a handful of obnoxious BS.
Hence why books like WoC, High/Dark Elves, etc... are considered 'top tier'. They can steamroll tournaments with the best of them, but there's also a lot of variance to play different themes and/or styles of list, and the level of disparity between the 'best' stuff compared to the 'not good' stuff is far less glaring than the likes of say DoC or O&G's or TK's who tend to get pigeonholed into specific styles & set-ups.

Your definition of tiers differs from everyone else's in every scene where it matters.

Tiers are, in every game where it matters, about which character/army is the strongest in the meta. It's about "who wins." If there was an army called "Sigmar Himself" with only one model: Sigmar. And if that model had the special rule "always bloody wins" then that army would be God Tier. It doesn't matter that this army has exactly no options, no fun and brings nothing to the game. It always wins, so it alone holds the highest tier.

You see relevant tiers in MOBAs; League of Legends, Defenders of the ancients. Fighting games; Tekken, Street Fighter.
They have nothing to do with who is fun and who isn't. It's who wrecks the most face.

I'd have to agree, but I do really like how 626 defined it, very nicely put.

In my opinion, the "tiers" are laid out like this:

Top:

High Elves, Dark Elves, Warriors, Ogres, Skaven

Middle:

Dwarves, Empire, Vampire Counts, Daemons, Lizards

Bottom:

Beastmen, Brets, Wood Elves, OnG, Tomb Kings

A good argument could be made for moving Dwarves up a tier and/or Skaven down a tier though.

But as Aipoch said, the "tier" system isn't a defined way of working out who is going to win a certain battle. It's not as if that if I take a top tier army and you a middle or bottom tier army, I'm automatically going to win the game. Again, as Aipoch said, it's more of a difficulty rating. The top tier armies are more forgiving, and easier to use, often with more straightforward playstyles. Bottom tier armies just require better generalship to win the game. Another way of defining the tiers is by number of viable builds. In a tournament setting, if I'm drawn against OnG, I can be reasonably sure of what to expect, which makes it a lot easier to prepare for and play against. With an army such as Dark Elves, however, it's very hard to predict exactly what you'll be facing. There are common builds, yes, but there are many variations which are equally as effective.

Hope this helps.

Here's a sobering thought...

The new GW site no longer has the FAQ's for fixing the more glaring glitches/badly worded rules in each army book.
So, with the idea that hypothetically speaking, events & even just your run of the mill pick-up games in general can no longer viably enforce the old FAQ's, (as they effectively don't exist & new players have no way of obtaining them), how does this potentially change-up the difficulty tiers for Fantasy now?!

For example, Skaven are back to a god damn nightmare, while "Reign of Comedy" now has only 3 beneficial results for the DoC player.
The loss of the BRB FAQ is likely the biggest blow in all of this due to how it fixed and/or clarified a lot of the fundamental flaws in the current system...



The potential for sheer douche beggary has just increased exponentially thanks to RAW vs. RAI arguments now having no more rules support via the FAQ's.

I agree with Purifier agreeing with me.

I want to make it clear that fun != tiers.

The Candyland Goblin Mud-pie Extravaganza might be a super fun, hilarious army, but if it is impossible for them to win, they are not high tier.

Top tier sports teams aren't based on their civic duty and their color coordination, they are based on whether or not they win.

Best army right now is..... Skaven because I am master general

In all seriousness though I think everything is fairly even except wood elves are low on the list but my friend is pretty good with them but just much harder to run them well.
It's sad that beast men are low tier to people, that might be my next army... But I'm up for a challenge haha

 DukeRustfield wrote:
I agree with Purifier agreeing with me.

I want to make it clear that fun != tiers.

The Candyland Goblin Mud-pie Extravaganza might be a super fun, hilarious army, but if it is impossible for them to win, they are not high tier.

Top tier sports teams aren't based on their civic duty and their color coordination, they are based on whether or not they win.

News flash, Warhammer is not a professional sport where the only measuring stick is how efficiently you crush your opponent's soul, no matter how some people might try to insist it is.
Not to mention that simply evaluating sheer winning % is an awful measuring stick and makes for horrible games design.

A book is top tier if it has multiple list options. Even in a highly competitive setting, consider the following:

a. A DoC player typically runs one of 3 major builds, either Nurgle Wall or Cacobomb or Tzeentch-heavy
Now, Nurgle falls apart to Purplefun or Shadow magic, Cacobomb can be countered by out-deploying it and Tzeentch-heavy can be beaten-up in combat while it's also at the mercy of the Magic phase.

b. A DE player can typically run one of 5 solid builds such as Brolockstar, MSU avoidance w/Dark Riders, Witch Elf bus, Light Council gunline, fighty MSU w/Executioners.
Both Brolocks + the Fast Cav-based MSU avoidance lists require speed and/or mass shooting to be countered. Witch Elf bus needs to be shot because actively engaging it is death, Light Council gunlines need to be bum rushed, while a fighty MSU requires out-deploying & better chaffing/stall tactics to get the fighting happening on your terms.

Thus, most people would easily rate Dark Elves as being the higher tier book, because they offer more varied list options and thus require many different counters to deal with them as compared to the Daemons who require fewer counters and are much more predictable.

This is only further exacerbated in non-tournament play, which by the way, is the vast majority of games played...
Hence why DoC are lower tiered than many of the other 8th books due to the simple lack of viable options, especially in non-competitive play. The good stuff is far too good and makes opponents hate you, but the weaker stuff is so bad it's still not much fun for opponents as it feels like you're beating up on a blind, armless, legless child!
On the other hand, a Dark Elf player has little problem choosing units they like and still having a decent list that won't get instantly hated on as almost everything in their book is on a roughly equal level.



This isn't 7th edition anymore - there are NO! God Tier books left. Trying to imply that as long as a book has at least 1 option per slot that's OTT/undercosted and thus capable of producing a winning list = top tier is BS.
If that one list has a hard counter out there, but everyone else has at least 2+ face beating lists, then the book with only the 1 list is lower tier due to being so heavily restricted. (as outside of the DoC vs. HE scenario, there is no 'unbeatable' list that even a blind, armless 6-year old can auto-pilot to victory)

Experiment 626 wrote:

 DukeRustfield wrote:
I agree with Purifier agreeing with me.

I want to make it clear that fun != tiers.

The Candyland Goblin Mud-pie Extravaganza might be a super fun, hilarious army, but if it is impossible for them to win, they are not high tier.

Top tier sports teams aren't based on their civic duty and their color coordination, they are based on whether or not they win.

News flash, Warhammer is not a professional sport where the only measuring stick is how efficiently you crush your opponent's soul, no matter how some people might try to insist it is.
Not to mention that simply evaluating sheer winning % is an awful measuring stick and makes for horrible games design.

A book is top tier if it has multiple list options. Even in a highly competitive setting, consider the following:

a. A DoC player typically runs one of 3 major builds, either Nurgle Wall or Cacobomb or Tzeentch-heavy
Now, Nurgle falls apart to Purplefun or Shadow magic, Cacobomb can be countered by out-deploying it and Tzeentch-heavy can be beaten-up in combat while it's also at the mercy of the Magic phase.

b. A DE player can typically run one of 5 solid builds such as Brolockstar, MSU avoidance w/Dark Riders, Witch Elf bus, Light Council gunline, fighty MSU w/Executioners.
Both Brolocks + the Fast Cav-based MSU avoidance lists require speed and/or mass shooting to be countered. Witch Elf bus needs to be shot because actively engaging it is death, Light Council gunlines need to be bum rushed, while a fighty MSU requires out-deploying & better chaffing/stall tactics to get the fighting happening on your terms.

Thus, most people would easily rate Dark Elves as being the higher tier book, because they offer more varied list options and thus require many different counters to deal with them as compared to the Daemons who require fewer counters and are much more predictable.

This is only further exacerbated in non-tournament play, which by the way, is the vast majority of games played...
Hence why DoC are lower tiered than many of the other 8th books due to the simple lack of viable options, especially in non-competitive play. The good stuff is far too good and makes opponents hate you, but the weaker stuff is so bad it's still not much fun for opponents as it feels like you're beating up on a blind, armless, legless child!
On the other hand, a Dark Elf player has little problem choosing units they like and still having a decent list that won't get instantly hated on as almost everything in their book is on a roughly equal level.



This isn't 7th edition anymore - there are NO! God Tier books left. Trying to imply that as long as a book has at least 1 option per slot that's OTT/undercosted and thus capable of producing a winning list = top tier is BS.
If that one list has a hard counter out there, but everyone else has at least 2+ face beating lists, then the book with only the 1 list is lower tier due to being so heavily restricted. (as outside of the DoC vs. HE scenario, there is no 'unbeatable' list that even a blind, armless 6-year old can auto-pilot to victory)

"newsflash"
The fact that tiers aren't relevant in WHFB anymore doesn't mean you can start redefining the word at will to what you would rather it be.
The fact that they are largely irrelevant has already been mentioned several times in this thread alone.

But then, I have come to expect a very low standard from your posts, and you seldom disappoint.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 DukeRustfield wrote:
I agree with Purifier agreeing with me.

I want to make it clear that fun != tiers.

The Candyland Goblin Mud-pie Extravaganza might be a super fun, hilarious army, but if it is impossible for them to win, they are not high tier.

Top tier sports teams aren't based on their civic duty and their color coordination, they are based on whether or not they win.

News flash, Warhammer is not a professional sport where the only measuring stick is how efficiently you crush your opponent's soul, no matter how some people might try to insist it is.
Not to mention that simply evaluating sheer winning % is an awful measuring stick and makes for horrible games design.

A book is top tier if it has multiple list options. Even in a highly competitive setting, consider the following:

a. A DoC player typically runs one of 3 major builds, either Nurgle Wall or Cacobomb or Tzeentch-heavy
Now, Nurgle falls apart to Purplefun or Shadow magic, Cacobomb can be countered by out-deploying it and Tzeentch-heavy can be beaten-up in combat while it's also at the mercy of the Magic phase.

b. A DE player can typically run one of 5 solid builds such as Brolockstar, MSU avoidance w/Dark Riders, Witch Elf bus, Light Council gunline, fighty MSU w/Executioners.
Both Brolocks + the Fast Cav-based MSU avoidance lists require speed and/or mass shooting to be countered. Witch Elf bus needs to be shot because actively engaging it is death, Light Council gunlines need to be bum rushed, while a fighty MSU requires out-deploying & better chaffing/stall tactics to get the fighting happening on your terms.

Thus, most people would easily rate Dark Elves as being the higher tier book, because they offer more varied list options and thus require many different counters to deal with them as compared to the Daemons who require fewer counters and are much more predictable.

This is only further exacerbated in non-tournament play, which by the way, is the vast majority of games played...
Hence why DoC are lower tiered than many of the other 8th books due to the simple lack of viable options, especially in non-competitive play. The good stuff is far too good and makes opponents hate you, but the weaker stuff is so bad it's still not much fun for opponents as it feels like you're beating up on a blind, armless, legless child!
On the other hand, a Dark Elf player has little problem choosing units they like and still having a decent list that won't get instantly hated on as almost everything in their book is on a roughly equal level.



This isn't 7th edition anymore - there are NO! God Tier books left. Trying to imply that as long as a book has at least 1 option per slot that's OTT/undercosted and thus capable of producing a winning list = top tier is BS.
If that one list has a hard counter out there, but everyone else has at least 2+ face beating lists, then the book with only the 1 list is lower tier due to being so heavily restricted. (as outside of the DoC vs. HE scenario, there is no 'unbeatable' list that even a blind, armless 6-year old can auto-pilot to victory)

A. That's a load of bull. Duke is right. A tier is determined by how well something does. Not the amount of options it has. If option A in book 1 is super popular, and it always crushes books 2 - N, then book 1 is top, regardless of how bad the other options are.

B. The Dark Elf book is regarded as higher because it has more powerful options and no significant weaknesses. Choice does not come into it. Warlocks singlehandedly push it most of the way, and executioners do the rest.

Experiment 626 wrote:
News flash, Warhammer is not a professional sport

No, it's not. But tier is an English language concept. Not a Warhammer concept. The word tier doesn't radically change based on context. When you use tier as a comparative to other objects, whether they are tiers of tires, mutual funds, house paints, etc., it is always means what performs best at its given role. That is the definition of the word. Rank and classification are synonyms.

Instead of trying to rewrite the English language you can swap out tier with other words to get what you want:

-What army is the funnest to play?
-What army has the most options?
-What army will make me whine the least about how terrible DoC is despite them doing extremely well?

Of course, you can go to the OP and ask what he meant by tier. I'll give you a huge hint by reposting the original text and letting you decide.

In 40k it's generally accepted that the Tau and Eldar are two of the strongest armies due to very cheesy lists and great synergy with the 6th edition rules. I'm just wondering if WHFB has the same type of thing happening.

Hmm.

This is an issue with multiple factors to think about.
With my little experience, and by having played all armies at least 2 times, if I was to divide the armies into some tiers, I would do as following, though I'm open minded and I know that this might change if I play more:

top tier: daemons, ogres, high elves
mid-top tier: dwarves, empire, dark elves
mid tier: orcs&goblins, warriors of chaos, lizardmen
mid-bottom: skaven, beastmen, vampire counts
bottom: wood elves, bretonnia, tomb kings

 thedarkavenger wrote:

A. That's a load of bull. Duke is right. A tier is determined by how well something does. Not the amount of options it has. If option A in book 1 is super popular, and it always crushes books 2 - N, then book 1 is top, regardless of how bad the other options are.

But there's a link. If a certain army has only a few builds or strategies, you can be reasonably sure of what your opponent's plan is going to be for that game, and you can act accordingly. More importantly, it allows you to make certain list changes to deal with that army, should you ever face it. With an army as versatile as, say, Empire, it's impossible to build your army in such a way so that you have an advantage against every Empire army, which gives Empire a boon. On the other hand, if you know that by taking, say, a certain magic item or a certain unit you'll do well to include that item/unit, if it suits your list.