Within this sub-forum I created a tier list for 8th Edition WFB (which can be found HERE). I've created this thread for the AoS players of the forum. So without further ado... The purpose of this thread is the place all the AoS armies/factions into a tier list based on their power level (competitiveness as compared to other armies/factions). The tiers are as follows: Top Tier - The most competitive and powerful armies in the game! Upper Tier - Above average Middle Tier - Well balanced armies. Neither too powerful or too weak Lower Tier - Below average Bottom Tier - The least competitive and weakest armies in the game! Note that there is no need to order the armies in terms of power within the tiers. Also, armies do not need to be distributed evenly between tiers. Since I don't play AoS myself, I have no knowledge with which to create a list myself. I'll leave that in your capable hands. Discuss and enjoy!
Ok, I'll start this discussion with a very rough (and incomplete) list. I took it from some guy at TGA, and he based it roughly on some tournament result lists and his own experience. It lines up with my impressions for the most part. Top: Slaanesh, Skaven, Tzeentch, Fyreslayers, DoK, FEC Upper: LoN, IDK, Khorne Middle: Sylvaneth, Gloomspite, Stormcast, BoC Lower : Seraphon, KO, Nurgle, Nighthaunt Bottom: Gutbusters, BCR, StD I expect Orruks and Cities of Sigmar to become Top or Upper. Ogors and Bonereapers also look strong but I cannot really tell yet.
I'd put SCE in upper, it's difficult to make a properly "bad" SCE list with clearly defined weaknesses. Also it's nigh impossible to defang a SCE army with a couple of well executedmoves as their entire unit roster is capable. So even if you take out X the SCE player probably still has some tools left to respond with. The only way to really break an SCE army is to wipe it out, whereas most others tend to at least lose some important synergies and become significantly easier to deal with if you kill the right stuff. The main reason they don't do as great in tournaments as you'd expect is cuz they're popular & relativly easy to play. So you have a great deal of weaker or relativly new players also playing SCE. So their average performance ends up a bit skewed downwards. Tzeentch I'd drop to upper/middle. The army itself I find to be reasonably balanced. However it benefits from just being decent in the meta & it seems to find itself in the opposite situation the SCE find themselves in, being relativly unpopular with newer players. Causing their average performance to be skewed upwards. Nighthaunt I'd probably put higher, but the issue with them is mostly that they're very match-up dependent. An entire army that flies and is immune to rend can be horrific to deal with depending on what you're fielding. But it can also be fairly irrelevant if you don't rely on rend and have the mobility to match them. I'd guess that in tournaments they probably run into too many armies that can deal with them, whereas in more friendly play they'd be more middle of the pack. Nurgle seems to have a similar issue. In friendly play they seem quite powerfull, but in a competitive enviroment they probably run into too many lists that can abuse their weaknesses. the rest I more or less agree with Also, Cities of Sigmar I expect to definitly be top. Some of those city allegiances seemed utterly ridiculous.
Yeah the thing about balance is that the meta plays a huge role for tournaments, so pure tournament results might not be the ideal way to judge. There was a guy who won a tournament using a very weak army (IIRC it was squigs before Gitz got their book), and a list that was a pretty good counter to what he expected to be played most. He caught his opponents off guard and won the tournament. This kind of stuff works. Then there are armies who can do one thing very well, but not adjust at all ("One Trick Ponies"). If they meet the right lists they wreck face. But once people get used to them they lose. And then there are armies that aren't exceptionally strong but work against a good variety of lists because they are flexible. Seraphon is an example, in fact I'd say it is the only thing that keeps us afloat. But an inexperienced player will most likely lose more than he wins. And like you said: SCE are comparatively easy to play and reasonably strong, which makes them great for beginners and up to mid tier. They rarely win at the highest levels because the tournament players are prepared for them and bring their strongest stuff, but otherwise they are quite strong.
It's the main reason why balancing around high level play is nearly always a bad idea. You can abuse the tournament meta to get some really unexpected results. It can be quite hilarious though
So many acronyms. I'm clearly not an AoS player. I can make out a few, but some a mystery (that would require a bit of detective work on my part on the GW site).
In the listed order :Slaanesh, Skaven, Tzeentch, Fyreslayers, Daughters of Khaine, Flesh Eater courts, Legions of Nagash, Idoneth deepkin, khorne, Sylvaneth, gloomspite, stormcast, Beasts of chaos, seraphone, Kharadron overlords, nurgle, nighthaut, gutbusters, beastclaw raiders, slaves to darkness.
Thank you good sir. The Flesh Eater Courts, Legions of Nagash, Beastcalw raiders and Slaves to Darkness had me scratching my head. It's funny how Slaves to Darkness are in the bottom tier, when their WFB equivalent (Warriors of Chaos) is in top tier over on the WFB tier list. It's nice to see the Daughters of Khaine kicking ass, they are one of my two favourite AoS armies.
Slaves to darkness suffer from not yet having a new battletome. Chaos proper is divided into their respective subfactions and those are all fairly decent. I guess that's also part of why the slaves of darkness don't do well, the individual gods just have moved far more into the spotlight than chaos undivided.
Bone people seem to be super strong statwise with some abilities that also seem increadible from what I've seen so far. Ogres seem to be fairly balanced, or even on the weak side, looking at just their stats and basic unit abilities. But their new allegainces abilities, spell lores etc. haven't really been shown enough. So it's rather dependent on how these turn out.
Is there one of these that you would say is the absolute best of the best, or are they relatively even with one another?
Tzeentch is probably the weakest of the lot as it's probably the one that allows for the least mistakes & really relies on only 1 trick (overwhelming ranged firepower) So the army can fall apart rather quickly. Slaanesh is probably one of the safest as it has a bunch of crowd control effects & super effecient summoning which can negate mistakes.
Agree. Slaanesh is very strong right now, possibly the strongest. Not that much better that it would be a tier of it's own, still noticeable.
Legion of azgorh from forge world is a playable army I have no idea where they would fit in the tierlist
Yeah I have never seen them on the table, and I don't even know anyone who has ever seen them. Judging by that, and by the fact they don't have allegiance abilities (AFAIK) I'd guess they are pretty weak. Probably the very bottom.