8th Edition Warhammer Fantasy Battles tier list!

[Scalenex]

I do like that TWW2 added the hippogryph knights as a unit, similar to the griffin-knights in the Empire.

Not sure what dino the Lizardmen could have added to make a monster-cav unit though? We got the t-rex already, we got the triceratops, got the velociraptor and ankylosaur, a thunder-lizard is too big and a spiked stegosaurus is too slow?

I homebrewed a very gimmicky monstrous cavalry called Lurkerdons. I don't know how practical Lurkerdons are, but it always bugged me that the Big Red Book laid out rules for Sea Creature and nothing in any of the army books has that rule. The only time I've seen something with Sea Creature was one monster in the Monstrous Arcanum which was a limited run Forge World supplement that was not tournament legal in most places.

Anyway, I decided Lurkerdons have the Sea Creature rule as well as Aquatic. They kind of look like the Mosasaurus.

The main difference is to make their flipper feet a little bit more like conventional feet. Sort of like a cross between a Mosasaurus and a crocodile. Lurkerdons prefer the water, and they are slower on land, but they are not helpless on land teh way a Mosasaurus would be. On the table top, they are powerful but slow. Unless there is a water feature nearby, in which case they are powerful and fast as long as part of their movement crosses a body of water.

So anyway, cross a Mosasaurus with a crocodile and either put a Saurus Warrior on it or maybe two or three Skinks in a mini-howdah and that's a Lurkerdon.

In my fluff pieces, Lurkerdons are a staple of Southlands army and a tiny specialized niche within the Lustrian armies pretty much only used for patrols in the Amaxon River.

 

[Killer Angel]

it always bugged me that the Big Red Book laid out rules for Sea Creature and nothing in any of the army books has that rule. The only time I've seen something with Sea Creature was one monster in the Monstrous Arcanum which was a limited run Forge World supplement that was not tournament legal in most places.

Eh, the main problem is how impractical would be to have sea creatures in a game which is land based.
Unless you run specific scenarios, they won't be ever used.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

Eh, the main problem is how impractical would be to have sea creatures in a game which is land based.
Unless you run specific scenarios, they won't be ever used.

I’ve been writing unofficial Fantasy rules for the Idoneth Deepkin as a revival of ‘Sea Elves’, and as one of their special rules I’ve brought in the AoS Ethersea mechanic in a way that’s been altered for Warhammer Fantasy. Basically the Sea Elf player marks a line 12” or so parallel to the line marking their deployment area called the tidemark, and all of the board behind this line has been flooded by the ocean (and is treated as a Raging Torrent River). The Sea Elf army has the opportunity to push this tidemark further up the battlefield during the game with their magic lore’s signature spell, and while enemy units in this area are affected by all the rules for a Raging Torrent River, the Sea Elf Sea Creature units are completely unaffected.

So it is possible for the Sea Creature rule to have a significant effect on a significant models in a non-scenario game, but it would require some unofficial rules writing like mine.

Also I’m surprised the Kharibdyss was not given the Sea Creature rule even though it is clearly a Sea Creature in lore.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Just wondering, what ruleset are you using for Chaos Dwarfs to determine them as middle tier?

Legion of Azgorh from the FW Tamurkhan - The Throne of Chaos book.

Where would you rank them?

I’ll have to read Tamurkhan first and see

Just curious, did you ever get around to reading it? Any updates on where you would rank the Chaos Dwarfs?

 

[Lizards of Renown]

Eh, the main problem is how impractical would be to have sea creatures in a game which is land based.
Unless you run specific scenarios, they won't be ever used.

The funny thing is that there is a special rule for creatures that live in the sea. I forget what it's called, but there's literally no model that has it!

@NIGHTBRINGER I need to do my review on the tiers list, I'll try do that tonight.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

The funny thing is that there is a special rule for creatures that live in the sea. I forget what it's called, but there's literally no model that has it!

That’s what we’ve been talking about matey, read @Scalenex’s post at the top of the thread first, that’s what spawned the posts from @Killer Angel and me about the rule later on.

Come on, come on, keep up with the hunt

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[Knoffles]

I quite liked this list (even if not agreeing with it entirely) and it does raise a good point in clarifying how you are rating a tier list. For instance, Daemons have some incredibly strong builds but also have some AB entries that are less than stellar.
I’ve always said that dwarves have very few unusable options in their book but does that make them top tier or does it just mean the book is just internally balanced? I’d go with the latter. That’s not to say they are weak by any means.
The comparisons listing compiled earlier in this thread was very interesting. It would have also have been useful to see what dates they were put together (as it we then could have seen which lists contained, now, outdated books). I suspect the lists with wood elves rated as bottom tier, were done before the new book came out.
Im not saying there is a right or wrong answer to list rating just it’s good to put context into how your ratings are put together.
I’m quite a fan of how internally balanced a book is. Is everything useable vs other options, taking into account their points values. It’s for this reason I normally rate Beastmen lower down. In itself, most of the army is actually quite useable and pretty effective, it’s just the point values are appalling (access to marks would also help).

 

[Killer Angel]

I quite liked this list (even if not agreeing with it entirely) and it does raise a good point in clarifying how you are rating a tier list. For instance, Daemons have some incredibly strong builds but also have some AB entries that are less than stellar.
I’ve always said that dwarves have very few unusable options in their book but does that make them top tier or does it just mean the book is just internally balanced? I’d go with the latter. That’s not to say they are weak by any means.
The comparisons listing compiled earlier in this thread was very interesting. It would have also have been useful to see what dates they were put together (as it we then could have seen which lists contained, now, outdated books). I suspect the lists with wood elves rated as bottom tier, were done before the new book came out.
Im not saying there is a right or wrong answer to list rating just it’s good to put context into how your ratings are put together.
I’m quite a fan of how internally balanced a book is. Is everything useable vs other options, taking into account their points values. It’s for this reason I normally rate Beastmen lower down. In itself, most of the army is actually quite useable and pretty effective, it’s just the point values are appalling (access to marks would also help).

Welcome to LO, @Knoffles !

should i take for granted you're still fully into WHFB, or do you play also AoS?

 

[Lizards of Renown]

I quite liked this list (even if not agreeing with it entirely) and it does raise a good point in clarifying how you are rating a tier list. For instance, Daemons have some incredibly strong builds but also have some AB entries that are less than stellar.
I’ve always said that dwarves have very few unusable options in their book but does that make them top tier or does it just mean the book is just internally balanced? I’d go with the latter. That’s not to say they are weak by any means.
The comparisons listing compiled earlier in this thread was very interesting. It would have also have been useful to see what dates they were put together (as it we then could have seen which lists contained, now, outdated books). I suspect the lists with wood elves rated as bottom tier, were done before the new book came out.
Im not saying there is a right or wrong answer to list rating just it’s good to put context into how your ratings are put together.
I’m quite a fan of how internally balanced a book is. Is everything useable vs other options, taking into account their points values. It’s for this reason I normally rate Beastmen lower down. In itself, most of the army is actually quite useable and pretty effective, it’s just the point values are appalling (access to marks would also help).

Another Knight of Eight joins us!

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

The comparisons listing compiled earlier in this thread was very interesting. It would have also have been useful to see what dates they were put together (as it we then could have seen which lists contained, now, outdated books). I suspect the lists with wood elves rated as bottom tier, were done before the new book came out.

Do you mean on what date that people submitted their rankings? All of these were submitted 4+ years past the end of WFB.


I think the Wood Elves are the most variable army in terms of perceived power level. This is likely a byproduct of the army's high skill requirement. In the hands of a master general, the Wood Elves are one of the very best books in the game, but in the hands of a novice, they can appear to be very lackluster and underpowered. They simply function very differently from any other army in Warhammer.

 

[Killer Angel]

Do you mean on what date that people submitted their rankings? All of these were submitted 4+ years past the end of WFB.


I think the Wood Elves are the most variable army in terms of perceived power level. This is likely a byproduct of the army's high skill requirement. In the hands of a master general, the Wood Elves are one of the very best books in the game, but in the hands of a novice, they can appear to be very lackluster and underpowered. They simply function very differently from any other army in Warhammer.

Yeah, WE are many things, but not a friendly beginner army. They require finesse and experience.

 

[Knoffles]

Welcome to LO, @Knoffles !

should i take for granted you're still fully into WHFB, or do you play also AoS?

Thanks Killer. Yep WHFB through and through. I’ve been a loiterer of the forum for many years, not quite such why I’ve never posted but mainly hang out on the EEFL forum pestering Nightbringer and Lizards . I recently had the joy of putting on a just under 20k demonstration game at the club show and it went down really well with loads of former whfb players congregating round.

@NIGHTBRINGER cheers for the clarification on the lists. I wouldn’t have clicked on they were all so recent! I guess it shows how much perception and personal experience can come into play. As ever love the effort you put into putting these things together.

 

[Lizards of Renown]

Thanks Killer. Yep WHFB through and through. I’ve been a loiterer of the forum for many years, not quite such why I’ve never posted but mainly hang out on the EEFL forum pestering Nightbringer and Lizards . I recently had the joy of putting on a just under 20k demonstration game at the club show and it went down really well with loads of former whfb players congregating round.

@NIGHTBRINGER cheers for the clarification on the lists. I wouldn’t have clicked on they were all so recent! I guess it shows how much perception and personal experience can come into play. As ever love the effort you put into putting these things together.

Be welcome, good sir. Although primarily the home of the Lizards, we have a slowly blossoming "other armies" section which we'd love to have your input on!

 

[Knoffles]

Be welcome, good sir. Although primarily the home of the Lizards, we have a slowly blossoming "other armies" section which we'd love to have your input on!

I’ll happily port over the army reviews and tactics that I put together on EEFL.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Although primarily the home of the Lizards, we have a slowly blossoming "other armies" section which we'd love to have your input on!

I wholeheartedly agree. @Knoffles come join in on the fun. You'll find that this forum is much more convenient to use that EEFL. Multi-quoting and adding pictures are completely intuitive and simple. Pictures can be posted directly to the body of your text (either from your computer hard drive or just copy and pasting them).

 

[Killer Angel]

I’ll happily port over the army reviews and tactics that I put together on EEFL.

That would be just great!