7th Ed. Army rankings in 8th edition

With the coming of the new rules some armies are just more overpowered than others and this has changed since the last one. Here is a list of what a few of my friends and I came up with for the army rankings for tournaments and such.

1 and 2. Skaven/Dwarves With the new step up rule in close combat massive cheap skaven units will be unbeatable and now that stone throwers are more accurate and you can shoot through forests as well as in two ranks; Dwarves will be one of the top two armies to beat.

3. Lizardmen I am very happy to say that lizardmen are now the top three army. Saurus warriors are arguably the best combat troops for the points. Now that they can step up they will be unbeatable in combat. The slann is also very powerful with the new levels of all spells and the carnosaur and stegadon are horrifyingly mean with thunderstomp.

4. Warriors of Chaos Warriors are number 4 because of the combat blocks that make up their army and their magic that will be even more powerful now. Unfortunately for all of us we wont be seeing many chaos knights any more (Whooo hooo!!)

5 and 6. Dark Elves/High Elves It is a toss up between these two armies right now. Both have powerful magic that will be better now but expensive, low toughness and armour troops are holding them back.

7. Ogre Kingdoms Now that ogres can fight in two ranks and stomp they are very very mean in close combat. Even meaner than before. Along with massive knoblar blocks ogres are going to be very strong.

8. Orcs and Goblins I think that we will be seeing a lot of all goblin armies supported by many goblin war machines. For this reason alone Orcs and Goblins have gotten better.

9. Empire Empire have gotten slighly better because of their shooting being improved. Their troops remain the same as well as magic and monsters, etc.

10. Beastmen Beastmen are about the same. Their combat is okay but now minotaurs will be better now that they can stomp.

11. Wood Elves Because skirmishers really dont do anything anymore wood elves are not really a competitive army. Their shooting got a boost but now that dryads, wardancers, etc. no longer do anything they are not really a strong army.

12. Tomb Kings/ Vampire Counts I am not really sure about these two armies because rumor has it that they are going to be getting very mean new magic lores in the FAQ errata.

13. Daemons Daemons took a huge dive in the new edition. Their characters are now easily stopped with cannons, stone throwers, etc. Their troops are too expensive to have a hoard and not strong enough to stand up to the units of other armies right now.

14. Brettonia With the new rules for cavalry Brettonia are hardly even worth playing. Hopefully they will get a boost from the FAQ

Well there it is. Feel free to comment and dispute!

 

certenly not. match them with chaos marauders with great weapons. the cost of them is 5 pt versus 12 pts and they outmacth saurus in I (saurus I1 marauders I4) in S (saurus S4, marauders S5 (S3 +2 from GW)) in WS (marauders WS4 Saurus WS 3). make some calculations and you will see that marauders totaly outclass Saurus warriors. (with this thing im bothered the most, that cheap units will outclass good ones, totaly unreal).

 

VC, TK and DoC took a hit from the Fear rule, but are far from cellar dwellers. Daemon lists will perhaps start to look different, but will still be plenty viable. I am a long time VC player, and though they took a hit on Fear, their options for SCR are still pretty good, and Ghouls are going to be real nasty.

VC get to duplicate IoN and Vanhel's so that nastiness remains, and while their overall army I isn't great, the vampires themselves are going to be disgusting.

Dwarves are not going to be a top tier army unless I am missing something huge. The boost to magic and common magic items is amazing, and they don't get to play with them.

Edit: As an aside, while I enjoy discussions of this nature, we're really aiming blind until we know what the army erratas will address.

Lizards will be good, I think, but with our big nasties not breaking ranks along with CoC, our game has to adjust. Sallies are awesome now, and Kroxes got a boost, but I am not sold yet on Saurus being the end-all be-all just yet.

I do kindof hope VCs get interpreted as being crap, though. I am gonna be needing some cheap Ghouls.

 

Maruaders can take great weapons?? Thats sick!

And Crovan. Name something that can make across the board in one piece agaisnt a dwarf shooting line with canons, bolt throwers, stone throwers that can shoot anything (they dont have to see it now), thunderers that can shoot in two ranks all the time, and everything with runes on it so it counts as magical. Dwarves can destroy monsters, units, other shooting, and most magicians. The slann is one of the only ones with a chance to survive but it would be heavily upgraded. As for the magic. Dwarves have a good defence. They always get a large amount of dispel dice with the new rules. Plus they can shoot anything that is a threat

Like I said though, I wasnt sure about Tomb Kings or Vampires. They could still be good

As for daemons, the only thing I can see that would be mean is hordes of Horrors along with fiends that could not potentially charge 22 inches

 

They were better in 7th since if they charged they got to swing first. Now great weapons are ASL, so their Initiative being 4 has no bearing, saurus will still swing first. If you want marauders to be solid they will end being 7 points(granted still pretty cheap) with a shield and LA, otherwise they will go down to fast.

 

Walgis: Marauders may be able to take great weapons but saurus still have more attacks and an armour save against the maurauders. Saurus go first because marauders have great weapons. They hit with about half so about 10 hits and then about 7 wounds after that. That is 7 dead mauraders.
Now marauders hit back with 11 attacks wounding with around 7. Then they go to wound and wound with another 4 or 5. The saurus now have a 6 up save and save probably 1. That is four dead saurus.

We are talking about units of 20 here:

The saurus did 7 wounds, have 3 ranks, a banner, and outnumber giving them a combat res of 12

The marauders did 4 wounds, have 3 ranks, and a banner giving them a combat res of 8
Now they have to take a test at -4. They are not likely to pass.

Saurus are still superior.

 

Ok, this is just ridiculous. Great weapon wielding Marauders always strike last, but with stepping up that won't always be so big an issue. I'm going to take the WS and S stats you gave us as I don't have the WoC book handy. Let's start wielding the maths here:

assuming we have enough Saurus for 3 ranks of fighting:
24 attacks, half hit, 2/3 wound, no AS left => 8 dead
10 attacks back, 2/3 hits, 2/3 wound, 6+ save left => 3.7 dead

I honestly don't see what you're whining about, Saurus Warriors are beating those Marauders into the ground more than twice as fast as the other way around. Enough said.

 

Add in their vulnerability it missile fire and it's not even a contest. T3 and 2 extra points for a 5+ save really brings them into line, skinks can have a field day whittling them down. I take life on my Slann, and it's 6th spell can cut down hordes of them in one turn (each model must pass a str test (base value) or be removed from the game.) Other lores have horde removal spells as well.

If they reach your lines untouched you're doing something wrong, so it really balances out in the end.

 

The game isn't just about marching all the way across the field and smacking your opponent any more. I'll have to look through all the scenarios, but word is at least one involves objectives. Also, what about the HE? Their shooting will be plenty nasty, and things like Heavens and Life will help melee armies. Magic is nastier than it had been since I started WFB.I still think the point stands that without knowing what potentially major changes each army is getting, it's rather premature to rank then with any real certainty.

 

Yes that is true about the scenarios. I forgot about that. But still, there is not much dwarves cannot kill while their slow combat troop meander over to the objective. Very little can stand up to a Dwarf gunline without being seriously wounded or killed outright.
Im not saying this because I like dwarves or play them. I hate dwarves and I think it sucks that they are seemingly so overpowered.

Sorry for being "premature" I was just having a discussion with my friends and thought I would share our thoughts.

Nothing is for sure until the FAQ comes out but from the looks of things some of this stuff is pretty obvious

 

Ok, Dwarves overpowered?
I just have to check this out... In a good way, but I'm very critical when it comes to (my) dwarves being overpowered.

Sooo, let's see:
-No magic
-No 'core' magic items
-M3
Hm, not thát good maybe?

BUT:
Very good Ld, T4 across the board, good armour saves across the board, powerfull war machines, decent characters.

Let me just emphasize on the most important part of the game (IMHO) :
MOVEMENT.
Dwarves have M3, across the board, skinks move double that. His units might be steadily marching towards the objective, but if they reach any form of terrain at all: they're screwed.
If they don't reach any form of terrain at all, you can (probably) redirect them.
If they don't reach any form of terrain at all, and you cannot redirect them,
you can stall them by entering close combat.
If all that still fails to work: try magic.

If all that fails: try a different army list.

Honestly, I've played dwarves but I never really enjoyed them; the low movement is really boring. And it is by far their weakest asset. Sure they can defend a flank with a board edge, and the other with a stubborn unit and some guns...
You can go around them, in between them, over them, under them....wait...
Well, you get the point .

A dwarven gunline cannot reach their objectives. A dwarven gunline needs to see what it's shooting (yes yes, TLoS helps). A dwarven gunline fails utterly in close combat. A dwarven gunline is extremely boring.

So, I do not agree with you that dwarves are overpowered. They are surely getting a big boost, and will end up in the sub-top as a tough army to beat. Nothing more.
M3 will pretty much always prevent them from getting to Tier1. And not all dwarven armies are gunlines.
In fact, there is something as a Dwarven Horde (140+ dwarves!). Look it up on the Brewery, it's scary.

Note:
Everybody has their own opinions about the game, about what is (over)powerfull and what not. Everybody has a different playing style. Please remember this and also take it into consideration. I just explained why I don't agree with Dwarves being highly powerfull. Thank you for reading this.

The Hunted

 

dwarves are still far from overpowered.

 

I don't know about any of the other armies, but I wasn't too impressed with the saurus in the 2000 point 8th edition game I played. Initiative 1 is a killer, now more than ever; too bad our saurus can't take great weapons...

 

You gotta take spares, initiative only matters if it removes people from the fight, otherwise who gives a darn. I honestly think we'll see MORE great weapons in 8th edition because 30 marauders with GW can be confident in getting their 10-11 attack if they are in a big column, even if they get charged.

 

Yes, but that big column is more vulnerable to everything that's not a frontal charge. That's the counter-balance. Flank/rear charges still eat them alive, ditto anything with a template, and they'll be hard-pressed to maneuver fast enough to counter any of it.

 

you didint get the big picture about marauders.
lets say we have a 50 marauder unit with great weapons that is 250 pts.
how many saurus can we get with 250 pts? 20 spears or 22 hand wep and shield.

marauders are definetly in a horde unit. spears 5 in 4 ranks the same with hand wep.

spears atack first :
20 atacks 10 hit 6,6 wounds
hand wep 15 atacks 7,5 hit 5 wounds

marauders step up and get

7 may atck in first line 7 in second and 7 for horde thats 21 atack 14 hit 9,3 wounds than armour save -2 so about 5,5 wounds

all in all marauders do ~2 wounds less but they are double of saurus so they dont care.

the moral is that marauders do less damage but they cost a LOT cheaper. that makes them killer. if great weps woud fight in one rank only that would be normal but now they fight in 3 ranks!!!
they have to lose 20 marauders to lessen theyre atacks saurus needs to lose 5 to lose atacks (thats for 250 pts). i didnt even consider mark of nurgle wich will totaly boost marauders even more.

marauders power is what they get for theyre cost and thats a lot.

to compare the prise skinks 5 pts and marauders GW 5 pts marauders win in every posible way. jav throwing doesnt help nor does the poisoned atacks nor does aquatic (i have never used this rule). WS 2 T 2 LD 6 thats realy bad. althought i would like to see skinks with GW that would look haliariuos

IMHO 8 ed should be realised with all other army books to balance everything becouse now the rules change drasticaly and alot of things will point out thats redicilous something like marauders beating saurus to a pulp...

 

I think the point the rest of us are making, Walgis, is that any one of us can twist the numbers to "prove" anything we want.

I could put down a mathematically sound argument for why Skeletons are better than Saurus... but that math would only exist in a vacuum, wheras the game does not. In a perfect world, maybe Marauders are better than Saurus in every way... but fortunately for the Saurus, we don't play this game in a hermetically-sealed bottle. There are a multitude other factors, both mathematical and not, that can affect the outcome of the fight that you are choosing to ignore for the purposes of your "proof."

Also remember that unit costs are considered within a single army book, not across the game as a whole. Comparing direct point values with effectiveness in a canned situation is pointless unless the two units are part of the same army, because the game isn't designed that way. It's generally agreed that certain units are too expensive for their value (Wood Elf Eternal Guard spring to mind) and that others are a bargain for their effectiveness, but remember that even that changes over time -in the closing days of 6th Edition, dwarf infantry was considered to be the standard by which awesome under-costed infantry was judged. That book hasn't changed, but WoC and Skaven have changed the standard so that today dwarf warriors are kinda gimpy and a little expensive for what they do.

In the end, if a Chaos player wants to take a horde of GW Marauders up against my lizards, I say bring it on, because one block of Saurus or Skrox into his flank routs that giant pile of VPs.

 

If my WoC playing friend doesn't restart his skaven (doesn't matter, it's the same solution anyway) I'll gladly trade some things for skinks to use as handlers for my Salamanders. They would be very eager to meet their new 'friends'.

250pt of Marauder=3 Salamanders with 4 handlers each with 10p to spare.

The salamanders are way faster than the marauders (march&shoot) and odds are that they'll toast any marauder so much as flexing at them in less than a blink of an eye.
Not to mention how 240pt for those 3 chilli-lizards is not even 1/8 (12,5%) of a 2k army's point cost, so you could easily have another group of chilli-lizards. Or split them up and have 6 chilli-lizards boasting 4 handlers each scooting around.

Cheers!

 

Yep, I think big block of cheap hard hitting infantry would wear down saurus block. But one notion that is important in 8th is that they are more vulnerable than ever to shooting (wether regular shooting, artillery or magical). As Straylight pointed out, a game is never a place where a unit faces off to another in a void. Those marauder will have to cross the field while sallies drop templates on them (no partials, 2-3 templates, that a big chunk of 50 marauders gone!) and while a Slaan pounds them. Overall, I think that elite infantry like Saurus will be more resilient and be able to bring a stronger force to bear when actual hand-to-hand gets started in turns 2-5.

But then again, this is a whole new game, so we'll have to wait for battle reports to come in!

Phil

 

Walgis, you should stop freaking out here. I've played versus the aforementioned big, dumb block of Marauders. It's not all it's cracked up to be. Hordes may seem unbeatable, but they have severe weaknesses too. First off that block of 50 marauders, 10-wide, with its mighty M4, can't maneuver to save its life (literally). You also forgot to mention that vs Saurus, they are T3 vs T4, and are LD7 vs LD8, cold-blooded. While they do get to re-roll panic checks, they will require baby-sitting from a hero, BSB, and/or the General.

They also pretty much require MoN, shields, and/or light armor to survive from shooting, which pushes them from 5 pts/model up to 7-8pts/model. Even with those measures, our army has numerous counters for them. Here's a list off the top of my head:

-Sallies don't care about any of their defensive measures, can easily outmaneuver almost the whole Chaos army, and almost can't miss with how big that unit is gonna be. Hit 20+guys, kill on 4s? Yes please.

-Almost every rulebook lore has at least 1 spell which can completely ruin a block like this. Specifically the Lore of Metal's final transmutation, and the lore of life's dwellers below.

-LM have far better access to the rulebook lores, which have amazing Augs and hexes, which could turn even a block of Skinks into an unstoppable killing machine(T6 skinks? holy carp!)

-skinks in the flanks, nuff said.

-hell, stegs in the flanks would work wonders too, considering they would only have 3-4 GW attacks at the steggy.

-In a 1-for-1 fight, a mid-size Saurus unit will cream these guys(16-20, 6x3 or 7x3, HW+shield only)...it's the job of magic and shooting to make that situation the case, and that's not hard to achieve with our magic and our shooting.

We've got plenty of tools to deal with these bozos. Honestly, I'm less worried about them than I am about mid-size blocks of chaos warriors, as they cost about the same, and are much more difficult to deal with.