Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
For a while now a lot of people at my store have been going off this European warhammer tier system for Warhammer FB. Basically all the armies are put into tiers, from 1, being the best, 2 being mid class, and 3 being the worst. basically Undead and Deamons are tier one, meaning in most tournament which are 2000 points you get a 2000 point army to play, tier two armies, not sure which one exactly, but mainly most of the not so outdated book have an extra 250 points they can add to there army, and tier 3 armies, pretty much all the old books, orcs and goblins, tomb kings, ogres, they get an additional 500 points to there army size.
I was wondering what you guys thought of this system, and if you think it is fair at all? Also if any other people on the forums have heard about these rules, and also some of the more extreme tournament rules they are playing with in Europe.
I can't really comment on this much, I am nowhere near Europe.
What I will say is that 3 tiers doesn't seem enough, I think that 5 would be more appropriate and DE should be tier 1 with VC and Daemons.
To me it seems a reasonably open way in which to start judging army composition. At the end of the day this has to be a slightly biased process, coloured in some way by the person's experiences with Warhammer. If you have a completely open situation then you lave room for that to be exploited as well.
I think if you make some things clear eg. army tier and then have some things hidden there is a better chance that someone playing will write a fairish list and lists that do go over board can lose those composition points. As long as the judge can back up their decision with sound reasons (if asked for) there shouldn't be too many problems.
no one else has any thought on this?
to be honest i think 3 tiers is enough, otherwise things get to complicated, and also in some tier system DE are a tier 1 list, I find it odd that there is no universal tier system.
but anyways, does anyone else have any thoughts on it?
I basically think this is a terrible system. It's not the worst "comp" system I've seen for fantasy, but it's still basically bad. It's a shame that fantasy armies aren't sufficiently well balanced against each other for a competitive tournament to work, but ham-handed solutions like this one don't really help.
If people can't come to grips with the imbalance of fantasy, they should stop playing in tournaments. If you want to play in tournaments, you should be prepared to deal with the imbalances that exist.
Once again, the conservative, sandwich-heavy portfolio pays off for the hungry investor!