Blood, Sweat, and Tiers

The rallying cry of gamers everywhere "that's so over powered" or "that's broken and you know it you filthy cheese head". As someone who plays a variety of gaming systems I'd like to take a minute to talk about how I view the ideas of power-gaming and gaming meta. I think Fantasy is probably the system where I'm the most familiar/the most prominent discussion of tiers tends to go on. A lot of people throw around lists that look something like this:


Top
Dark Elves
Skaven
Ogres

Empire


Upper Middle
Daemons
High Elves
Vampire Counts
Warriors of Chaos

Lower Middle
Brettonians
Dwarfs
Lizardmen
Orcs
Tomb Kings

Lowest
Beastmen
Wood Elves


While I don't completely agree with the list, I think the ideas present in it are pretty solid. Up top we have some armies that do a multitude of things very well and also have something they do very very well. For example, Skaven have shooty elements, solid magic, some movement shenanigans, and some half decent combaty units. What they excel in is bringing the most bodies to any given game along side some really power single models like hellpits and doomwheels. Middle tier armies have something they do well, but aren't as well rounded. Warriors of Chaos are probably the best melee oriented army in Fantasy, but when it comes to shooting they're virtually non-existent. Lower tiers struggle to do one thing well. While Wood Elves may be centered around shooting, one could easily argue that Empire has a better shooting phase.


Having played Skaven for a long time I understand some of the reasons why playing against them can be frustrating or seem unfair. I also play Beastmen a good bit of the time and I think the challenge to play against higher tier armies is sort of fun. In a way limiting your tool box to only the essentials (or even less than that) really challenges you to learn how to maximize your strategic decisions. Beastmen are an army that need their general to make lots of smart decisions and have a few moments of sheer luck. On the other hand, I would argue that anyone could learn to play Skaven in a few minutes. They are very forgiving and can easily compensate for bad strategy with the armies natural strengths.


I think this idea of tiers is present in other game systems and from now on we'll be talking more exclusively about what is good and what is not. Recently I played in the Finals for the Alabama Cage Match, a 40k tournament. I brought a list that was Dark Eldar Primary with Eldar (and Coteaz) Allies. While I think the list I brought was fairly strong, I don't think in terms of overall crunch that it's comparable to lists like Ovesa star with 4 riptides, the Ravenwing banner spam, or Flying Circus. This is to say that we don't see a lot of Dark Eldar Primaries finishing in top spots in tournaments like NOVA or the Las Vegas Open (where seer council with 4 waveserpents won). Sure some armies have elements of Dark Eldar in them but I think on the whole its safe to say that other armies are "Stronger". I played against a ravenwing list and won, necron air and won, but lost to the Daemons flying Circus. Some of this is just due to not having tools to deal with it. It's also due to luck and the fact that I played some very competent opponents. I think it indicates that if you bring an army that isn't top table, while you may win some games, you might not have the tools to deal with every opponent that you play.


To jump to one final game system, I also play Warmachine Hordes. I'm very conflicted about what to play in Hordes. I started off as a Skorne player and I still own the most models for them, as well as probably spending the most time playing with them. I do own just enough Legion of Everblight to have 2 50 point lists and one small 35 point (with some re-usage of models). I picked up a single caster and battlebox to paint because I thought they looked cool. After playing a few games I was instantly hooked on their play-style. In place of a grinding, militaristic game plan like I used with my Skorne, here was an army that rewards brutal alpha strikes and some cunning manipulation of special rules. On paper, a comparison between a faction built around solid stat-lines and some synergy against one wrought with special rules and game altering special abilities seems unfair. I think the common opinion is that Legion is a much more powerful faction that Skorne, but I don't think I agree with that. I think Skorne is a faction that is as much about overcoming one's self as it is the enemy. Sure the fluff supports such a distinction, but I think in terms of overall game-play Skorne requires a player to not only be methodical in their dealing with the enemy, but with their own units.


I think in the ideal world all game systems would be balanced and there wouldn't be contest between factions in terms of which is the "most powerful". Everyone wants to see the models they spent money on and time to paint do well. Nobody I know write a losing narrative for their armies while dreaming about how cool a "real" battle between them and their nondescript enemies would be. Sure some people like to play the Underdog army, but I think its more than that. I think some people come to the table with the mentality that they are going to try and play a better game than they did last year. Perhaps even more far-fetched is the person who comes to the gaming table knowing they they could have bought a new army, a better army, but instead they chose to play with models they love and have shown love to. Even in a tournament setting I think there is room for someone to make the best of what they can and realize that while it may not win tournaments, it may not even win games, playing the best game you can and hoping for that little bit of luck goes a long way. I've made the conscious effort to attempt to be a better general, a better sport, and to realize that the person with the overpowered army might just love their models for fluff, for their looks, and for things other than the deep seated rage they make me feel about game balance and I hope you will too.