Warband Tier List - Seasons 1 to 3

[@jasondeberry3353]

I agree with all of these. While I would move them around due to personal preference, I understand your points and can see why the warbands are ranked the way they are. Great Videos!

[@wtfhammer9160]

Awesome! Happy you like it!

[@alexssj9731]

I agree with the tier list, however, I think rippa's snarlfangs has his place in a better rank in A and maybe in S! It's very aggressive and difficult to return in the game if the this band is well played! It's just my opinion but the video was great! Thank you! A little comment from France 👌

[@wtfhammer9160]

Appreciate the feedback

[@НиколайГрыжок]

Very informative warbands description. But can u please explain difference between Tiers? For example, how big winrate advantage between warbands D and warbands S tier or A and B. If lvl of the players is the same and above average. Thank you!

[@wtfhammer9160]

This is pretty subjective, so hard to put quantitative data down like win %. I organized it as S = always powerful, A = reliable, B = can be effective, C = not reliable, kinda bad, D = unlikely to be successful. D would lose to S almost all of the time across all metas. The differences decrease as you move through tiers, and within a tier.

[@НиколайГрыжок]

@@wtfhammer9160 ty for answer

[@JoltikChanel]

Nice video! What do you think about Direchasm warbands? Where would you put them?

[@wtfhammer9160]

Haven't had a chance to really look them over or play them yet. I will continue my review series with them soon in a couple of weeks though, and will place them then.

[@lorenzomarzocchi3390]

Great review, thanks! The only thing I do not necessarily agree with is Godsworn Hunt being so deep down in the ranking...IMHO, they're better than Garrek's Reavers at being glass cannons in any possible way. Their inspire mechanic is one of the easiest, more controllable in the game. Just equip in the power step before your next attack, do a ton of damage, then you can die happily. OR save your life with the only faction-specific lifesaver ploy left in the game. I mean, they're even better than Blade Coven as far as flexibility with ranged attacks. They're very meta-depending since their faction objectives are not that good, but they can do A LOT of stuff with the right universal cards ; )

[@wtfhammer9160]

Fair argument. My main gripe is their lack of focus, their squishiness, and the fact that only few units will inspire (and gain very minor gains from inspiring). For these reasons I put Garrek's and Blade-Coven ahead of them. But, this is all opinion. thanks for the feedback :)

[@asterionlibre6748]

Excellent Job. I'm New to this Game and all your videos have been really helpful! 😎👌

[@wtfhammer9160]

Happy they're helpful!

[@asterionlibre6748]

@@wtfhammer9160 a Lot! Greetings from México! 🤟😎

[@meowkasa2046]

New to this game. So you mean the warbands from the old seasons are still worth getting even when Season 4 is out?

[@wtfhammer9160]

It depends. They are basically out-matched (highest ranking season 1 warband is a B in my opinion). There are still strong Seaosn 2 warbands (Stormsire's Cursebreakers, Thorns of the Briar Queen and Thundrik's Profiteers). However, all Season 1 and 2 content is out of print so could be hard to get your hands on it. You can buy most miniatures through Age of Sigmar miniature game on the Games Workshop website, but the cards are no longer available. You might get lucky and find spares lying around Ebay or at gaming stores. Getting all warbands would mostly be for the sake of completing the collection.

[@OscarDataTech]

Great Content mate! Thank you a lot!

[@JohnSmith-zj6gy]

Okay so I watched your video a few times, and there is things with which I agree, and others which with I don't. Here : - Eyes of the Nine should be C, not D. They're far better than the Ironskullz, and they've been in almost every meta since they came out. Since you're trying to give a rank depending on how well warband performed through the different meta, it doesn't make sense to me to but them behind. They're less one-trick since you have the objective version, the passive control and the magic one (the katophrane Tzeentch was once insanely powerful but not anymore) and overall better and more stable than the Boyz. - Ironskullz should be D imo. Ironjaws hitting with 2 sword for 1 damage is just ridiculous, they don't have much push or anything and they've never done well since season 1, because there's always been someone else doing the same thing than them but better. Aggro ? Magore was better. Defensive ? Steelheart was better. Passive ? Skavens were better. Objective ? This was suboptimal but almost okay at the beginning of Beastgrave, but vanished when Ghouls and Rippa came out. - Kinda agree with the rest of your ranking until Magore. You say that "Magore lacks versatility." Like... what ? No. Riptooth is the only doggo able to hold objectives, Garthok can't be driven back and litteraly sits on an objective the whole game. Hold objective Magore was not good in Shadespire/Nightvault but is really decent since Beastgrave came out, and all the "hold two" options. Passive Magore is actually really scary for a lot of matchups, because boosting your defense doesn't help since they won't hit you, and whenever you try to disturb them, they can hit pretty damn hard to punish you trying to fuck them up. Passive Magore is more stable, less dice dependent and way more stable since the beginning of Beastgrave (which is almost half of the warband's lifetime) - Garrek. Once again, if you're trying to rank the bands depending on how well they've been doing throughout the metas, there's no way that Garrek comes on top of Magore. They are, and have always been not that good in aggro despite having all their cards trying to drive them into a really aggressive playstyle... it doesn't work. The control version is actually decent, but pretty gimmick and looks pretty much like a Skaven deck, except you can't revive your guys. - Ylthari. Since they came out at the end of Nightvault, there has been imo three "major" metas : control/magic at the end of Nightvault, objectives during Beastgrave, and passive/draw to conclude Beastgrave. And Surprisingly Ylthari were doing good in 2 of those 3, so I'm not sure why they are B and not like A- or smth, but it's just me being annoying and I understand your point. - I would have swapped Beastmen and Skavs. Skavens have always (and still are) really strong and tricky to play against and to counter, while Beastmen are not. You got surprised the first few times, and then reading them is pretty easy. Beastmen only have 2 interesting models being Cow Guy and the Boss, but Cow Guy not being a hunter hurts, and the others are really squishy... plus they lost Shortcut that was auto-include in every beastmen decks, and it hurts a bit... I think flex Skaven is more stable and harder to play against. (Maybe because I've been doing really well with it since season 2) - Blade Coven. How the f*** are they in A ? Above Magore, Skritch and Grashrak ?! No way. Right now, they're forced into aggro playstyle without having either the damages or the tankiness of a good aggro. They're glass cannon af and need to kill to have a bit more chance not to die after there first charge. You said that Khamyss can be really scary with Combo... But she's 2HP with 1 dodge ! She'll just get one-shoted every single game when you'll start to upgrade her. Litterally every warband in the game have a way to do 2 damages in 1 activation, and I'm not even considering lethal hexes that are a true pain to this warband.I feel like they would need Kyrae (the naga girl) to be on 4 wounds, and Khamyss to be on 3, to be at least a bit competitive, right now they're just not good. And once again, based on what you said, you tried to give ranks depending on how well warbands have performed through the metas, but Blade Coven have not achieve anything since they came out ! So I really don't get how they're this high into the list... - I agree with you on Mollog's ranking. However, I feel like saying that he is "heavily aggressive and lacks versatility" is a HUGE mistake. Aggro Mollog is scary, but always had trouble since the release because 2 hammers is a good attack, without being insane. Especially since 2 dodges became a really common thing with the end of Nightvault and then Beastgrave (2H vs 2D is 47% win for the record). The most scary and powerful Mollog deck that we've seen so far were all passive decks. Katophrane Mollog was an absolute nightmare during season 2 before the double Longstrider got restricted. And all the control-bitchy Tome of Glory Mollog were really scary and helal powerful during season 2. And the reason why Mollog completely disappeared at the beginning of seasons 3 is because he didn't had anymore draw tech to be passive and just sit in a corner and wait. This is also why he came back stronger than ever at the end of Beastgrave with all the draw/passive meta and the Ur-Grub. - I've played Cursebreakers and Morgok's Krusha a lot (like really... a lot) and I think that Morgok is overall better than Cursebreakers because you have no need of rolling dice. If Stormsire can't cast there spells, and goes just rolls for siphon instead of bolts the whole game, they're fucked and can't do anything. While Morgok doesn't have the weakness. They just have to move around, take two objectives kinda like Magore and sometime throw a punch, and they score easily 15+ points. But once again, I guess it's almost personal opinion at this point. - Finally, I don't know when you recored this video, and I would have 100% agreed with your S tier a few weeks back, but now that Thorns got nerfed af (getting Howling Vortex and Treacherous Foe restricted is hella annoying for them) with the last restricted list, I think they're back to A+ or A alongside with Zarbag. Overall I like your videos in general, and I think offering a tier list like this is really cool and helpful for beginners n shit, and as you said it opens a lot of discussions. But I feel like you forgot passive play quite a bit, which is okay because most people do tbh x) Hope I've not been too annoying or anything because that's a fkin long comment, and if you want to discuss things or anything, I'll be glad to ! Cheers !

[@wtfhammer9160]

Hey. You make valid points and the tier propositions you make may be better than mine. I'll give my reasoning however. First, when I say 'across all metas,' I am generally referring to the combination of functional faction-specific cards (mainly objective cards) and fighter cards, as well as the inherent abilities/flexibility of a warband. This includes my perception of how a warband could play in metas past and present - including early on in a meta - as well as in relic, and even vanguard play. Because of this, I tend to put a fair bit of weight into warbands who are inherently functional in the absence of universal cards; such as Grashrak and Morgwaeth, but more on them later. I'll address the specific warbands you mentioned. 1) Eyes of the Nine. Really bad objective cards. Intended to have good positional play (teleport and Blue Horror help), and have a focus mainly in magic. Problem is that units are squishy (Blue Horrow pretty reliable for objective holding), difficult to inspire, magic completely dependant on Vortemis who starts with 1 dodge defence. Numerous other warbands are superior in objective play and/or comparable, if not better (Stormsire), at magic. I admit they have some versatility... could be a ranking of C. Although, I do find that I have made and faced superior Chosen Axes decks consistently. 2) Ironskull's Boyz. Very tough, very easy to inspire. You mentioned passive play. Ironskull could easily be a Tome/Ur Grub/etc. holding unit, and would have burly support. They have several good power cards as well, and can be a handful for aggro warbands to deal with because they are so durable. I don't debate that other warbands are better at aggro/objective/etc., but these guys can be intimidating. Still rank C though, which is no compliment. 3) Magore. I guess these guys have the potential for versatility... I mean all warbands do. The no driveback for that one dude, and the highish move of Riptooth, as well as the durability definitely create options. However, tough to inspire (aggro dependant) and generally low move and defence. Bad objective cards. In fact, have some of the most impossible ones to achieve. In Vanguard, these guys probably never perform. No tool to prevent or facilitate pushes, so have no inherent score in the end phase objective skills. Could score some surge objective holding cards... but most warbands can. I admit they are basically superior in all ways to Ironskull's, but my rankings show that anyway. 4) Garrek. Have objective cards that compliment a 'kill or die' playstyle (their bread and butter). Have better ploys than Magore's by far. Have the movement to be versatile. Have more early meta/vanguard potential than Magore's in my opinion. All of these rankings are tough though, and I see your point. 5) Ylthari are not very good, although I think they are in the higher B tier (but I can't see them as being better than Wurmspat, skaven or skellies). Really bad objective cards, hard to inspire. Their main perk is their magic and reaction-abilities... 2 shield dude is pretty badass, but 3 wound leader is rough. I think they are perfectly positioned where they are to be honest. They had some success at the end of season 2, but they were not facing the steepest competition (most of those warbands rank lower in my tier list). 6) Skaven have some of the worst objective cards in the game, but have awesome potential. Kind of like skellies, they're a wild card. Can be awesome depending on the types of universal cards available, but can be awful... especially in early metas or vanguard. Can't justify giving them an A just because of their streakiness (skelling are similar). 7) The controversial ones: Grashrak and Morgwaeth. I get where you are coming from. Honestly though, they have pretty good cards (especially objective cards), and options available to them. They are squishy, which is not good though. They were hard to place, but they are actually functional 'play-out-of-the-box,' which is something I can't say about most warbands. Hard sell. A-tier is reasonably debateble, but I felt they should be here. 8) Your Mollog points are fair. Still relies a one unit who, although can score passive glory in unique universal circumstances, is generally a scary physical threat. Objective and positional play is weak, passive play is possible, aggro game is consistent. Glad we agree on the ranking ;) 9) Also, fair point about Morgok and Stormsire. I feel that Stormsire are a bit more versatile, but less physically threatening... although the push options of Morgok are very good. Hard choices :S 10) Ranking while considering restricted cards is difficult. I typically didn't let the restriction effect my rankings too much, because they still have amazing cards available to them that other warbands do not. Thorns also are immune to lethal, have a great push mechanic, have good defence, many units... they are badass. I still feel they warrant S tier, even though I do not think they are the most intense in the current meta (aggro warbands are thriving now in my opinion). Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful comment! Cool to have conversations like this. Making an agreeable tier list is difficult with so many variables to consider which is just the subjective nature of this kind of thing. Still fun to make and discuss though. Take it easy.

[@foyoGames]

Nice breakdown

[@n1ghtofthedead411]

So GW has hard on with death factions or what?

[@wtfhammer9160]

Seriously. Don't even attempt Grand Avatar mode :S

[@n1ghtofthedead411]

@@wtfhammer9160 btw this tier list assumes you have pretty much all the cards, right?

[@wtfhammer9160]

@@n1ghtofthedead411 Not really. It's sort of my overview of the warbands and their cards specifically... as well as their versatility based on cards that have come and gone. S are generally always strong, D are generally always weak, and everything in between (of course there are fluctuations in a given meta).

[@n1ghtofthedead411]

@@wtfhammer9160 Ok, thanks. Will be waiting for season 4 tier list. Keep up the good work.

[@MocnySquall]

No way magores are that bad. I won a tournament with flex magores, having fighter that cannot be driven back helps a lot. Scores steady defender etc. Also you have mistake in wurmsplat. it is combination of killing and wounding for inspiration.

[@FozzyWozzy1203]

Yeah I would generally agree Magore are A tier, certainly more so than Despoilers/Blade Coven.... BUT it's just opinion after all

[@wtfhammer9160]

Ya, for me they have good fighter cards, but some very awful gambit and unexceptional objective cards. Depsoilers and blade-coven have a lot of tools (better cards in general by quite a bit), but have less desirable fighter cards in general. Check out the review for Magore's for some more context. But yes, its opinion.

[@seragotepic3315]

I don't think grymwatch still as good as they were. Probably, their tier is B, may low A.

[@wtfhammer9160]

In the current meta, no. But generally speaking I still think they are very good. They are not thriving in this aggro-heavy meta though.

[@seragotepic3315]

@@wtfhammer9160 What do you think about farstriders? Can someone make deck in hunters build?

[@wtfhammer9160]

@@seragotepic3315 I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Farstriders do not have the 'Hunter' Keyword, so none of the Hunter cards apply to them.

[@seragotepic3315]

@@wtfhammer9160 I mean, in direchasm gw added many upgrades and mass quarry/hunter ploy: is it possible to make good deck on hunters by using it?

[@wtfhammer9160]

@@seragotepic3315 I would have to look through them more. I'd say off hand that Farstriders don't get any special advantage for becoming Hunters. Thundrik's could gain Hunter benefits as well and likely be more effective since they are tougher and do more damage with range. Generally, Farstriders are not competitive. Right now the meta is really favoring high damaging tough warbands like Mollog's and Morgok's

[@gabrelicious6553]

In short, play undead.

[@wtfhammer9160]

GW has a fetish for them or something