8th Ed. Lizardmen tier

Hi all. I'm brand new to the forum and lizardmen so have very little knowledge on them.

I've quite a general question. What competitve tier would you put lizardmen into?

The answer doesn't hinge any decision, just more curiosity. I've already started my modest collection mainly down to loving the look and feel of lizardmen. Pre thanks

 

I'd say upper-mid tier, around the same level as Empire and Vampire counts.

They don't have the overpowered toys to put them alongside the big three (Chaos warriors, Ogres, Skaven) and maybe slightly behind high elves (though I think we have the tools to bring high elves down fairly easily).

They're clearly ahead of the mid-pack where you find armies like Orcs & Goblins, Daemons, Dwarfs & Bretonnians

If I was going to split warhammer down into army tiers it would look something like this

Chaos Warriors, Skaven, Ogres
High Elves
Lizardmen, Empire, Vampire Counts
Orcs & Goblins, Dwarfs, Bretonnians, Daemons of Chaos
Beastmen, Tomb Kings
Wood elves

I'm not really sure where dark elves fit, I would guess either alongside high elves or on the same level as Lizards/Empire, they are basically the same as high elves but but without their most powerful toys (frost Phoenix, world dragon banner) and don't really have anything to make up for that. Still the jury is out because I have yet to play against the new DE book.

Its also worth saying that the 'tiers' are much closer together than they were last edition, every army can compete in the current meta game, though wood elves alone do really struggle. Just because an army is top tier doesn't mean it will always win, and just because an army is in a lower tier doesn't mean it will always lose.

 

I would say:

High: Ogre, WoC, and i think DE. (De being theory hammer)
Mid high: DoC, HE, Skaven
Mod low: LM, OnG, Emp, VC, Dwarfs
Low: Bret, beast, TK,
the abyss: Woodelves

If you look at the GT results DoC is doing quiet good. BoTW ruines their day but you dont Always draw it.

 

My questimation (some might call it an educated guess, I'm not sure if I would be that generous...), from my own limited experience and looking at the results of big tournaments, would place the armies in the following order (armies on the same row or "tier" are also ranked in order of power, so the first in tier is closer to the power level of a higher tier than the last one):

WoC, Ogres
Skaven, Dark Elves, Vampire Counts, (Chaos Dwarves)
High Elves, Daemons of Chaos, Empire, Lizardmen, Dwarfs, Orcs & Goblins,
Bretonnia, Beastmen,
Tomb Kings, Wood Elves

I agree with Spiney in that the armies of the new books are generally much closer to each other than the armies that still have an old book. I would anticipate the new Bretonnia book lift them up a tier or two, and the new Wood Elves book to bring them to the level with High Elves or maybe even above them.

 

Pure, unadulterated filth? (No comp?) doesn't change it much I don't think. My opinion.


Top: Daemons (top of the top I think), warriors, skaven, empire

Middle: dark elves, high elves, ogres, Orcs and Goblins, Lizardmen, dwarfs, bretonnians, vampire counts, chaos dwarfs.

Bottom: wood elves, beastmen, tomb kings.



Pretty fluid within those though I think, and some armies better vs others. For example, I think dark elves might end up being very good against warriors, but then struggling vs shooting-heavy armies. So variable.


Just my opinion. And I am not, by any stretch of imagination, an expert.

 

Spiney pretty much nails it.

Dark Elves should probably go alongside High Elves. They don't have anything like BotWD or Frost Phoenexis, but there are some things that look like they could be pretty open to similar levels of abuse. Multiple 1+ save flying characters, Warlocks, and an Executioner horde with Hellebrone, Master with Null Talisman, and a Cauldron BSB would be a good place to start.

 

Thanks for all the replys!

It wouldn't of mattered if lizardmen we're lower true really but it's nice to know they can be competitve. Have they been used a lot in recent tournaments? I heard a stat that like %60 of armys in tournaments we're WoC lol

 

At this years' SCGT, one of the biggest events in the UK, there were 37 Warriors of Chaos armies out of 196 total players. That's 20% of the field, double the number of Ogre Kingdoms players which was the second most popular. Out of that, 4 out of the top 10 were WoC.

And that was just in April, only a few short weeks after the book dropped.

 

As an exercise, I tend to track which armies do well in certain GTs in the US, most of which have no comp or limited comp but sports scoring to limit abuses. The results are suprisingly balanced in all-omcers 3 and 5-game events. Prior to the current book, LM was the only consistently superior army book. Our play-testing suggests LM will still be good; less potent in magic phases but PF and lower cost of TG compensates a lot in 8th ed and the 8 sig spell discipline and having lore of beasts on skink priests really help the army a lot.

High Elves are doing much better with the new book but play-testing against new Dark Elves and new Lizardmen suggests they may be at the same level as LM and DE now, although DE are a bad matchup for HE.

We are not seeing Ogres do as well due to vulnerability to purple sun and pit of shades and certain armies (a witch elf horde or white lion horde rips ironguts apart with the number of hits and wounds those units can cause).
Skaven can win, if lucky, but can lose as well and are not dominating as much as the prior posts would indicate.
On the other hand, we are seeing some really strong Vampire Count builds and two really strong WoC builds.
Before the most recent year of 8th ed books, Lizardmen were first and Daemons and Dark Elves second. Now, we are seing WoC on top with VC next and Empire doing better as people figure it how to play them. Daemons really got hit to average or below with the new book, even with a heavy nurgle focus just because they can't protect their characters very well and have vulnerable lord options, are exposed to magic with no scroll or arcane BRB options, and will face light coven armies.

What is surprising is to see selected players having a lot of success with Bretts and, to a lesser extent, Beastmen and Wood Elves in the US GTs.

So much now depends on the army build and who is playing it in 8th ed. The OP armies from 7th ed of LM, DE, VC, and DoC all were reduced in power in their respective new 8th ed books with VC coming out ahead and DoC trailing behind.
On the other hand, armies which were struggling with 7th edition books in 8th ed play that got better/more competitive are: Orcs & Goblins, Empire, High Elves, and Ogres, but O&G armies are below average with respect to the other 3 improved armies.
WoC is the one army that got more powerful with its 8th ed book but the book really altered the style of play and competitive builds quite a bit.
Dwarves benefitted a lot from the switch to 8th ed and are now a very competitive army (albeit a bit boring to play and play against).
Skaven are slightly better in 8th edition and still powerful.
Bretts are better in 8th edition due to lore of life and beasts mages and ranks giving steadfast plus trebs being effectively more accurate in 8th ed.
Beastmen benefit from 8th ed if run with certain builds.
TK can be quite competitive with a certain build (llore of light focus) but it looks like it is the worst 8th ed book in terms of design relative to what could have been done with the army.
Wood Elves are the one army that really needs a new book to be viable in 8th ed; it can win but only if well-place and with a specific build and a lot of luck.

IF the rumors are true, after May next year, only Dwarves and Bretts will still have really old books and only Beastmen and Skaven were the last two books in 7th ed and not yet written in 8th ed.

 

In a sense any Tournement results for Lizards are going to be a little skewed because our book is only a few months old, give it 6 months to a year and we'll be better equipped to gauge how well they are doing in the Tournement scene.

 

Well, the guys at the Tomb Kings forum certainly don't consider themselves to be a mid tier army. I would be interested to know what people at WoC or Ogre forums think of themselves.

 

I know a couple of things and that Is that when I played DoC I won atleast 75% of the games I played, ok I have played Daemons since they only were one part of WoC. Since I started to play Lizardmen I have really been struggeling...
I rate Empire as one of the best books In the game. WoC probably Is the hardest one, followed by DoC and perhaps He. De Is to new to say anything about yet but probably somewhere around He to.

 

TK are NOT competative. They havent won any decent tournies. Nor are they in the top 5. (Hell prob not even top 10) of any of the uncimped GTs.

Crossroads didnt even had them in top 50, But did had daemon at place 2 and 3. with nr1 being a skaven.
First placed LM was at 15

 

Lizards are firmly mid-tier we lack filth but we aren't weak.

By the most high elves players will tell you their book is middle to upper middle tier with one list that is a near impossible matchup.

 

Lizardmen has the tools to fight every army out there provided your list is build for it. Think lizardmen would be right in the middle.

 

I would put them at the high end of the middle of the pack.
Probable something like this:

Tier 1: WoC, Dark Elves, Empire
Tier 2: Vampires, Ogres, Lizards, High Elves
Tier 3: Dwarfs, Skaven, Brettonians
Tier 4: Orcs and Goblins, Daemons, Tomb Kings
Tier 5: Beastmen, Wood Elves

Some could go up or down a bit, but this is what I would put everything at overall.
Empire, Warriors, and Dark elves are incredibly powerful with their new books.
Ogres, Vampires, and High elves are good, but they are more one dimensional in terms of what lists are going to be successful, which means they are more likely to drop games than those in Tier 1. Lizardmen have a huge amount of flexibility in the army now, and most of their units became stronger/cheaper in one way or another, so they are going to be consistent in performance with a competitive list, though they are unlikely to win all 5 of their games due to struggles with certain things.
Dwarfs are slow, and most of their combat units are not quite up to par, though their artillery and magic defense are unmatched. Skaven are incredibly unreliable, and Brettonians are 1 dimensional as above, but slightly weaker about it due to not being able to put a lot of mass into their army and their magic limitations.
Orcs and Goblins, are competitive, but animosity is likely to cause even the best list to drop games, and they are limited in terms of magic and shooting, and most of their best units are frenzied or stupid.
Daemons; way too random to perform consistently. likely the army will lose the game on its own at least once a tournament.
Tomb Kings: Though they can make a competitive army, no matter what they do, their combat will be sub par, and they will struggle to deal with tough infantry.
Beastmen and Wood elves are just not up to par.
Beastmen can make good lists, but they are predictable, and inconsistent due to over-reliance on certain phases.

 

I'm sorry, but I find all this talk of daemons being lower tier (especially lower than ogres!?) hilarious. If you look at tournament results from the UK, they have just as much, if not more of a presence on the top tables than warriors do. And certainly more than ogres or high elves.

For the record, I honestly don't think ogres are as good as everyone thinks they are. They are a hard army, but not as overpowered as when they first came out.

High elves are awesome, but I think around our power level.