What Is a Tier List? S, A, B, C, D and F Explained

A tier list is a grid that sorts a fixed set of things into ordered bands. The bands usually run from S at the top through A, B, C, D and F at the bottom. The point is not to produce a single scientific score. The point is to make a comparison visible enough to argue about.

The short definition

A tier list has three parts: a roster (the things being ranked), a set of tiers (the bands), and a criterion (what the ranking is for). Remove any one of those and the board stops meaning much.

If the roster is vague, the list is impossible to compare. If the tiers are undefined, the reader has to guess what B means. If the criterion is missing, two people can use the same board to make opposite claims.

What S, A, B, C, D and F mean

The letters are a convention, not a measurement. S is the top band: the picks the author would recommend without hesitation. A is excellent. B is solid. C is average. D is below average. F is the bottom band.

The gap between B and C is usually larger than the gap between A and B. That is deliberate. Most things are fine, a few are exceptional, and a few are hard to recommend. A tier list compresses those judgments into rows so a reader can see the shape of the argument.

For a longer history of the S row, read S tier meaning.

Where the format comes from

The S-through-F style became common in Japanese game coverage and fan communities before it spread to Western games, anime and music. The exact origin is less important than the use: a magazine or forum needed a compact way to rank a roster that changed with every patch.

That origin explains why tier lists are so common in games with frequent balance updates. A board is a snapshot. When the patch changes, the snapshot ages. A good page says when it was last checked instead of pretending the ranking is permanent.

Why tier lists start arguments

A tier list is an opinion made visual. The reader can point at a specific item and say “that is one row too high” without writing an essay. That is the appeal and the problem.

The argument usually comes from a missing criterion. One person is ranking tournament strength, another is ranking ease of use, and a third is ranking personal favourites. All three can be right and still disagree, because they are answering different questions.

The fix is boring: state the criterion before the board. “Best for a new player” and “best at the top level” are different lists even when the roster is identical.

How to read the boards on this site

Every page here separates the starter board from the community vote. The starter board is one dated editorial pass. The community tier appears only after at least three votes on an item, and it replaces the starter tier in the main view. The two are never silently merged.

That separation matters. A board can be useful even when you disagree with it, as long as you can see which part is editorial and which part is live opinion. If you want to publish a third view, the maker starts from the same roster and lets you rearrange it.

Make one instead of arguing in a comment thread

Open the tier list maker, pick a roster or add your own items, and drag them into rows. Export a PNG for a group chat or copy the share link. The board is yours; it does not overwrite the public vote.

If you want a starting point, browse all tier lists and open a page with a roster close to the one you have in mind.

Tier list vs review score

A review score answers a different question from a tier list. A score says “how good is this one thing?” A tier list says “how do these things compare inside this roster?” The first can be compared across genres and years. The second only makes sense against the other names on the board.

That is why “S tier” is not a universal rating. An S-tier fruit and an S-tier fighting game character are using the same letter to make different claims. The letter is a visual convention; the meaning comes from the criterion and the roster.

A review score also hides the tradeoffs. A 9/10 can mean “excellent for fans” or “excellent for newcomers” without saying which. A tier list has room to show those tradeoffs by splitting the roster into rows, as long as the author writes the criterion down.

What makes a board trustworthy

Four things separate a useful board from a colourful opinion. First, the criterion is visible. Second, the roster is complete enough to answer the question. Third, the date is present. Fourth, disagreement is visible, either through a vote or through a clearly labelled “my opinion” note.

A board can still be wrong after meeting all four. But it can be checked, which is the point. If the page hides the roster, the date or the vote, it is asking for trust it has not earned.

This is also why “official tier list” is usually a misleading phrase. Game publishers rarely publish one. Most boards are community arguments, and the honest ones say so.

How to read a board in thirty seconds

Start at S and F, not at the middle. The top and bottom rows carry most of the argument. If S contains half the roster, the board has inflated the top. If F contains items that are merely “not for me”, the bottom is doing emotional work instead of ranking.

Then check the roster. A board that omits obvious items is answering a narrower question than its title suggests. Finally, check the date. A 2024 board presented as current is not a ranking; it is a historical artifact.

Only after those three checks is it worth reading the middle rows. The middle is where most of the nuance lives, but it is also where a weak board hides.

A short history of the format

The S-through-F convention spread through Japanese game media and fan communities before it became common in Western games, anime and music coverage. Early boards were static images posted on forums: cheap to make, easy to repost, impossible to update.

Live tier-list tools changed the economics. Once a reader could remix a roster in a browser, the argument shifted from “what is the list?” to “whose list is this?” That is an improvement, but it also created a new problem: thousands of boards with no criterion and no date.

The format did not get worse. The supply got larger. A good board now has to compete with a screenshot that took thirty seconds to make, which is why method and context matter more than visual polish.