I ranked all 20 first moves for white.

Not just any opinion is valid. For an opinion to matter it has to be informed by the facts. Yours is not.

There are many good "unique lines" that arise after 1. Nc3. I can list some off for you...
- Napoleon attack (1. Nc3 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4) - actually better than a typical scotch.
- Reversed Nimzowitsch (1. Nc3 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Qxd4) - basically a reversed Scandinavian
- Novosibirsk Variation (1. Nc3 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. Qxd4 Nc6) - white avoids the sicilian and gets good initiative
- Kleuver gambit (1. Nc3 f5 2. e4 fxe4 3. d3 exd3 4. Bxd3) - it's one of the more brutal early attacks against the dutch
- Two Knights Sicilian (1. Nc3 c5 2. Nf3) - there are at least a dozen rare sicilian lines that can arise from here.

This idea of a line being "unique" is odd. Every line can be reached from a variety of move orders. To say a line is unique is really to say it's only practical or common to reach it from a specific move order. But that's a matter of degree. For example, we may say the Kleuver gambit is a unique line, but you can also reach that position from the Duras gambit 1. e4 f5 2. Nc3. However, white has a better move in the Duras gambit - 2 exf5, so the Kleuver gambit is rarely played there. Still, about 6% of people do play it anyway, probably just as an impulse. What really matters is whether black is likely to have seen the line. The goal of playing a unique line is typically to bring the opponent out of their algorithm and into yours. For that, very many things are sufficient.

For example, you can reach a two knights sicilian from the Reti. In either place, black isn't going to be well prepared, it's a very rare line.

Likewise bout 1% of 1.e4 players will respond to the Scandi w/ 2. Nc3. It's more practical to enter the main lines of the Scandi here - a good position for white. White can also assume black is better prepared to play a Scandinavian, and so white wouldn't want to play a line like 2. Nc3 that has a very concrete refutation. But the majority of Van Geet players - about 72% of players - will play a Closed Scandi after 1... d5, because the same logic does not apply. It becomes practical. Hence, this line is fairly "unique" to the Van Geet. It's played despite the fact that the Jobava, a more objectively viable position, could be played instead. But the concrete refutation is not much of a concern.

This is just abstract, meaningless babble. In the Najdorf and most open sicilians, the Closed Sicilian, the French Paulsen, the mainline Caro-Kann, the Pirc... mainline 1. e4 openings - white blocks the c pawn with Nc3. All of these are lines that 1. Nc3 often transposes into. 
If you wanted to critique this opening in a meaningful way, you'd just talk about blacks strongest line - 1. Nc3 d5. And you'd probably want to focus on the objectively strongest continuation, 2. d4 Nf6 3. Bf5. This is the line that won't transpose w/ mainline e4 theory, and where "blocking the c pawn" remains a point of debate... and this is just a Jobava. Instead of this meaningless abstract proclamation about the c pawn, you can just dicsuss the Jobava. Because it is much more meaningful to analyze a position as a whole then one feature of it in the abstract.

Besides the fact this isn't the only option white has here, the comparison between the two lines is very lacking. For starters, it ignores how the position plays. It also completely ignores the opponents repertoire. About 6% players play the Scandi after e4. Presumably it's their typical response to 1. e4. So they reach a Scandi in about 50% of their games as black, and they are ready to play a Scandi. On the other hand, 34% of players - the vast majority of whom are not Scandi players - wander into the Closed Scandi after Nc3 > e4. This is reached by whites choosing, unlike the Scandi which is typically blacks choosing. So no, there is really not a direct comparison between the two move orders. Furthermore, after 1. e4 black has stronger lines than the Scandi such as the Berlin or the Sicilian. And the Closed Scandi is just one of whites available transpositions in the position.
Only the most superficial analysis would ignore these factors.

It's essentially saying "There is no reason to play a Jobava". Which is just a stupid comment since this is a line played at high level chess for a variety of reasons.

Again, it's fine not to know everything about a line, just don't pretend to, or presume to speak with authority on the matter. You say you've adjusted your opinion but I can tell you're just saying that in compliance because you realize you don't understand the position. If you did, you wouldn't be claiming there are no "unique lines" in the position.

I should have been more clear: unique positions for white to choose.

You have given lines, but they are all reliant on black deviating himself. I will admit that the c5 line is one that I was unaware of entirely though.

When black plays their strongest response, d5, there is nothing white can do differently that isn't just worse. And you should be expecting d5 when you play Nc3. You have 2 options:

1.play d4 which is the same as playing Nc3 after d4/d5 l. Not Ideal at all, and the c pawn being blocked in will in fact matter. 2. e4, which again, becomes Closed Scandinavian.

You can reach better positions playing d4 or e4 than this, and I think the same goes for the other moves above Nc3 (that I would still keep above it, as I have said I now would have it at 9) This is because as I have said Nc3 blocks in the c pawn. It is also the case in other openings, but that is when you have already reached a position that it's worth doing it in. The same way h3 is played in positions when there's a reason for it, but it isn't logical on move 1. I can hear an argument vs b3 but that's really it.

The moves I have in my top tier are the moves that I can realistically see being the best move for someone, depending on the person. I struggle to see a playing style that Nc3 is actually the best move for, aka an actual niche. It is playable, and you should play it for enjoyment sake if you like it, but it's also outclassed in my opinion.

No one is suggesting any of these openings trump the big 4... Every one of the lines mentioned - b3, f4, b4, Nc3, c3, g3, d6 - all have some precise way of black basically equalizing. Bird's has From's gambit, the Nimzo Larsen has e5/d5/Nc6/Ne7 which is quite good for black... at best equal. So your argument isn't even discriminating between the moves at this point. In the Van Geet the "objective" challenge is the Jobava. A line you have yet to acknowledge or demonstrate any bit of understanding about. It's a very dynamic opening, where usually white is queenside castling and pushing f3 > g4. By no means is the Jobava a bad opening, it's played at high level often. It is immeasurably better than Grobs opening. You have pretty much nothing to offer in this conversation... your stunted "analysis" reveals that you know nothing about the lines... That was evident when you claimed there are no unique lines in the Van Geet.

h3 is 17 and a3 is 5?

Doesn’t make sense. Other than that, its mostly true

And notice that I put most of those in the same tier as Nc3, except the Polish Opening which I have always thought was worse, and g3 and f4, which both do actually have niches over the big 4. (Does not mean they are better, but it does mean they aren't directly outclassed.) F4 can be the best move for you if your have an aggressive play style, but also prefer closed positions, and g3 comparable to Nf3, but keeps open the option for the Hippo, or some other Ne2 line, but has the downside of not immediately controlling some of the center.

Now Jobava London. I wasn't getting involved in how good it is because my problem wasn't reaching the Jobava London. My problem was, if you want to reach Jobava London play d4 1st. I happen to think that London Accelerated is anyways better because it retains the option for c4, depending on what black does. But that's besides the point, and very subjective.

Regardless the point is that Nc3 doesn't really have a niche. As I said by "unique lines" I meant the ability for you to go into lines that are different, not for the opposing player to allow it by not playing the best response. g3, and f4 do.

I've also lost track of what the actual point of this discussion is. I have previously said that I now think it actually belongs at 9, do you still disagree with that placement? And if so, what do you think belongs lower than it?

h3 weakens the king, a3 doesn't. a3 literally lets you play essentially as black, with the upside of already having the pawn on a3 which can come in handy. That's the big difference for me.

I disagree with... on principle, the notion that someone who does not understand a topic can have a valid opinion on it, and even go so far as to present that opinion as authoritative while ignoring gaping criticisms of their statements. Because at that point you become like a runaway stupid train taking some of the masses along for the ride.

You cannot assess whether something has a purpose when you don't understand it to begin with.
"cuz c4 is blocked" - the lack of depth in your "analysis", combined with the fact you think you have concluded something, is actually laughable. 
I can make a stupid comment like that too: "f4 opens the king". Actually a much more significant factor if we want to quibble about this. But as I already explained, positions must be assessed on the whole, not through just a few isolated abstractions. Of course, that requires actually understanding the first thing about the line. For example... if you're queenside castling, then you don't want to move your c pawn, do you dunce...? And guess what we usually do the Jobava...
If you reach the Jobava via 1.d4 you miss out on all the Van Geets unique sidelines, where white has a major advantage. It's another dumb thing you do, you don't consider the opponents typical responses and what opportunities they provide. But when playing a line that's sub-optimal, i.e. not 1. e4 or 1. d4, these opportunities are the entire point, they're the reason you played the line. Otherwise you should just play the Queens gambit or the Ruy Lopez every game (which it looks like you do).

Actually, I don't play them every time, in fact I've taken quite a liking to English Opening

Back to the point though, I think this is where the disagreement stems: I don't necessarily think every no e4/d4 opening is "suboptimal." Like I think Nf3, c4, g3, a3, and f4 have merits of their own tha have nothing to do with hoping your opponent makes their own suboptimal move against them.

Apparently your "niche" for Nc3 is...hope chess. Otherwise it's just a much less flexible version of playing d4, or the Closed Scandinavian. Meaning it actually is "suboptimal" vs f4. F4 will always reach positions that are not usually gonna be reached by the big 4, while also being good positions no matter how black responds. Meaning it is not actually outclassed. It's not a more restricted version of a superior move done in the hopes of your opponent doing something weird.

Especially since d5 isn't even a hard find against Nc3. It's quite tempting looking, even if you don't know the line, as it threatens a push to d4 against the knight.

To respond to you properly I would just have to repeat myself, but there's no point in that.
This conversation would be so much more interesting if, instead of just mindlessly repeating what your opinion is for the nth time, you actually engaged in the reasoning process. In order to substantiate your opinion as something more than a random jerk-off impulse that you have. But that would require, among other things, understanding of the lines, and critical thinking ability. "I like opening the king", "I don't like blocking c3", "but you can reach this line from e4" - it's just abstract, meaningless babble. I don't see how you people make it through life sometimes, as difficult as life is. Anyway, this is getting too monotonous for me.

a3 is a much stronger move than h3, the transpositions are much better and a3 is also in general a more useful move and less weakening than h3.

I feel like there’s a solid argument that 1. f3 is worse than 1. g4 from a human perspective. The Grob does have the worst engine evaluation, but at the very least it does have some tricky theory going for it for those that are unfamiliar (which is most people). 1. f3 weakens the king while simultaneously being passive and not posing any difficulties for black.

f3 is weakening. But I would argue that it is in fact less weakening than g4, because you can follow it up with Bg2, Nh3-f2, and obtain a somewhat solid position. This is all because the pawn doesn't move forwards much, so white retains a lot of flexibility. Furthermore, this setup has been used more than once by Grandmaster Duncan Suttles against strong opposition like Bent Larsen (with the black pieces too, I believe). You can find these games in the book "The Lasker method" by Steve giddins and gerard welling (I'm sure I misspelled their names) in the chapter titled "androgenous positions".

The difference mainly being that f3 poses no problems for black, while g4 poses problems for white

I never advocate for something I haven't tested before, either:

F3 does cause problems for white. It blocks in the knight for no reason. And it weakens the king as well. And unlike Grob, there's nothing scary about it.

The Nb2 plan is actually why I prefer it over Nh3, because there's no good follow up against d5, threatening Bxh3. If the opponent plays d5 against f3, you could follow up with e4 and try the make black over extend the pawn, go trade his center pawn.

Anyways, g4 actually is very hard to play against, and it is not about black "losing" the rook, which I happen to think is arguably the best response for black. It's certainly harder than responding to f3.

Also, that example you have a picture of requires black being weird himself 1st. Why would he play f6 against after making a kingside fianchetto?

guys pls join my club

Arguably the kingside weakness with f3, if you play the fianchetto + Nf2 method, is completely negligible.

Yes, it poses no threat to black. Neither does g4. I suppose here we will have to disagree. But the kingside weakness of g4 is much more severe.

In the image, I posted as black, because I play that setup much more with black than I do with white, which also makes it more suspicious. You simply transpose into the setup I suggested; and you may notice that only black has won games when I play it. This stuff is playable as black, while the reversed grob simply can't work, which suggests that g4 is a more suspicious move than f3 is.

It's not like the plans are strange, either. If you're somewhat familiar with the KID-type ideas, you'll be fine playing the f3-Nf2 stuff.

And of course, g4 is not about taking black's rook. But in almost every fianchetto type position, the opposing side will have to worry about the strength of the bishop. Usually the strength comes from the fact that you have to be wary of tactics along the diagonal, and usually they involve the rook in the corner. But if you don't have to worry about the rook in the corner, then the fianchetto really loses a lot of its strength.

Apologies, I thought you were referencing how f3 would be a good response to the position you posted. I will admit that I actually like the idea behind that line a lot for black.

However, even with the point that it works in this line, that's mainly because your opponent already played c4. I'm not knocking c4 as a move, but until it's been played f6 is more questionable. c3 would be a very good idea against it, fighting for the diagonal.

Also, I think this style of play works better as black, like you said. The concept is daring you're opponent to attack you, which is less likely to work when you are actually the one ahead a move.

getting the big center is usually how to maintain an edge against this. I mean, the diagonal hardly matters since you blocked in your own bishop. your only pawn break is going to be e4/e5 (Depending on color), which doesn't do it any favors, so playing c3 is relatively redundant.

And i somewhat disagree on it working as black. The more provocative your setup is, the harder it is to play it as black. The reason why setups like the King's indian attack and such are considered to be so dry, is because black really cannot push for the same advantage that white would, if the colors were reversed. In the King's indian defense, white can push for a larger advantage due to his first move advantage. Meanwhile, when black plays against the King's indian attack, hes liable to get punished if he does, since he's down a whole tempo.

Applying this logic to the given setup, it's more risky to play it as black, because white's first move advantage allows him to be more aggressive.

I would be quite happy to play the setup if every player played c3/c6, but the thing is that these c4 structures do provide more challenging lines.

Either way, I still don't really get how g4 doesn't pose a threat. You are deterring Nf6, and controlling the diagonal. Fianchettos are rarely about threatening the rook, as your opponent can always stop the threat with c6 if they want. It's about controlling the diagonal. And their are quite a few lines hat will be problems for the uneducated player.

For example.