Welcome to Librarium Online!
Ok, in this last RTT I was in, I scored VERY high on Battle points, decently on sportsmanship, but got the lowest score on army composition (I was the only one who managed to get single digits). Yet despite this and despite getting the lowest score on painting too I still ended up in the top 1/3.
Yes, I admit I went super-godzilla with 2 Hive Tyrants (with guards), 2 Heavy Fexs and 2 Elite ones, and had only 2 genestealer Troop squads and a couple Raveners. But still, given 4th edition I think that this is really the only competitive way to go for nids.
It used to be, and I wanted it to be where I was swarm. I have about 120+ gaunts sitting at home. However, after test fielding them, I noticed that the swarm isn't very effective. Gaunts and rippers by themselves can't do very much cc damage unless you give them upgrades and die by the fistfulls trying to get there. And if you have genestealers trying to get into the fray guess what the enemy is going to shoot at first?
Zoanthropes can't take table quarters, Gargoyles are a joke, and Lictors are too expensive for what you get.
My whole point is it's the rules, not the Tyranid Codex that has nerfed the swarm.
Personally, in a COMPETITVE environement like a tourney (I don't "cheese" in fun games usually) it is very very hard for me to say any army is cheese. My first opponent was guard with 20 lascannons and 2 Basilisks. That wasn't cheese?! I gave him full points for army composition even though I knew that wasn't the Guards' style. How is my army cheese but his isn't? Or the Eldar guy I faced who put a Starcannon and/or a Scatter Laser on just about every single unit that could take it. If I went swarm I'd get smashed.
Some would argue I'm just not creative enough to develop non-godzilla nid armies. Perhaps, but big bugs have so many pluses and so few minuses that why wouldn't you field a decent number of them? What happens if in a tourney there is little terrain? I'm hosed unless I have things which block LOS and are durable. Or I face a vehicle/drop pod heavy army? Yeah, goodbye swarms (and genestealers).
Feel free to vehemiently disagree with me. I'm certainly open to other options. But if we are talking COMPETITIVE play here, what else is reliable for nids other than the big bugs?
This sounds like bias on the part of the judges to me - or is the mark for composition based on scores from the other players?
Bloody Hell. Firstly, any chance u could post ur army list. I'm curious at tourny lists, i've never actually played in one and my army lists are usually quite tuned to different armies.
2. How did u deal with the lascannons with all MC's?
3. I've still never found a problem with a swarmy army even in 4th edition. (Bar that Necron Arc Flux thing can be really gay - 1d6 hit on all enemy units within 12" ) but i will admit i've never played an Eldar Power Player with StarCannons and scatters.
If u do swarming properly then the enemy has so many targets to kill by round 2 (often 70+) that they cant really do it. Then u have ur big guys, genestealers, cc warriors etc to come up and finish everything off.
4th edition has helped swarmy armyies imo. Most obviously with the 'No Instant Kill Synapse' meaning u can have loads of gaunts and no fear of them all turning tail cos all ur synapse gets picked off by some gay missle or lascannon.
Also the addition of the broodlord to add something hard behind enemy lines just to take fire / concern off the charging broods cant be a bad thing...
But still congrats on getting in the top 1/3, where their many tyranid players there?
"They are coming! I feel them scratching inside my mind, scratching, screaming, running, so many - so, so many voices. They're coming for us - flesh, body and soul!"
Cheese is a relative term, just like speed and time. It depends on the position of the observer.
I will usually deal with whatever army is thrown my way without complaint. Honestly, if you make a certain army that is hideously effective against specific others, then it has a weak point. Tournament lists often are very specialized, with redundant units. This is because the player becomes familiar with how certain units work, allowing them to remove some of the chance from battles. They also go for the most effective units in terms of earning their points back and being as generally effective as possible.
The army composition score is intended to balance the points. Some people can load their lists to powergame, but army comp credits those who go for more balanced lists. It is also often hideously biased. Some players will spike you on it just to help their chances, others hate certain lists and will deduct points from them.
If you create your list with a theme or purpose and it works, why should you get hammered on army composition?
Nids can still be competitive with balanced lists. I end up with a spread between monstrous creatures and warriors, because I love warriors. Add in some gaunts and genestealers and I am all set. It plays fairly well and usually seems well accepted by other players. I still do not see why someone who makes a straight godzilla list should be penalized.
Tyranids: Hive Fleet Kohr-Ah
I think I agree. A godzilla nid list isn't really that cheesy, and can be destroyed by another army prepared. Anyway....This sounds like bias on the part of the judges to me - or is the mark for composition based on scores from the other players?
It depends on how the tournament is doing comp scoring. Some of the local ones I play at have a few categories that the judges rate (ie, no more than 25% in any single category of hq/elite/fa/heavy support... more troop choices than any other individual category... at least 35% is in troops...). Those are cut and dry if your tournament has something like that.
Other types that your opponents do are very subjective. And unfortunately, some people are just poor sports and will dink you in comp if they lose. Nothing can really be done about it, especially if you play a questionable list like a Godzilla one (questionable as in your opponent can argue with validity that it can be called cheese, since you have only 2 troop choices).
I think I have just had a glimpse of the True Fromage, and it is Chaos.
For example: 1850pts of Iron Warriors including 9 Obliterators, 2 indirect-fire Defilers, a Basilisk, and a handful of troops to polish all the big guns.
Considering most comps are won by Chaos, then SMs, then Eldar, I think it's a bit rich that folks point hotly fondued fingers at the poor little Nids.
Interesting point you make there. Personally I don't really call any army cheesy. As Badmovies said, it is all relative.
I participated in a 1500pt tournament 2 days ago and came 2nd with my tyranids. very happy.
Anyway, at the tournament I watched a Space Wolves player win a game against armoured company contatining 5 Russes 2 basilisks and a few chimeras. He played a fantastic game, his army was very flexible and he used it well.
In regard to the 20 lascannon IG army, (from what you said) I'd think he would have a very hard time dealing with a very large swarm of tyranids. Might be wrong.
So I reckon that tyranids are competitive in tournements. Mine certainly were the other day.
it's all in the balance. clearly if the enemy brings nothing but heavy bolters the swarm army might have a little bit of trouble, but on the other hand the lascannon army that you mentioned will crush a big bugs list.
but against an IG player (I have a small amount of experiance) a fast army is almost immpossible to defeat. why? they can cover hug, take the objectives out from under you, and only let there most powerful fighters into the range of your guns. a flying tyrant can run straight back and SLAUGHTER a basilisk.
and then this army is balanced by an army that is full of hell hounds, that come running after your fast moving swarms and burn them to pieces. a lot of the game is luck of the draw on what army you are facing, and a lot of the game is how you play your army, no matter the situation that it's in.
Anything can be competitive in a tournament. Half of winning a tournament is having the knowledge and the skill to use your army effectively, and knowing how to exploit the weaknesses of your opponents.
That being said, some armies are just easier to accomplish that with than others. For instance, while a list of all Spinegaunts might win a few games, it'll be a lot harder to win with than something that mixes in some Genestealers and Monstrous Creatures.
No army is cheesy. Cheesy/Beardy is simply a term that the people who can't adapt thought up to make themselves feel better about their shortcomings. If a certain Iron Warriors list is giving you problems, you learn how to counter it. Obliterators die fast to Plasma guns, ya know.You know, that's exactly why I hate the idea of Composition scoring. It almost sounds like your opponents were intentionally giving you low marks so that you didn't walk away with first prize. After all, even though you might have a high Battle Score, if the Comp is dragging it down, what does it matter? Sounds to me like they were simply bitter that they had to deal with a list they hadn't expected and prepared for.Originally Posted by laplace
I'm willing to bet had you taken a horde army of mostly Hormies, the IG player with the 20 Lascannons would've marked you down on Comp because of his shortcomings...
Okay, so with my ranting out of the way....
Yes, any list can be competitive. It all depends on your play style and if you've created a list that your opponents didn't expect to see. I've seen Marine players take three Devastater Squads full of Heavy Bolters because they expected to see Genestealer lists, only to be crushed when a Godzilla list appears. But had they taken Missile Launchers/Plasma Cannons instead, that same Genestealer list would've probably walked all over them.
Now ofcourse, certain units don't necessarily hold their own weight like others. For instance, Biovores are generally considered to be a waste of points. even though they have their uses, However, a Carnifex is usually cheaper and easier to use effectively.
So I guess the point of this long, rambling post can be summed up in this single paragragh:
Any list or unit can be competitive if you take the time to learn how to use it correctly. However, some lists and units are just much easier to learn how to use, and often times have more generalised roles which allow them to adapt to many situations. These units/armies are the ones you see the most, since they're the ones that allow the most room for mistakes and give you a better chance for winning.
You know, all of that made perfect sense in my head...