Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Seriously speaking--what causes it to be bad?

Thematically they create what is needed. Shouldn't bad comp = Tyranids lost? (I understand the silliness here, but for some armies there can be fluff saying things like "4 are available" so using 5 is straight out)

This sounds like a joke, but honestly I wonder--as I try just about any combination and have heard or lost because of issues.

I willingly state ahead that I do not think comp is good for anyone.
However I do not mean to start another thread on its value; I am specifically wondering how people think comp should apply to Tyranids as I apparently miss it often and still compete in tournys where it can matter.

I'm not sure I'm familiar with the term "comp"...

I think you might mean: Compulsory?

If so, then I can kind of see what you mean. Tyranids are only going to send what is needed to win the fight. How ever much is needed and what ever is needed.

Example: lets say Tyranids are about to attack a well defended fortress, the obvious choice for victory would be 4 or 5 Mawlocs to burrow under the walls, pop up inside, and start eating every one. So why then would the Hive Mind also waste the biomass (or points, or " Compulsory" choices) on 2 squads of Hormagaunts and a Prime?

Well, the only answer I can really think of for Nids, would be that they need the Synapse HQ to "report back" to the Hive Mind, so to speak, if needed, and the two squads of bullet catching gaunts to do what they do best, catch bullets. By catching these bullets this means less bullets are are being fired at the Mawlocs and the Prime. Also, by catching bullets, they can test fire power and test for a weakness in a defensive line. Tyranid bullet catchers, fluff wise, also help the Hive Mind customize the next wave of troops: if the enemy uses plasma weapons then the carapace of the next wave is heat resistant; or if they use metal slugs, the next wave has hardened more angular carapace to deflect and absorb.

The over all answer would be so things are kept fair during game play. Every one follows the same rules and every one has the same Compulsory unit types instead of over powering pwn monsters, even though we all would like to have that kind of army.

No, he means "composition", as in someone else scores your army based on their opinion of it or on a checklist. There's a comp thread tight here in this forum..........

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/313175.page

At a recent event here in the Pac NW, we had the opposite happen. Lists for the event were rated 1-3, where 3 was a "hard" list. Our store's Tyranid player brought a list that his team had judged a 3, and indeed it was doing quite well in our store league.

The list-rating committee decided it wasn't that hard, and dropped it to a 2.

He then proceeded to table all of his opponents.

Honestly, I think a lot of people just aren't familiar enough with Tyranids yet, due to a relatively new codex, the fact that a lot of people just don't analyze the game or units well anyways, and because they're still a relatively rare army.

I'd have to agree with wildstyle, seems like a lot of people just dont get nids. Last tournament I went to my buddy took a very atypical competetive list, in the tourny lists were ranked 1-4 with 1 being non fluffy super competetive armies. He ended up with a 3 with a mostly tervigon spam, with hive guard list. The same thing I scored for a marine fluffy list with a captain 2 tac squads a full devastator squad and a bike squad.. He proceded to crush every opponent he faced save for the one super competetive space wolf player.

Yet another reason why comp systems fail: most players don't understand the "metagame" and even those who do have legitimate disagreements very often.

I was somewhat expecting this.

I have played (only) Tyranids for a couple of years now. I have read most of what has been (officially) printed about them.

I play in tourneys as often as I can.

Yet I have no idea what constitues a good Tyranid list from the standpoint of comp.
I have used lists with spam, lists that have only one example of any given codex entry, lists with no MCs, lists with mostly MCs,, and about every list variation possible.

I have never gotten full points on comp, that I know of.

Honestly, it does not bother me, but I would really like to know if that is simply because I play Tyranids.
Which it actually seems to be.


Regardless, thanks for the input.

I'd suggest avoiding comped events. I played in tournaments really frequently, until I got frustrated with being penalized for bringing sub-par armies due to stupid comp systems.

Do you play in the Contest of Champions in Sac, by any chance?

I try my best to avoid them, but I also try to attend as many events as I can. Sort of a catch-22 as I tend to travel little.

I have only been to Sacremento for the 'Ard Boys regionals. I do not travel too much.

I think I actually got dinged for using Doom of Malan'tai recently. . . post FAQ. hehe

I find it funny that people honestly think that Tyranids would actually care about things like that. if I recall each hive fleet used diffrent tactics and adapted rather effectivly IMHO.

Because comp is, at its core, not about what the Tyranids would do, but about the non-Tyranid players not wanting to have to fight a tough list.

willydstyle wrote:At a recent event here in the Pac NW, we had the opposite happen. Lists for the event were rated 1-3, where 3 was a "hard" list. Our store's Tyranid player brought a list that his team had judged a 3, and indeed it was doing quite well in our store league.

The list-rating committee decided it wasn't that hard, and dropped it to a 2.

Which is the problem with subjective comp, regardless of the experience of the 'judges'. Everyone sees it differently, based upon their experience and how the game is played in their area.

Bah then they need to find a way to battle things that are tough. If people can not stand the Metagame then they need to get out of the fire. As it stands Tyranids are not that overwhelming.

The biggest problem is that Tyranids do not conform to standard Meta lists with their Mech swarm tactics which leaves the single shot weapons like lascannons not as effective. This results in Tyranids doing what they were made to do, overwhelm.

don_mondo wrote:Which is the problem with subjective comp, regardless of the experience of the 'judges'. Everyone sees it differently, based upon their experience and how the game is played in their area.

But even "objective" comp, like a checklist system is still based on the opinions of a group of people, or often one person. Common things like "must have X percentage troops" often seems like a good guideline, but is really unfair to armies that either don't have good troops, or have non-troops that are expensive enough to bring a complete army if you have to waste so many points on them.

Yeahy, but I'd rather have an objective comp system than a subjective one. If I'm going to get screwed over, at least I know why.
Bottom line. Comp bad.

Tyranids seem to be unfairly judged when it comes to comp scores. Everyone seems to remember the nidzilla lists and automatically score any tyranid list negatively. While tyrnaid lists that actually do better are the lists that use numbers to overpower their opponents.

Pael, I would disagree that the tyranid lists that use numbers to overpower opponents are the lists that do better. From following the threads on this site and places like Warseer the lists in tourneys and other competitive play seem to usually be ones with 1-2 tervigons, elite choices maxed with hive guard/zoeys, 2-3 trygons or T-fexes, maybe Swarmlord or Hive Tyrant or tyrnaid prime. Point is I dont see real swarmy lists usually being shown as the competitive lists.

That said, it would appear to me that the new nidzilla is the more dominant type list in competitive play and as someone above stated it might just bring back thoughts of the old nidzilla and that causes people to mess with your comp.

I agree with those that, if comp is used, players should not be marking down the comp of their opponents because it is so clearly subjective that it becomes meaningless. I don't know all the other codexes as well as I'd like so it is difficult for me in a tourney to judge my opponents army, especially after I lost. Did i lose because he was a better player? Had a better designed army? Or overpowered list?

Comp is good as a tie-breaker but in today's game should not be used in an overall score for all the reasons listed above.

Before troops being required to take and hold objectives, many min troop/max the-most-disgusting-thing-in-my-codex lists abounded. I say power to the player who plays
a boat-load of nerfed carnifexes and makes them work. Not cheezy or bad comp.

To the hoard statements- the problem is always area metagame - hoards may work but you also have to factor in the time alotted per round. If you have 2 hours to play a round and the core of your list is 180 hormagaunts plus friends... Good luck trying to win when you will be hard pressed to get through more than 3 turns.

Ventus wrote:Pael, I would disagree that the tyranid lists that use numbers to overpower opponents are the lists that do better. From following the threads on this site and places like Warseer the lists in tourneys and other competitive play seem to usually be ones with 1-2 tervigons, elite choices maxed with hive guard/zoeys, 2-3 trygons or T-fexes, maybe Swarmlord or Hive Tyrant or tyrnaid prime. Point is I dont see real swarmy lists usually being shown as the competitive lists.

I can agree with this and yet I dislike this. I play a heavy midshooting Tyranid force that maxes out the elites with Hiveguards and Zoeys as it should be done but then I take a Tervi for a Troop choice. Just a single 1 and possibly a Devgnat bomb (15-20 devourer termagant in a spore pod) followed up with Genestealers possibly and some other nasties. Possibly a Mawloc or a tervigon. . . but likely a T-fex. As for hq maybe HT but I perfer Primes more then not. . . that is just my perspective on a real list that has done me well in my area.

Comp score should never really apply to nids. It is just perverse and wrong IMHO.

Virtually all comp systems are built with MEQs in mind. Most actually work pretty well as long as you stick to Marine books. Back in the old days I'd get dinged for bringing too much heavy support but not even fast or elites (I played IG).

I would get messed up baddly then I tend never to bring any Fast Attack in unless I was testing a new loadout or something. It would get way to expensive.

Well I think the Tyranid codex is so terrible that any army built out of it should get a great composition score really.

As the op wrote, they 'create' whatever they need, so how could a Tyranid theme be even defined really?

You need to play my buddy's Tyranids, Augustus. He's got a good chance against any army currently popular.

Lysenis wrote:Comp score should never really apply to nids. It is just perverse and wrong IMHO.

The same fluff-based reasoning could be applied to any army that isn't the Ultramarines.

willydstyle wrote:You need to play my buddy's Tyranids, Augustus. He's got a good chance against any army currently popular.

So do I, at least I can. The issue is adding Comp to that statement. As I posted, I tied for #1 in a recent tourney but the tie-breaker was Comp which I was a fair bit down from many others.

I really do not understand what can or should make up that difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Absolutionis wrote:

Lysenis wrote:Comp score should never really apply to nids. It is just perverse and wrong IMHO.

The same fluff-based reasoning could be applied to any army that isn't the Ultramarines.

Then can you explain how to Comp Tyranids properly--or better yet, build a list that should get 100% comp? Their fluff backs the statement you disagree with.

I am really wondering.

I honestly do not understand.

willydstyle wrote:You need to play my buddy's Tyranids, Augustus. He's got a good chance against any army currently popular.

I'm in the middle of building up a Nid list and am looking for some list ideas as the new dex is unfamiliar to me. DO you have this list by chance, or a rough idea of what's in it?

As for Nid comp I agree with Augustus. The book is not dominating. There are good players who perform well with it as we have seen in tournament results, but I hardly feel the nids are top tier at the moment, or at least I personally have not played against nor seen what I would consider a top tier list yet.

Comp blows hard. The best you can do, I suppose, is to ask the judges what criteria they are using to determine power levels in comp scores. The, try to game that system as well as possible. If they won't tell you or don;t have a system and are just going off of what they "think" is hard or not, then you are screwed as totally at the whim of subjective judges.

If all else fails, play the fluff card. Bugs are ruthless and have essentially infinite resources. They will use whatever tactics they need to to overcome their prey. Anything goes.

Otherwise, just bring the nastiest lists you an come up with and just beat face, taking the ding on comp and going for best general every time.

Not trying to hijack the OP's thread, but have always had the same question about armies like necrons. Do you just max their comp for trying to play with a "weak" codex?

You should have maxed comp for taking any lower tier army. Penalizing them at all is defeating the point of comp, comp is meant to encourage weaker armies to come.

Yet another reason why comp is a failed concept.

Another disadvantage Tyranids have in a comp environment is lack of redundancy especially in a mech-dominated environment.

Compare them to codex marines for example. Marines can put lascannons on tac marines, devestators, dreads, preds, and land raiders. Similar can be said about melta and missiles.

Tyranid weapon lodouts are largely unique. Only hive guard can have impaler cannons. Only T-fex's can have rupture cannons. Zoanthropes are easily shut down by hoods or runes.

I play in a region where the only non-comp tourney option is Ardboyz. Using duplicate units is frowned upon. As a result, I can take 1 unit of hive guard but marine lists can still have 5 lascannons, 5 missile launchers, and 5 melta guns without taking duplicate units.

@Reecius:

I'd say his list is pretty similar to the "net lists" out there. It varies based on what he feels like bringing, and on what points level he's playing at, but in general it's based around two units of three hive guard, and a unit of venomthropes for elites. A prime for HQ, or in 2k games a Tyrant and guards as well as the prime.

Troops are tervigons and termagants. His heavies are usually a pair of devourer carnifexes and some trygons.

He really likes Parosxysm on the Tyrant, and the upgrade that lets him give nearby units preferred enemy.