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.

Leth wrote:The math is a little more complicated than that as most genestealers will have rending/scything I think. But also you forgot no retreat wounds Also 20 hits is going to result in a average of at least 3 rendings

He was doing nekked GS (no talons), but your right about the rending, it would be about 3 rends and about 3.5 deaths to failed saves. Doesn't change the results much though.

Doing the Mathhammer...

20 "naked" genestealers (or genes with toxin sacks - doesn't matter in this case) assaulting 20 flayed ones NOT in cover will decimate the flayed ones. Most likely the flayed ones will lose moral and be wiped out after the first round of combat.

If the Flayed Ones did the assaulting, it would be a much more drawn out combat... but the genes would still win - losing about half their numbers.

Now, the most favourable condition: Genes assaulting into terrain. Flayed ones win! With half remaining! (ie, the above calc is correct-o)

This does, of course, not take into consideration terrain effects brought on by abilities. Neither does it take into consideration other units that may affect the battle. I would expect the necrons to whittle down the genestealers somewhat - they would suffer much more than the flayed ones here due to their lower save. That said, if the gene's get the charge out in the open, one would have to get them down to half strength to avoid that first turn wipe.

So, in regards to Genestealers - the necron player would have to make the 'stealers play on his home turf

In regards to Orks, 15 Flayed Ones will win when assaulting any sized Ork mob (be they shootas or sluggas). 20 will also win when assaulted by 20 shootas, and any type of boyz below that number. Past that, they will lose when assaulted by 20-30 sluggas - but I think only MC's and AV11+ could survive that... (besides, you know, Purifiers - who would still lose 4-6 models to a 20 strong mob)

Leth wrote:The math is a little more complicated than that as most genestealers will have rending/scything I think

.

No, Kain postulated that "naked" Genestealers would curbstomp Flayed Ones. So of course the calculations are based on Genestealers without Lord, Talons and other stuff. Of course they are Rending as they are born with it.

But also you forgot no retreat wounds

What No Retreat wounds are you referring to?
Neither unit is Fearless, both have Ld 10. In trying to avoid unnecessary clutter I simply left Break tests out.

Also 20 hits is going to result in a average of at least 3 rendings

You are right. I calculated the number on rending wounds based on the number of successes, instead of based on the total number of dice rolled.
While this will change the individual results a little bit, it certainly isn't enough to change the final conclusion.

No retreat for the genestealers as they are likely to be in a synapse bubble. However outside of that it would be straight leadership.

I posted a per point update as well as combat for equal points of genestealers and flayed ones in my previous post. It was quite enlightening. Hope to do it with other units soon.

Leth wrote:No retreat for the genestealers as they are likely to be in a synapse bubble. However outside of that it would be straight leadership.

I posted a per point update as well as combat for equal points of genestealers and flayed ones in my previous post. It was quite enlightening. Hope to do it with other units soon.

I try to avoid guessing at what other units are likely to be nearby as that is hugely influenced by the flow of the game, the army-list and the local meta.

While I certainly realize that that is akin to looking at units in a vacuum (which is never good), it is motivated by ´trying to simplify the experiment enough that the data is actually useful instead of an attempt to analyse the entire battle/army.
When trying to math-hammer anything we are always walking a line between that simplification and an attempt to include as many factors as possible.

Yep, otherwise it gets to crazy. What if they had FNP, what if the flayed ones had counter attack? All these variables would get pretty bogged down. Still pretty interesting results in my opinion.

Even against thunder hammer storm shield terminators they can do a decent job of holding their own.

About 3 flayed ones per terminator.

3 flayed ones do.375 wounds
1 terminator does .875 wounds, .58 after resurrection protocols. Only they are always going first.

Speaking of the CCB, I was thinking today how LValx and JGrand consider it the most amazingly efficient optimized unit ever in the history of Necrons and should be double tapped into every "competitive TAC list".

Now, it is certainly a very good vehicle killer (although an equal costed DLord has better odds against any vehicle not moving cruising speed and is significantly better in CC).

However, in a null vehicle list, the CCB is a very in-efficient use of points. So against Green Tide, Nob Bikers, ALL Nids, ALL Demons, many GK builds, many DA builds, some Necron Builds, many BA builds...etc...he is a rather poor point investment...

Does this mean that you shouldn't take CCBs? Of course not. Does this mean using the "some units in army X present problems for unit Y" is an absurdly ridiculous argument? I would say so.

Sure, against some foot armies, the CCB is less efficient. However, you can almost always get use out of it. CCB's are still a fast way to charge an Overlord into units. Is it worth tying up Lootas, Psyfleman, and certain other manageable foot units? Is it worth being able to sweep over a Blood Angels unit and pick out the Priest on a 6? Absolutely.

Is the CCB always going to be the best thing ever? No. Is the CCB the best TAC choice? Absolutely. I don't know about you, but I don't tailor...

In a competitive TAC list, your goal is to take units that have the best chance at being effective versus all armies (or at the very least, the more popular builds). Flayed Ones don't fall into this category. If you need to know why, just take a look at LValX's post about why Flayed Ones fall short versus the vast majority of armies.

I'm pretty much done posting in this thread, as I feel like there isn't a point to debating further. Perhaps it was all a misunderstanding. Your above post leads me to believe that you aren't creating viable TAC lists for a competitive environment. If you are arguing Flayed Ones for kicks, fine. If you are arguing that they are slightly better than most people claim, I guess I can understand that. But, they are not a competitive unit.

At this point, you have had ample time to post some bat reps, play Vassal against a challenge, or even produce a list that you feel incorporates Flayed Ones in a competitive manner. Generally, the burden of proof falls on the person making claims contrary to the accepted paradigm. In this case, you provided hypotheticals. When those hypotheticals have been countered by mathhammer or examples of why Flayed Ones won't do anything substantial against commonly accepted units, you changed what you were arguing. Hell, even anecdotal evidence would be something at this point.

I'm all for trying to upset the apple cart and incorporate different units into lists. I love kicking around cool new ideas to spice up 40k. At the same time, you need to realize that there are truly lost causes in certain codices. Sadly, Flayed Ones are one of GW's big misses.

ShadarLogoth wrote:

Kain wrote:

Lukus83 wrote:Toxin sacs are 3 points.

Ah, his math would still be off, and even then naked genestealers can more or less clear flayed ones off the table when they get the charge, and they will.

Actually...they won't.

Here is the most likely scenario:

You place the Flayed Ones in cover somewhere between the Genestealers (or where they are likely coming from if Outflanking) and your Warriors (or some other shooting based unit you don't want tangling with the GS).

The Genestealers can either:

A.) Assault your FOs in cover...and lose

B.) Try to ignore the FOs and run past, getting assaulted the next turn and ultimately losing.

C.) Go out of there way to to stay out of the assault range of the FOs, delaying their arrival at the Warriors, get shot to pieces by Gauss Flayers, and die.

Flayed Ones should only be used offensively if facing an army where such tactics are appropriate. If not (like say fighting a primarily CC based force), using them defensively to keep your Warriors/Immortals alive is perfectly acceptable. I honestly think this is the biggest "problem" with FOs...you have to use your brain. They aren't a wind up Electronic Football toy like a CCB where you just point it at stuff and say "kill."


Speaking of the CCB, I was thinking today how LValx and JGrand consider it the most amazingly efficient optimized unit ever in the history of Necrons and should be double tapped into every "competitive TAC list".

Now, it is certainly a very good vehicle killer (although an equal costed DLord has better odds against any vehicle not moving cruising speed and is significantly better in CC).

However, in a null vehicle list, the CCB is a very in-efficient use of points. So against Green Tide, Nob Bikers, ALL Nids, ALL Demons, many GK builds, many DA builds, some Necron Builds, many BA builds...etc...he is a rather poor point investment...

Does this mean that you shouldn't take CCBs? Of course not. Does this mean using the "some units in army X present problems for unit Y" is an absurdly ridiculous argument? I would say so.

The CCB has far more uses than simply blowing up vehicles. As a fast vehicle it can contest objectives, escort falling back units and get your Overlord to the places where he can make a big difference. The Overlord is great for getting behind enemy lines and killing backfield troops choices, something any balanced list will take, including all those foot lists. Daemons definitely fear the CCB since Daemon players love to take minimum troops with small squad sizes, something the Overlord excels at killing. BA builds will suffer against CCBs because if they are on foot the sweep attack can pick out the Priests. DA builds fear them as well because the sweep can target the Cyclones resulting in a higher chance to neuter the squads shooting. Tide fears the Overlords because Lootas will get rolled by them.

Based on this thread I decided to try them out in my army.
Paired with Imotekh and a res orb destroyer lord, 10 flayed ones deep struck turn 3, managing to kill 3 squads of assault marines(2 were a combat squad) and contest 2 objectives by spreading out into a chain.

Based on this thread I decided to try them out in my army.
Paired with Imotekh and a res orb destroyer lord, 10 flayed ones deep struck turn 3, managing to kill 3 squads of assault marines(2 were a combat squad) and contest 2 objectives by spreading out into a chain.

Pretty sure you can't attach characters to the Flayed Ones unit who don't have deep strike and then deep strike in...

Well, i bet imotekh wasnt too much of a help in that fight anyway.

While a dlord may have better numbers against vehicles who don't move it has worse numbers against things that do. Movement blocking also bones them. They have lesser range and rely on cc to demech. It is almost always better to destroy vehicles before the assault phase.

LValx wrote:While a dlord may have better numbers against vehicles who don't move it has worse numbers against things that do. Movement blocking also bones them. They have lesser range and rely on cc to demech. It is almost always better to destroy vehicles before the assault phase.

Wrong, they have better numbers against vehicles that move Combat Speed or slower (although against combat speed its only a slight advantage). I understand you think that (killing vehicles in the assault phase), and that might have been true in the past, but that paradigm has shifted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

When those hypotheticals have been countered by mathhammer or examples of why Flayed Ones won't do anything substantial against commonly accepted units, you changed what you were arguing. Hell, even anecdotal evidence would be something at this point.

That hasn't actually happened at all. In fact, what has been clearly demonstrated, is if used competently they will perform sufficiently against a wide variety of targets. The real telling thing here is despite this being clearly spelled out for you you insist on clinging to your pre-concieved notions. I have no burden of proof, the fact that the most vocal two people on this thread shouting out opposition come from the exact same school of thought (and apparently plat together) proves the game theory and memetic stimuli I started this thread discussing. You and LValx have clearly demonstrated that you haven't even taken a moment to actually consider how Flayed Ones could operate synergistically within their respective codex. Every single point LValx brought up would be easily countered by a competent general. I, and others, have already showed this with three of the units (Orc Boys, GS, and Purifiers, well, I didn't fully show it with the Purifiers, but in short, bring Gloom Prisms). It's not my responsibility to fill in all the gaps of your willful intellectual laziness, especially when you won't even have the intellectual honesty to concede when you've been proven wrong.

I have fought my share of tournament style lists with my list. The fact that you are unable to see its viability really means nothing to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JGrand wrote:

Based on this thread I decided to try them out in my army.
Paired with Imotekh and a res orb destroyer lord, 10 flayed ones deep struck turn 3, managing to kill 3 squads of assault marines(2 were a combat squad) and contest 2 objectives by spreading out into a chain.

Pretty sure you can't attach characters to the Flayed Ones unit who don't have deep strike and then deep strike in...

DLords are Jump Infantry...

But I find it positively shocking that the second some one does post anecdotal evidence you try to slam them with inaccurate information. I've said this already, but if I could post fully detailed BRs of all of my games with the unit all I'm going to get out of you are "your opponent was bad, your dice were good, etc."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Basimpo wrote:Well, i bet imotekh wasnt too much of a help in that fight anyway.

Perhaps, definitely not with the scarabs (I assume the DLord can't take advantage of this, never tried to myself). However 3 turns of Lightning and Night Fighting the turn they arrived (assuming this happened) very well could have saved them from a bullet or two that otherwise would have been heading in their direction.

My bad on the d lord. I meant at cruising speed of course. The fact remains that the ccb is a better tac unit. It has the ability to do many different things. Denying cover is absolutely huge. Also the ability to sweep and disembark, thus targetting two vehicles. That is a giant advantage. The Lord can also hit on 3's, if moving at combat speed, putting him even with the DLord. Not endorsing that tactic but pointing out it is very possible. Especially if you plan to disembark and go for the 2 units.

Second, I don't have some personal vendetta against flayed ones. If you provided some better arguments as to why I should eschew the better units in favor of them I would be open to them. If I had played against them and was impressed, I may be open to them. However, that hasnt happened. I dont think they belong in a TAC list. And dont accuse me of being unoriginal or "lazy", I've tested many different units and I believe the cron codex can field many versatile builds. I just do not think FOs fit into any of them due to a case of mistaken identity.

If you honestly think the FOs beat Stealers at similar costs, I dont know what to do for you. Of course you can sit them in cover but the stealers dont need to assault them since they are merely cc threats. On a pt for pt basis GS are more effective at their role of dedicated CC (faster, rending, high init., high ws). Ork boyz at similar pt levels can do more due to the ability to shoot. On the charge they should do quite well against FOs. Having gloom prism close helps but Spyders are slow and stringing out the FO's can easily cause you to be denied attacks, its not so black and white as to simply say Prism tips the balance. Supporting units not considered the Purifiers do extremely well vs FO's.

You are the one who has a personal investment in evaluating the unit, not me. I'm attempting to make the most objective judgment when it comes to the unit and all signs point to bad.

And the paradigm is shifting to cc being effective for de-meching? Since when? Are nids, orks and daemons suddenly top tier? Just because scarabs exist doesnt make it a good mechanic. Yes, they are good anti armor but they are far more specialized than units like a D lord. In fact they are head and shoulders above other anti vehicle cc units. Due to the order of phases shooting is the best manner in which to demech, especially if using designed anti infantry units such as Wraiths. Movement is even better but only Crons have access to that unique tool.

If you want to prove something hurry along and playtest with me. I expect that you playtest often, judging by your extreme confidence. Unless, of course, you're merely an armchair general? I know I play against two Necron players and I play against Crons 3-4 times a week. Im fairly confident in my knowledge of the codex and understanding what works and what doesn't.

P.S. you still have yet to show a list, not exactly helpin your credibility.

LValx wrote:The Lord can also hit on 3's, if moving at combat speed, putting him even with the DLord. Not endorsing that tactic but pointing out it is very possible. Especially if you plan to disembark and go for the 2 units.

True. But this leaves the CCB pretty vulnerable, and the DLord is still going to operate more efficiently in CC, and can hide quite well in Jump Infantry. A CCB is one well placed Rocket or Lascannon away from being effectively neutered. (I still think the CCB is a great unit, but the DLord is a great unit as well).

If you honestly think the FOs beat Stealers at similar costs, I dont know what to do for you. Of course you can sit them in cover but the stealers dont need to assault them since they are merely cc threats. On a pt for pt basis GS are more effective at their role of dedicated CC (faster, rending, high init., high ws). Ork boyz at similar pt levels can do more due to the ability to shoot. On the charge they should do quite well against FOs. Having gloom prism close helps but Spyders are slow and stringing out the FO's can easily cause you to be denied attacks, its not so black and white as to simply say Prism tips the balance. Supporting units not considered the Purifiers do extremely well vs FO's.

Again, the GS and Orcs are less resistant to shooting, have no access to Night Fighting, and despite this the FOs can still beat them in CC if used competently. You keep parading this out as an established fact...and it's not.

Sure, Purifiers do extremely well against them if unsupported, as they do against every single horde based CC unit in the game. What exactly does this prove? Please spell it out for me because I see no valid point being made here.

You are the one who has a personal investment in evaluating the unit, not me. I'm attempting to make the most objective judgment when it comes to the unit and all signs point to bad.

Perhaps. And it doesn't seem like you play Necrons yourself, and no one who does in your play group brings Flayed Ones. Can you at least admit a lack of exposure here?

And the paradigm is shifting to cc being effective for de-meching? Since when? Are nids, orks and daemons suddenly top tier? Just because scarabs exist doesnt make it a good mechanic. Yes, they are good anti armor but they are far more specialized than units like a D lord. In fact they are head and shoulders above other anti vehicle cc units. Due to the order of phases shooting is the best manner in which to demech, especially if using designed anti infantry units such as Wraiths. Movement is even better but only Crons have access to that unique tool.

The fact that Necrons are covered with vehicle stunning/immobilizing weapons (Gauss, Tesla Destructors, Imo Lighting, etc) means the opportunity to run across a stalled vehicle in CC is much higher then with most armies. I think we can both agree that there is no statistically more favorable way to destroy a vehicle then assaulting one that hasn't moved, setting up these conditions are quite easy for the Necrons, it just takes a little foresight (where will my CC units be next turn).

If you want to prove something hurry along and playtest with me. I expect that you playtest often, judging by your extreme confidence. Unless, of course, you're merely an armchair general? I know I play against two Necron players and I play against Crons 3-4 times a week. Im fairly confident in my knowledge of the codex and understanding what works and what doesn't.

P.S. you still have yet to show a list, not exactly helpin your credibility.

Still hoping for the flag pole after school so I can defend my girl friend's honor eh? I gave you enough to draw a reasonable idea of what my list might look like, you respond with derision as was to be expected. I have no intention of derailing my own thread with "your list is bad" obfuscating.

ShadarLogoth wrote:

LValx wrote:The Lord can also hit on 3's, if moving at combat speed, putting him even with the DLord. Not endorsing that tactic but pointing out it is very possible. Especially if you plan to disembark and go for the 2 units.

True. But this leaves the CCB pretty vulnerable, and the DLord is still going to operate more efficiently in CC, and can hide quite well in Jump Infantry. A CCB is one well placed Rocket or Lascannon away from being effectively neutered. (I still think the CCB is a great unit, but the DLord is a great unit as well).

If you honestly think the FOs beat Stealers at similar costs, I dont know what to do for you. Of course you can sit them in cover but the stealers dont need to assault them since they are merely cc threats. On a pt for pt basis GS are more effective at their role of dedicated CC (faster, rending, high init., high ws). Ork boyz at similar pt levels can do more due to the ability to shoot. On the charge they should do quite well against FOs. Having gloom prism close helps but Spyders are slow and stringing out the FO's can easily cause you to be denied attacks, its not so black and white as to simply say Prism tips the balance. Supporting units not considered the Purifiers do extremely well vs FO's.

Again, the GS and Orcs are less resistant to shooting, have no access to Night Fighting, and despite this the FOs can still beat them in CC if used competently. You keep parading this out as an established fact...and it's not.

Sure, Purifiers do extremely well against them if unsupported, as they do against every single horde based CC unit in the game. What exactly does this prove? Please spell it out for me because I see no valid point being made here.

You are the one who has a personal investment in evaluating the unit, not me. I'm attempting to make the most objective judgment when it comes to the unit and all signs point to bad.

Perhaps. And it doesn't seem like you play Necrons yourself, and no one who does in your play group brings Flayed Ones. Can you at least admit a lack of exposure here?

And the paradigm is shifting to cc being effective for de-meching? Since when? Are nids, orks and daemons suddenly top tier? Just because scarabs exist doesnt make it a good mechanic. Yes, they are good anti armor but they are far more specialized than units like a D lord. In fact they are head and shoulders above other anti vehicle cc units. Due to the order of phases shooting is the best manner in which to demech, especially if using designed anti infantry units such as Wraiths. Movement is even better but only Crons have access to that unique tool.

The fact that Necrons are covered with vehicle stunning/immobilizing weapons (Gauss, Tesla Destructors, Imo Lighting, etc) means the opportunity to run across a stalled vehicle in CC is much higher then with most armies. I think we can both agree that there is no statistically more favorable way to destroy a vehicle then assaulting one that hasn't moved, setting up these conditions are quite easy for the Necrons, it just takes a little foresight (where will my CC units be next turn).

If you want to prove something hurry along and playtest with me. I expect that you playtest often, judging by your extreme confidence. Unless, of course, you're merely an armchair general? I know I play against two Necron players and I play against Crons 3-4 times a week. Im fairly confident in my knowledge of the codex and understanding what works and what doesn't.

P.S. you still have yet to show a list, not exactly helpin your credibility.

Still hoping for the flag pole after school so I can defend my girl friend's honor eh? I gave you enough to draw a reasonable idea of what my list might look like, you respond with derision as was to be expected. I have no intention of derailing my own thread with "your list is bad" obfuscating.

Since Boyz are cheaper they can easily reach similar levels of durability. We both know cover is easily gained so the Boyz should often have a 4+ save to shooting. In combat they are more vulnerable but they do have a higher initiative balancing that out just a tad. The same applies to Stealers. Not to mention they can easily be given FNP by one of the most popular Nid units.

Gauss weaponry has to be quite close to actually stun vehicles and even then it isn't that effective. 5 Warriors rapid firing produce 1 glance. And something not to be overlooked is the fact that you can't rely on glances whilst not having some psychic defense when playing the GK codex. That codex is arguably the toughest one for Crons (and any other codex for that matter) to play against. Glances are essentially meaningless. Destructors won't be taken in high numbers if you forgo Barges for Spyders or eschew them due to taking an Imo based list. Farm lists generally lack shooting and those are the same lists that rely on CC to take out vehicles. So I think the prevalence of Gauss isn't quite the advantage you make it out to be.

Assaulting vehicles that haven't moved with units such as Wraiths and Scarabs is obviously very efficient, though i'd still rather rely on shooting to destroy vehicles. So I can put those same units to use for destroying the units inside their boxes. I play against a list that takes a fair sized unit of Scarabs and 6 Spyders and I can tell you that relying on the CC often works to the opponents disadvantage. The game mechanics favor the shooting phase. I think this is obvious to anyone who plays the game frequently at a high level of competition.

Since Boyz are cheaper they can easily reach similar levels of durability. We both know cover is easily gained so the Boyz should often have a 4+ save to shooting. In combat they are more vulnerable but they do have a higher initiative balancing that out just a tad.

Perhaps, they still don't have RP, or Night Fighting. And keeping 30 boys well covered and still allowing them to move towards the enemy is quite a bit harder then you are allowing here.

The same applies to Stealers. Not to mention they can easily be given FNP by one of the most popular Nid units.

Sure, and if your augmenting the Stealers with a 200 point Tervigon I'll be augmenting the FOs with a 200 point DLord. I'll take that match up.

Glances are essentially meaningless.

I'm sorry but that's just a ridiculous statement. You still have a 33% chance of blowing off a Weapon or Immobilizing a GK vehicle, and they still have a chance to fail their Psychic test. This is akin to saying that shooting at Wraiths is essentially meaningless because they have a 3++. Don't be absurd.

The game mechanics favor the shooting phase. I think this is obvious to anyone who plays the game frequently at a high level of competition.

The reason people feel this way is many units (like GS) that you would otherwise put in this role will get throttled by the shooting the following turn. However, there are unappreciated advantages of killing a vehicle in the assault phase, namely surrounding the vehicle so the occupants die. I would say that is far more efficient then having to be troubled with assaulting them. Dead units aren't much of a threat generally speaking.

ShadarLogoth wrote:

Since Boyz are cheaper they can easily reach similar levels of durability. We both know cover is easily gained so the Boyz should often have a 4+ save to shooting. In combat they are more vulnerable but they do have a higher initiative balancing that out just a tad.

Perhaps, they still don't have RP, or Night Fighting. And keeping 30 boys well covered and still allowing them to move towards the enemy is quite a bit harder then you are allowing here.

The same applies to Stealers. Not to mention they can easily be given FNP by one of the most popular Nid units.

Sure, and if your augmenting the Stealers with a 200 point Tervigon I'll be augmenting the FOs with a 200 point DLord. I'll take that match up.

Glances are essentially meaningless.

I'm sorry but that's just a ridiculous statement. You still have a 33% chance of blowing off a Weapon or Immobilizing a GK vehicle, and they still have a chance to fail their Psychic test. This is akin to saying that shooting at Wraiths is essentially meaningless because they have a 3++. Don't be absurd.

The game mechanics favor the shooting phase. I think this is obvious to anyone who plays the game frequently at a high level of competition.

The reason people feel this way is many units (like GS) that you would otherwise put in this role will get throttled by the shooting the following turn. However, there are unappreciated advantages of killing a vehicle in the assault phase, namely surrounding the vehicle so the occupants die. I would say that is far more efficient then having to be troubled with assaulting them. Dead units aren't much of a threat generally speaking.

Keeping the Boy'z in cover and getting them to assault is about as difficult as it is for your FO's, both units will be forced to deal with them on boards with adequate terrain, i.e. NOVA style. At least the Orks can get themselves Fleet for a turn. And the GS get Move through and Fleet. You also have to keep in mind that ranged anti-infantry isn't a very prevalent thing in competitive 40k. Most people take long ranged, high strength weaponry to deal with the heavy mech lists. Foot lists don't often get taken, due to time constraints and the obvious advantages offered by meching up. So hordes of Boyz or Stealers are very, very survivable. Ask JGrand, he got throttled by a Green Tide list at a NOVA invitational qualifier.

The difference between a Tervigon and D Lord is that the Tervigon is one of the best, if not the best unit in that entire codex. They are taken by almost every Nid player out there whilst the D Lord isn't taken by many, so you are much more likely to see a GS unit supported by a Tervigon than a FO's unit with a Dlord attached. Attaching the Lord also has some unfavorable effects such as slowing down the Lord himself. Tervigons also augment the entire army and produce troops. My point was simply that often times when playing against GS they will not simply have a 5+ but more likely a 4+/4+ vs shooting and 5+/4+ vs combat.

The chances of immobilizing a vehicle through glances is fairly low, you have to roll consecutive 6's which is very unlikely. So to insure you stop a GK vehicle from moving you have to allocate 18 Warriors shooting at rapid-fire. This insures one immobilize but doesn't even account for a cover save. Include that and that number jumps to 36 Warriors. Good generals will generally have cover on ALL their stuff. So this mechanic seems fairly inefficient vs. the top codex and a regular at any tournament you will go to. The fortitude test can be failed but you can't hope that they will fail a LD10 test, so if you want to get that devastating CC vs a vehicle you will want to immobilize it fully. Imotekh is also a very luck-based way of removing vehicles. You need 6's and that isn't something you can easily rely on.

Once again, with your list build you will not have much shooting and therefore won't produce many glances at all. Lists that have higher amounts of shooting will often do more damage than merely glancing. Barges are extremely efficient vs light armor and CCBs peel open vehicles easily as well. The chances of you surrounding a vehicle with FO's is fairly low. Generally you will be slowed down by terrain and your range isn't large enough to where this is simple to pull off. Competent generalship will also avoid having such things happen. I'd say that killing occupants by surrounding vehicles is a fringe occurrence. Tesla doesn't have any special glancing properties so Cron's have no advantage here and Gauss weaponry is too short ranged to really make a difference. And how many players actually use their Warriors in an aggressive manner? They are far too big of a liability to play with aggressively unless you take quite a few of them or spend the points to augment them (I'm not a very big fan of this either as they are too susceptible to easy sweeps).

I have a hard time believing that you play much 5thed 40k, or play at a competitive level. It is very, very obvious that the game is built in a manner that favors the shooting phase and makes CC a poor mechanic to deal with mech. This problem is further exacerbated by the fact that the game also favors a mech environment due to the difficulty involved in actually destroying vehicles. I am fine with people demeching me in their assault phase, allowing me to shoot and then assault them in the following turn.

I think it takes incredible hubris to sit here and make blanket statements about the state of the game when what you are saying is completely contrary to what is actually the case. Do you honestly know something that the other competitive 40k players do not? You referenced Hulksmash and Dash but failed to remember that Dash plays Mech Spam that is pure shooting and Hulksmash takes foot GK's that spam Str7 Rending shots. Before that Hulk took Str8 spam Space Wolves. While the type of list may be unique they still subscribe to the tenants generally seen as favorable for 5th. Look at winning lists from the last 16-20 months and tell me that they don't overwhelmingly favor shooting and a mech environment. If CC were such a great mechanic you would see far, far more lists that utilize it. Even the winning Cron lists tend to take quite a few lances, CCBs and Anni-Barges. That is quite a bit of shooting power.

I know your rebuttal will consist of something referencing my hive-mind mentality, my inability to think outside-of-the-box. But you are making many assumptions about me, namely that I don't do all that I can to take unique and obscure units that go against what is obvious. I certainly do this (my GK's feature not a single Psyfledread!). But certain mechanics in the game are so much better than others that I do not intend to gimp myself just for the sake of being different than others. I wish I could rely on CC to do my dirty work for me, I wish I could use an infiltrating CC unit in conjunction with some Wraiths. That sounds very, very fun. However, in my experience attempting to use them and in my experience in playing them, they were as awful as they look on paper.

Keeping the Boy'z in cover and getting them to assault is about as difficult as it is for your FO's, both units will be forced to deal with them on boards with adequate terrain, i.e. NOVA style. At least the Orks can get themselves Fleet for a turn. And the GS get Move through and Fleet. You also have to keep in mind that ranged anti-infantry isn't a very prevalent thing in competitive 40k. Most people take long ranged, high strength weaponry to deal with the heavy mech lists. Foot lists don't often get taken, due to time constraints and the obvious advantages offered by meching up. So hordes of Boyz or Stealers are very, very survivable. Ask JGrand, he got throttled by a Green Tide list at a NOVA invitational qualifier.

So foot based lists don't often get taken...except in the cases of Hordes of Boys and Steelers that only exist in foot based lists?

Word.

And for the millionth time, RP placement shennigans is a very good fill in for MTC and Fleet. Blatantly ignoring points already made isn't particularly conducive to honest discourse.

They are taken by almost every Nid player out there whilst the D Lord isn't taken by many, so you are much more likely to see a GS unit supported by a Tervigon than a FO's unit with a Dlord attached

Completely irrelevant when you are specifically designing a list with the DLord. And the DLord can attach his Res Orb to any unit as well, considering the range of Cataclysm versus the movement of the DLord I would say that the augmentation capabilities are similar.

The chances of immobilizing a vehicle through glances is fairly low, you have to roll consecutive 6's which is very unlikely.

And weapon destroyed? Also, not to get into a statistics argument, but the chances of something happening that already happened are 100%. You said glances are essentially meaningless (which assumes the glance in the first place), this does nothing to support that argument.

I have a hard time believing that you play much 5thed 40k, or play at a competitive level. It is very, very obvious that the game is built in a manner that favors the shooting phase and makes CC a poor mechanic to deal with mech. This problem is further exacerbated by the fact that the game also favors a mech environment due to the difficulty involved in actually destroying vehicles. I am fine with people demeching me in their assault phase, allowing me to shoot and then assault them in the following turn.

LOL. Still at this eh? People use Wraiths, Scarabs etc to de-mech all the time. ALL. THE. TIME. As you yourself have stated it is the Scarabs clear primary roll. Keep with the ad hominems though if it aids your cognitive dissonance.

I think it takes incredible hubris to sit here and make blanket statements about the state of the game. Especially since most of what you are saying is completely contrary to what is actually the case. Look at winning lists from the last 16-20 months and tell me that they don't overwhelmingly favor shooting and a mech environment. If CC were such a great mechanic you would see far, far more lists that utilize it. Even the winning Cron lists tend to take quite a few lances, CCBs and Anni-Barges. That is quite a bit of shooting power.

I specifically stated the Necrons change this paradigm, so your time frame is meaningless. In the last 6 months though several Necron lists have employed large amounts of CC to demech (and won tournaments), and you either know this yourself or don't play nearly as much as you claim to.

Hell, I've seen lists with basically C'tan/Scarabs/Tomb Spyders as the only real Anti-Vehicle outside of Gauss win tournaments. Let me guess, their opponents were bad and their dice were good right?

ShadarLogoth wrote:

Keeping the Boy'z in cover and getting them to assault is about as difficult as it is for your FO's, both units will be forced to deal with them on boards with adequate terrain, i.e. NOVA style. At least the Orks can get themselves Fleet for a turn. And the GS get Move through and Fleet. You also have to keep in mind that ranged anti-infantry isn't a very prevalent thing in competitive 40k. Most people take long ranged, high strength weaponry to deal with the heavy mech lists. Foot lists don't often get taken, due to time constraints and the obvious advantages offered by meching up. So hordes of Boyz or Stealers are very, very survivable. Ask JGrand, he got throttled by a Green Tide list at a NOVA invitational qualifier.

So foot based lists don't often get taken...except in the cases of Hordes of Boys and Steelers that only exist in foot based lists?

Word.

And for the millionth time, RP placement shennigans is a very good fill in for MTC and Fleet. Blatantly ignoring points already made isn't particularly conducive to honest discourse.

They are taken by almost every Nid player out there whilst the D Lord isn't taken by many, so you are much more likely to see a GS unit supported by a Tervigon than a FO's unit with a Dlord attached

Completely irrelevant when you are specifically designing a list with the DLord. And the DLord can attach his Res Orb to any unit as well, considering the range of Cataclysm versus the movement of the DLord I would say that the augmentation capabilities are similar.

The chances of immobilizing a vehicle through glances is fairly low, you have to roll consecutive 6's which is very unlikely.

And weapon destroyed? Also, not to get into a statistics argument, but the chances of something happening that already happened are 100%. You said glances are essentially meaningless (which assumes the glance in the first place), this does nothing to support that argument.

I have a hard time believing that you play much 5thed 40k, or play at a competitive level. It is very, very obvious that the game is built in a manner that favors the shooting phase and makes CC a poor mechanic to deal with mech. This problem is further exacerbated by the fact that the game also favors a mech environment due to the difficulty involved in actually destroying vehicles. I am fine with people demeching me in their assault phase, allowing me to shoot and then assault them in the following turn.

LOL. Still at this eh? People use Wraiths, Scarabs etc to de-mech all the time. ALL. THE. TIME. As you yourself have stated it is the Scarabs clear primary roll. Keep with the ad hominems though if it aids your cognitive dissonance.

I think it takes incredible hubris to sit here and make blanket statements about the state of the game. Especially since most of what you are saying is completely contrary to what is actually the case. Look at winning lists from the last 16-20 months and tell me that they don't overwhelmingly favor shooting and a mech environment. If CC were such a great mechanic you would see far, far more lists that utilize it. Even the winning Cron lists tend to take quite a few lances, CCBs and Anni-Barges. That is quite a bit of shooting power.

I specifically stated the Necrons change this paradigm, so your time frame is meaningless. In the last 6 months though several Necron lists have employed large amounts of CC to demech (and won tournaments), and you either know this yourself or don't play nearly as much as you claim to.

Hell, I've seen lists with basically C'tan/Scarabs/Tomb Spyders as the only real Anti-Vehicle outside of Gauss win tournaments. Let me guess, their opponents were bad and their dice were good right?

I never said that hordes of Boyz and Stealers were that common (Xenos in general, is not), I just used them as comparisons to another unit that isn't very common: FO's. You are also blatantly ignoring one of my big points. The FOs can be ignored and not given free movement due to their relatively low speed and inability to threaten in at range.

D Lord can augment one unit that he is attached to, the Tervigon need not attach itself and can augment not just by buffing one unit but by creating a whole new one. Significant advantage in army synergy. Not to mention the Gaunt buff as well. Not very comparable.

I said glances are ESSENTIALLY meaningless. Rolling 2 6's on 2d6 is a 1/36 chance. Relatively low. Weapon destroys don't hurt Rhinos at all, but a 1/6 chance to stop the vehicle from shooting is also relatively low. When keeping in mind cover, it takes way too many glances for you to do just about anything in the shooting phase.

Funny that you mention ad hominems, do you even read your own posts? Condescending and combative just as much as mine, you may frame your insults in prettier language but that doesn't change the fact that you have been consistently insulting my intelligence.

People use Wraiths to de-mech but not as their primary role, mainly because it is less efficient than using them for their designed purpose. I have used Grey Hunters to destroy non-moving vehicles but I would hardly say it is a dependable strategy. Generally it is a last resort when you have no other targets or the highest priority target happens to be a vehicle. Obviously Scarabs are great at de-meching but without large numbers they generally are a one shot unit that can only kill 1-2 vehicles before dying. Good players can easily screen vehicle lines to minimize the impact of smaller squads. Larger squads require you to invest more points and build less of a TACs list.

Not too many diverse Cron lists have won, outside of the Indy GT, the big GT winners have used Barge/Wraith combos. Crons have not won enough to sit there and say that they caused a paradigm shift. The GK's have caused far more of one. Scarabs are scary but they are also easily countered. Did you look at adepticon results? One of those Cron lists got absolutely steam-rolled by a shooting based GK list. One of many that dominated the Top 16.

You are referencing the Indy GT. Read the man's battle reports. His dice were VERY hot.

Oops forgot Fennell's list, which had some big wins. Though he is a known top player and that allows him to be a little more creative. He also got absolutely throttled in the Adepticon Finals

I never said that hordes of Boyz and Stealers were that common (Xenos in general, is not), I just used them as comparisons to another unit that isn't very common: FO's. You are also blatantly ignoring one of my big points. The FOs can be ignored and not given free movement due to their relatively low speed and inability to threaten in at range.

No, I've acknowledged this point, and it means the FOs will have more bases reach CC then Boys or GS. Advantage FOs. And It is extremely rare for me to take more then two turns to reach a unit with FOs. I think you are critically over exaggerating this point. Outside of the turn they assault they are just as fast as Boys, assuming you're not getting shot at to get the extra RP "movement" in which case they are faster. Are you saying Boys can just be ignored because theys too slowss as well? So JGrand lost to Green Tide because he's bad?

D Lord can augment one unit that he is attached to, the Tervigon need not attach itself and can augment not just by buffing one unit but by creating a whole new one. Significant advantage in army synergy. Not to mention the Gaunt buff as well. Not very comparable.

Agreed, only brought him up because you were introducing FNP into the equation.

I said glances are ESSENTIALLY meaningless. Rolling 2 6's on 2d6 is a 1/36 chance. Relatively low. Weapon destroys don't hurt Rhinos at all, but a 1/6 chance to stop the vehicle from shooting is also relatively low. When keeping in mind cover, it takes way too many glances for you to do just about anything in the shooting phase.

Weapon Destroyed bring Rinos one step closer to death. 2 WDs immobilize a Rhino. And your notion that vehicles always, or even mostly, have cover is completely absurd. Also, this is all relative to GKs, and vehicle spamming GKs at that. GKs don't generally bring Edit:Vehicle spam lists in the old Razorback SW style, so you are again way overstating the veracity of this argument.

Funny that you mention ad hominems, do you even read your own posts? Condescending and combative just as much as mine, you may frame your insults in prettier language but that doesn't change the fact that you have been consistently insulting my intelligence.

I would not say I'm insulting your intelligence, just calling into question your choice of rhetorical styles. The whole purpose of these forums is to have honest discussion, not to shout out dissenting opinion. For the most part though you've kept it on the up and up, and I do appreciate you engaging in the discussion, regardless if I disagree with your position.

Not too many diverse Cron lists have won, outside of the Indy GT, the big GT winners have used Barge/Wraith combos. Crons have not won enough to sit there and say that they caused a paradigm shift. The GK's have caused far more of one. Scarabs are scary but they are also easily countered. Did you look at adepticon results? One of those Cron lists got absolutely steam-rolled by a shooting based GK list. One of many that dominated the Top 16.

I would say restricting you sample pool to only GTs is rather restrictive. The amount of players regularly attending these is an infinitesimal fraction of the player base at large, and many of them subsrcibe to your brand of group think. This is exactly the point of my whole argument.

You are referencing the Indy GT. Read the man's battle reports. His dice were VERY hot.

I literally did not see that coming, at all.

ShadarLogoth wrote:

I never said that hordes of Boyz and Stealers were that common (Xenos in general, is not), I just used them as comparisons to another unit that isn't very common: FO's. You are also blatantly ignoring one of my big points. The FOs can be ignored and not given free movement due to their relatively low speed and inability to threaten in at range.

No, I've acknowledged this point, and it means the FOs will have more bases reach CC then Boys or GS. Advantage FOs. And It is extremely rare for me to take more then two turns to reach a unit with FOs. I think you are critically over exaggerating this point. Outside of the turn they assault they are just as fast as Boys, assuming you're not getting shot at to get the extra RP "movement" in which case they are faster. Are you saying Boys can just be ignored because theys too slowss as well? So JGrand lost to Green Tide because he's bad?

D Lord can augment one unit that he is attached to, the Tervigon need not attach itself and can augment not just by buffing one unit but by creating a whole new one. Significant advantage in army synergy. Not to mention the Gaunt buff as well. Not very comparable.

Agreed, only brought him up because you were introducing FNP into the equation.

I said glances are ESSENTIALLY meaningless. Rolling 2 6's on 2d6 is a 1/36 chance. Relatively low. Weapon destroys don't hurt Rhinos at all, but a 1/6 chance to stop the vehicle from shooting is also relatively low. When keeping in mind cover, it takes way too many glances for you to do just about anything in the shooting phase.

Weapon Destroyed bring Rinos one step closer to death. 2 WDs immobilize a Rhino. And your notion that vehicles always, or even mostly, have cover is completely absurd. Also, this is all relative to GKs, and vehicle spamming GKs at that. GKs don't generally bring MeQ spam lists in the old Razorback SW style, so you are again way overstating the veracity of this argument.

Funny that you mention ad hominems, do you even read your own posts? Condescending and combative just as much as mine, you may frame your insults in prettier language but that doesn't change the fact that you have been consistently insulting my intelligence.

I would not say I'm insulting your intelligence, just calling into question your choice of rhetorical styles. The whole purpose of these forums is to have honest discussion, not to shout out dissenting opinion. For the most part though you've kept it on the up and up, and I do appreciate you engaging in the discussion, regardless if I disagree with your position.

Not too many diverse Cron lists have won, outside of the Indy GT, the big GT winners have used Barge/Wraith combos. Crons have not won enough to sit there and say that they caused a paradigm shift. The GK's have caused far more of one. Scarabs are scary but they are also easily countered. Did you look at adepticon results? One of those Cron lists got absolutely steam-rolled by a shooting based GK list. One of many that dominated the Top 16.

I would say restricting you sample pool to only GTs is rather restrictive. The amount of players regularly attending these is an infinitesimal fraction of the player base at large, and many of them subsrcibe to your brand of group think. This is exactly the point of my whole argument.

You are referencing the Indy GT. Read the man's battle reports. His dice were VERY hot.

I literally did not see that coming, at all.

Grand lost to Green Tide because in a NOVA Format it is incredibly difficult to beat over 100 infantry units. If people know how to play the army quick enough it is a very difficult army to beat. There are just certain hard counters (IG Chimera spam backed by Manticores and Purifiers). I fear a 30 man brick of Boyz or GS more than I fear 15 FO's because they are both more dual purpose and have larger threat radii, both also score making them more imperative targets. Assuming you infiltrate, you are still 18" away which means roughly ~2-3 turns. You essentially gain 6" most of the time, in DOW I can deploy a troop in the middle meaning you gain even less. Deep striking is always an option but then you are also at the mercy of un-manipulated reserves.

GK's dont spam Razorbacks? The most common GK list currently run is probably Henchman spam which brings LOTS of Razors and Rhinos. Did you see the Adepticon winner? Lots of MSU vehicles (though I don't think his list was that great because he decided to not take full advantage of having Fortitude). Purifier based lists almost always feature 6 rhinos/razors + 3 dreads with points left over for a few more pieces of Mech. In fact, the only popular list type I have seen that doesn't bring lots of vehicles is Draigowing. Most of the Adepticon top 16 took vehicle spam lists. Heres some examples:
Tony Grippanado: 8 Vehicles, 5 of which were rhino hulls. Many MSU-henchman squads
Justin Cook: 9 Vehicles, 5 of which were razorbacks with MSU-henchmen.
Joakim Engstrom: 5 Vehicles in a Draigolist, 3 of which were razors.
Dave Ankarlo: 8 Vehicles, 6 of which are rhino/razor.
Nick Nanavati: 9 Vehicles, 6 of which are rhino/razor.

Most of those lists took some form of MSU-razorspam INCLUDING the Draigo based ones brought by Engstrom and Murphy. GK Razors are great because they cant be stunlocked and therefore need to be truly disabled and can be purchased on the cheap by taking Coteaz and min. troop squads. This also allows for a great saturation of points because there more available to spend freely elsewhere.

When bringing ~8-12 vehicles it is not at all difficult to rotate smoke and thus give cover to most of the rest of your vehicles. If a board has good LoS blocking terrain there will also be adequate chances to give cover without even relying on smoke. Personally, I almost always have cover unless I feel that I don't need it and would rather go purely offensive.

Relying on glances from Gauss is not, in my opinion, a very viable strategy.. I think it can work when needed but it is not as awesome of a synergy as you make it out to be. I mean how do you intend to get those warriors there before your Wraiths/Scarabs/FO's. Most of those unit's outpace the slower, shooting parts and then those shooting elements are also suffering through Imo's night.

You've said that my scenarios too heavily favor my arguments but so do yours.. I find it unlikely that your warriors will be gaussing my vehicles before your wraiths have gotten close enough to charge. If you wait for that you will have endured more shooting than you wanted, even with the shroud of NF helping you out. You can say that you haven't insulted my intelligence but it sure doesn't seem that way to me.

GT's are the highest level of competition available for us to look at. Why wouldn't we pull from them? Not to mention GT's are the only tournies that usually have proper results put up for them as well. I think this is the perfect place to get data on the competitive scene because it translates to the local scene. We can both agree that people have a tendency to net-list or emulate players whom they think are good.

I can link you the battle report if you'd like. The man himself describes his opponent's very poor luck and his own great luck. Dice were a large factor in 3/4 of his games. That isn't me saying the man didn't earn his win, or that he won solely because of the dice. But the dice certainly helped him out a bit at that specific event.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Once again you accuse me of groupthink. It takes a presumptuous individual to accuse someone they know little about of subscribing to "groupthink." I've said it before and i'll say it again, i've tested your "dark horse" unit and I found it to be a poor unit both on paper and implementation. Ironically enough I tried them in a similar Imo/Scarab based build.

I don't believe they are a good unit. If you beat me with them fair and square, no ridiculous statistically anomalies, etc, then I will gladly submit that I underestimated the use and functionality of FO's. If I encounter such a defeat at any time I would gladly admit I am wrong.

I don't want to dislike any unit, or to think that any unit is an obviously bad choice. However, the way that GW writes the codexes there are always units that are duds and others that are studs. Unfortunately I find the FO's to fall into the former category.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I had two acquaintances place in the Top 20 at NOVA last year and both of their lists were also henchmen based with lots of Razorbacks and Dreads. This list-type is incredibly common and also very very powerful, especially against crons. There is a prevalence of AP4, accurate Str8 and lots of Str6. Purifiers can do lots of damage. Coteaz can help slow down assaults, etc. The list is a very difficult one for anyone to play and my own list is a sort of variation.

The GK lists your referring too are exactly what I'm talking about. 5 to 9 vehicles is a considerably less then the 12+ found in other spam lists. Considering ~52% of those will be hit by Imo lightning (over the course of the first three turns), the pool that will be left that need to be dealt with by Gauss and CC vehicles will be quite manageable.

You can say that you haven't insulted my intelligence but it sure doesn't seem that way to me.

Then I apologize. Admittedly, I get defensive when people sling around terms like "Bad" and "non-competitive" with such proclivity the words lose their original meaning. You've done this at a minimum though, however another poster on this thread has a tendency to blast people everytime they have the audacity to be different. If some of my lack of patience with them has been misdirected at you then, again, I apologize.

We can both agree that people have a tendency to net-list or emulate players whom they think are good.

Once again you accuse me of groupthink. It takes a presumptuous individual to accuse someone they know little about of subscribing to "groupthink."

I really don't know of another way to describe the tendency you are referring to. Fennel, Hulk, Dash, all great examples of people that buck this trend and win many more games then they lose. Saying it is just because they are "good generals" is really just saying they know how to properly use units that have been otherwise under valued.

However, the way that GW writes the codexes there are always units that are duds and others that are studs.

I just don't share this assumption, at least to the propensity most people use it to formulate arguments. Take a good look at the list of full time Designers and play testers GW employs. They literally invest millions testing and balancing each Codex, only to have certain interweb geniuses declare certain units "non-competitve" before the ink is even dry. Do you really think these players have invested even a fraction of the time and energy to properly appraise each unit? Or, do they rush to judgement on the obvious choices? It can take many years at times for people to break out of there pre-concieved notions or knee jerk first reactions. It took a good 2 years for the interwebs at large to adjust to the changing paradigm that was 5th edition. Even to this day you'll see people trying to appraise a unit based off of "making its points back", a hold over from 4th that has very little veracity in the current environment.

I've said it before and i'll say it again, i've tested your "dark horse" unit and I found it to be a poor unit both on paper and implementation. Ironically enough I tried them in a similar Imo/Scarab based build.

How many games? Did they ever do anything? What specifically did they do poorly? Did you try running them in a list with a DLord to bail them out of bad matchups if necessary? Did you try deploying them multiple different ways depending on the matchup? How big of a unit did you bring? Did you play a wide variety of different lists and builds?

ShadarLogoth wrote: Considering ~52% of those will be hit by Imo lightning (over the course of the first three turns), the pool that will be left that need to be dealt with by Gauss and CC vehicles will be quite manageable.

Nit-pick: it's 42% over three turns, 52% over four turns. But the base philosophy there is sound.

Hey, Shadar, I'm realizing something. And Lvalx, correct me if I'm wrong. This guy plays GK against Crons regularly. He's the case-in-point I was making with Sasori about a GK list that pays some attention (even if just a little) to handling potential Necron opponents. Most GK armies don't, they are actually constructed more to win a mirror match. For the obvious reason they're more likely to bump into a fellow GK player than a Necron player. Lvalx isn't doing that, from what he says about not taking Psyflemen etc.

LValx, what's your list? Some of what you're saying is mixed, Purifiers but you also use a variant of mech spam, different lists?

Anyway, Shadar, I think some of Lvalx's objections are situational. It's not difficult to put together a GK list without FO vulnerabilities, or Scarab vulnerabilities for that matter. But then there are tradeoffs to going that route, too. Just maybe not against any Necron lists.

re: Mech 56th - you're only telling part of the story, LValx, Tomb King (the IG player Norbu beat in the Indy GT, I think that's his handle) concluded that an Imotekh build and Necron nght fight in general was kryptonite to IG mech spam, he discussed it at some length in here. It didn't seem like the lesson he took away from Indy was that his opponent got lucky. But similarly GK is sort of the Necron kryptonite, we don't have a viable long range option against them and inside 24" their firepower is overwhelming. (Depending on the build, but generally.) Without any glaring CC weaknesses. Lvalx, you shouldn't be trying to prove FO effectiveness on Vassal, all you're going to prove is that GK's a tough codex for us to beat.

I just don't share this assumption, at least to the propensity most people use it to formulate arguments. Take a good look at the list of full time Designers and play testers GW employs. They literally invest millions testing and balancing each Codex, only to have certain interweb geniuses declare certain units "non-competitve" before the ink is even dry. Do you really think these players have invested even a fraction of the time and energy to properly appraise each unit? Or, do they rush to judgement on the obvious choices? It can take many years at times for people to break out of there pre-concieved notions or knee jerk first reactions. It took a good 2 years for the interwebs at large to adjust to the changing paradigm that was 5th edition. Even to this day you'll see people trying to appraise a unit based off of "making its points back", a hold over from 4th that has very little veracity in the current environment.

GW does not invest millions nor employ heavy use of play testers. If you actually believe this, I don't know what to tell you.

ShadarLogoth wrote:I really don't know of another way to describe the tendency you are referring to. Fennel, Hulk, Dash, all great examples of people that buck this trend and win many more games then they lose. Saying it is just because they are "good generals" is really just saying they know how to properly use units that have been otherwise under valued.

However, the way that GW writes the codexes there are always units that are duds and others that are studs.

I just don't share this assumption, at least to the propensity most people use it to formulate arguments. Take a good look at the list of full time Designers and play testers GW employs. They literally invest millions testing and balancing each Codex, only to have certain interweb geniuses declare certain units "non-competitve" before the ink is even dry. Do you really think these players have invested even a fraction of the time and energy to properly appraise each unit? Or, do they rush to judgement on the obvious choices? It can take many years at times for people to break out of there pre-concieved notions or knee jerk first reactions. It took a good 2 years for the interwebs at large to adjust to the changing paradigm that was 5th edition. Even to this day you'll see people trying to appraise a unit based off of "making its points back", a hold over from 4th that has very little veracity in the current environment.

You refer to Fennel, Hulk, Dash but I am not aware of these, or any other reknowned players who rate FO. I am not aware of any tournament Cron players at all who rate FO. Seems a strange route to take ... Maybe you can get one of the known players to come on here and support you. Then again, probably not.

As for the FO are good because GW playtesters don't allow bad units. Care to try some pyrovores from my Nid codex? Or maybe some mandrakes from Dark Eldar? Vespids from Tau? Techpriests from IG? LOTD from Space Marines? There's a reason these units are never seen - they are poor for their cost.

The only recent example of someone using them well here used them illegally with Imotek attached to the squad when it DS. You also refuse to post your own list/battle reports/tournament results with them yet accuse others of merely theorycrafting.

You are coming across as merely a troll, making provocative statements just to illicit responses.

DLords are Jump Infantry...

But I find it positively shocking that the second some one does post anecdotal evidence you try to slam them with inaccurate information. I've said this already, but if I could post fully detailed BRs of all of my games with the unit all I'm going to get out of you are "your opponent was bad, your dice were good, etc."

He seemed to be saying he used Deep Strike to drop the whole unit including Imotekh. I don't think I was the only person here who made that assumption based on his phrasing.

It's not my responsibility to fill in all the gaps of your willful intellectual laziness, especially when you won't even have the intellectual honesty to concede when you've been proven wrong.

We can't flesh out every hypothetical that will happen. As it stands, it's easy to counter with statements like "Well, then I would have done x." We can easily compare two similarly costed units going head to head. Believe it or not, you will be running into Grey Hunters and Genestealers. If you are attacking vehicles or Long Fangs, you likely won't also be sitting happily in cover. As it has been shown, Flayed Ones get destroyed in CC by even marginal CC units.

Additionally, judging from your condescension, you seem to have an incredibly high opinion of yourself. You haven't proved anything in this thread except that you are naive to the fact that GW makes bad units occasionally and that Flayed Ones are one of those. I don't even want to broach the subject of "intellectual" honesty or laziness in regard to toy soldiers....

That hasn't actually happened at all. In fact, what has been clearly demonstrated, is if used competently they will perform sufficiently against a wide variety of targets.

There is no demonstration and there certainly is no "wide variety." All that has been "proven" is that Flayed Ones can bully things that are worse in CC than them, and that they can get 10 glances on vehicles as long as they aren't moving too fast to prove you wrong...

I have no burden of proof

Ok then, I'll take a page out of your book and start threads discussing the merits of Chaos Spawn, Vespids, Pratorians, and Blood Claws. Who cares right? I can just make blanket statements without any proof and claim that anyone who disagrees is intellectually lazy and a sheep who is unable to make their own decisions.

I specifically stated the Necrons change this paradigm, so your time frame is meaningless. In the last 6 months though several Necron lists have employed large amounts of CC to demech (and won tournaments), and you either know this yourself or don't play nearly as much as you claim to.

I felt a particular need to respond to this. This is perhaps the most off base statement made in this thread, and proves to me that you have no idea what the competitive 5th edition 40k looks like. The only lists relying on CC to pop vehicles besides (some) Necrons are Orks, Tyrannids, and Deamons. The reason is because they have to. 40k is a shooting game. Cracking vehicles in CC is one of the reasons that the three listed armies have very hard counters.

No one who can shoot vehicles apart has taken a look at Scarabs and suddenly decided to change to CC to pop vehicles. You don't see GK swapping Psyfleman for Dredknights with Hammers. You don't see Grey Hunters foregoing the melta for the powerfist. You don't see Blood Angels dropping Razorbacks and meltas for Death Company with powerfists. Why? Because popping vehicles in CC is bad. I don't think that I need to get into it, but then again, you seem to think it's a viable use of a 200 point unit who can't even penetrate vehicles, so maybe I do.


Perhaps the root of all of these disagreements is the fact that you are living in a fantasy world in which GW "invests millions into each codex" in order to playtest and balance them. Why do you think that GW has stated they are a modelling company first? Why do you think that within hours of each new codex coming out, there are already rules disputes that should have been easily caught? Why do you think that there are units that are taken 90% of the time and others 10%? Why do you think that GW takes so long to update FAQs, and has little to no support for rules questions? Because they don't care to make a completely balanced and competitive game.

On a macro level, 5th edition (with the exception of Nids and GK) is relatively balanced. On a micro level, there are still craptacular units that have no place outside of a for-fun setting. We all love 40k, but GW does not put even half of the care you are suggesting into their game.

JGrand wrote:

On a macro level, 5th edition (with the exception of Nids and GK) is relatively balanced. On a micro level, there are still craptacular units that have no place outside of a for-fun setting. We all love 40k, but GW does not put even half of the care you are suggesting into their game.

You're forgetting the Tau who are also subpar across the board for numerous reasons, and the Daemons; who more than any other army can be screwed over by poor rolls. (Rolled badly for your reserves? Well enjoy only having one unit of bloodletters on the table for a turn or two).

You're forgetting the Tau who are also subpar across the board for numerous reasons, and the Daemons; who more than any other army can be screwed over by poor rolls. (Rolled badly for your reserves? Well enjoy only having one unit of bloodletters on the table for a turn or two).

Tau and Daemons are both 4th edition codices. My apologies if I was unclear. I meant that the 5th edition books are balanced with a low outlier of Nids and high outlier of GK.

JGrand wrote:

You're forgetting the Tau who are also subpar across the board for numerous reasons, and the Daemons; who more than any other army can be screwed over by poor rolls. (Rolled badly for your reserves? Well enjoy only having one unit of bloodletters on the table for a turn or two).

Tau and Daemons are both 4th edition codices. My apologies if I was unclear. I meant that the 5th edition books are balanced with a low outlier of Nids and high outlier of GK.

Ah, that makes more sense.