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.

ruminator wrote:You refer to Fennel, Hulk, Dash but I am not aware of these, or any other reknowned players who rate FO.

He said they *buck trends*. He's defending his right to a less than popular view. I'd suggest you reread his posts.

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

No, he's actually comported himself very well, and his arguments have merit. He's objected to unfair comparisons that were, indeed, unfair. I don't know if the emotionally charged objections to his position are due to an obviously humorous subject title or what, and it's "elicit" responses - grammar nazi,

ps - and why the hell would you ever DS Imotekh? Even if you could? I mean, c'mon, man.

Randall Turner wrote:

ruminator wrote:You refer to Fennel, Hulk, Dash but I am not aware of these, or any other reknowned players who rate FO.

He said they *buck trends*. He's defending his right to a less than popular view. I'd suggest you reread his posts.

I agree, they find effectiveness in units that other people haven't and play at a high level with "non-net" lists. Name me one who has done this with FOs? They haven't and haven't for a reason and we accept their views on other non-popular choices as they back it up by results. Where's the results here? This is where it falls down.

At least no one tried to defend the "FOs must be good because GWs balancing team is so great" line. Well, not yet anyway ...

I'm not saying that FOs are even that bad, just that there are a lot better places to spend the points in the codex.

I'm typing at work between compilations (and spending waaaay too much time chatting with you guys as it is) but I think you're misrepresenting his position w/regard to GW's playtesting. If you guys don't think they spend millions on each codex I'd submit you might not have a good handle on modern production costs - "millions" is a certainty, and frankly not a very high bar. And you're also making a circular argument w/respect to them having been used in tournaments - if they were, advocating for them wouldn't be going against the grain, would it?

The argument that there are better places to spend the points in the codex is the only real argument here. And the fact is, it's situational - under some circumstances that might not be the case, or the difference is so minor that playstyle becomes more of a factor. But nobody here (besides Therion with his "spend more on core") has really made that argument well. We've got Lvalx suggesting a playtest with a GK list that, near as I can tell, can also turn any Nightscythe stoopit enough to get w/i 24", slow down and shoot into an instant lawn-dart. But nobody's taking the choice of spending points on Nightscythes to task! Why not? They're basically Valkyries, for crying out loud, nobody's touting them as the savior of the IG codex.

The reason is, mediocre fire support units are more valuable to the Necron codex than to an already strong shooting IG codex. Likewise, just like Shadar says, a mediocre infiltration unit is more valuable to the Necron codex than it is to an already strong SW codex. And yeah, they have to attack non-CC units - that's sort of the plan anyway, isn't it? Also yeah, it's possible a list like Lvalx's doesn't even have a viable FO target - but he also might not have a viable Scarab target, or be at all vulnerable to flier gunships. <shrug>

The point is that right or wrong, this isn't a bad thread. The basic premise is sound and lucidly presented. And I don't think you guys have to worry too much about all the poor innocent Necron noobs running out and buying every available Flayed One model. It's more that they might get moved off the list on the previous page with Mandrakes and Vespids (which I like, by the way - they're cute) etc. and moved up to "C list" status. Not a big deal. Certainly not worth getting angry about.

now - really.. must... work, you guys have fun.

I doubt he did.

Why are you still here lvalx? you have obviously made your opinion that they are useless so no discussion is worthwhile. Why not let the people who still want to try continue to do so in peace?

JGrand wrote:

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.

Excuse me. Stop. Just stop bashing GW. Im totally reporting you. This is completely uncalled for. We all know that GW is completely busy bringing us what we want (models) how we want them (really expensive) and when we want them (spaced out over a couple of years). They are too swamped dealing with internal issues (counting our money that comes pouring in daily) to truly dedicate themselves completely to the art form of wargames. All right, so they are so busy they can only dedicate a minimum staff to playtesting (the author of the codex). Those simple questions caused are actually complex in nature to the playtesters ( I mean, the author knew what he was talking about when he wrote the rule...).

Anyway yeah i thought the guy said he deepstruck imotekh in...In CC ive found him to be good against...hormies

I usually reserve him just to avoid the cant use his ability while dead argument

ShadarLogoth wrote: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?

First. Only Guard can easily spam 12+ vehicles. Show me Vanilla Marine lists that spam that many? Hell, show me SW's or BA lists that do so that aren't written by the guy people don't enjoy speaking about on this forum...

SW's can only reasonably get Razors from their troops and Heavy support, that is ~9. They can attach some to Wolf Guard but that takes away from the valuable Scout slot which is fairly popular to counter Mech lists.

BA's have a really tough time spamming Razors out because they are incredibly expensive if not taken on the ASMs.

Hench/Razor Spam seems to be the most popular GK army. All of the top 16 adepticon lists took it in some form.. Even the top-heavy Paladin lists managed to augment their lists with it because of the efficiency. Also remember that Adepticon is 1850 and with that extra 150 points it isnt difficult for GK to bring 2 units with 2 Razors. I'd say 7-10 vehicles counts as mech-spam..

I don't understand how you can continually list Hulk and Dash.. Look at the armies they mostly brought in 5th. Dash played PURE Venom-spam of the most spammy sort. Hulksmash used a hybrid foot-SW list that spammed Long Fangs and took many Razors. Two of the codex's obvious strengths. Sure his list takes some lesser-seen units but it still goes for what is efficient and obviously so to most players. Dash did play the old DE codex and the old Necron codex. He never won anything particularly big with the old Cron codex as far as I know. Anyone who played vs a list similar to that also knows it is incredibly synergistic and tough for armies to deal with because it took units that others didn't fully understand or didn't expect to encounter. Unfortunately I don't think the FO's have the ability to do that in the same manner. Maybe you can send him a message on his/their blog and see what they have to say. I think that would be quite interesting. Fennell also played a very spammy Deathwing list for a good bit of 5th edition.

I disagree that GW playtests extensively. Look at how poorly some of the rules are written. The CCB is a great example of very, very confusing rules. GW has also shown an inability to balance older codices to newer ones and has also made some very, very poor codexes (Tyranids come to mind). At this point I would also throw Dark Eldar in there with the popularity of GK's and Necrons.

I tested the FO's for a few games, I won't sit here and tell you that I put them through some sort of gauntlet. The general idea was to use them as a fire magnet to distract from other parts of the army and hopefully eat up troops choices. Unfortunately what I noticed was that one bad turn of combat can easily have them swept. Specifically this happened against SW's with mass marines. I tried them out vs Blood Angels, SW's and GK's. In none of the match-ups did I find them particularly useful. No I did not take a Dlord because I would not want to build my list AROUND the FO's. I don't think they are good enough to do that and with Imo taking up 1 HQ slot (and being very expensive at that), I felt the need to use points elsewhere.

I play BT's as my main army and they have done quite well vs Crons and that codex has some major, major weaknesses. I also have been testing out GK's for the NOVA since I have found that their power level is too great for my BT's to win if the players are of equal skill or I am at a disadvantage in skill. The GK list I have designed is in no way a counter to Necrons but does take them into account (which any list should do since the Necrons are incredibly powerful). I went to a Invitational Qualifier at the Spikey Bitz store in Richmond and 25% of the players were Necrons. The GK player who won (faced 3 Imotekh lists, tabled 2), certainly took into account the Cron codex. Anyway, the list i've been testing:
Librarian (Shrouding, Might of Titans)
Coteaz
Techmarine with both Psychostroke and Rad Grenades
2x 5 Purifier - 2 Psycannons, 1 Hammer, 2 Swords w/ Rhinos
3x 3 Acolytes - Razorback w/ Assault Cannon and Psybolts
12 Henchmen (8 Deathcults, 4 Warriors)
2x 5 Purgation - 2 Psycannons, 2 Incinerators, 1 Hammer w/ Rhinos
Land Raider Crusader with Psybolts

The list has performed very well against SW's, Cron's, BA's and other codexes I have tested it against. The Purgations may look like some sort of Scarab counter but are there for hordes in general (I played and lost against Nid's with my Templars and decided I wanted some more anti-horde, just in case). The basic idea is to spam Str. 7 and have a nice assault presence to deal with the large numbers of other GK's, mass Marines and of course, Wraiths in particular (they have proven to be very difficult for my Templars to easily beat, even though I have a large amount of Str 8, they were also quite difficult for my old Wolves army).

I do agree that Scarabs are incredibly good vs. IG, however, I think there is a trade-off as you become more vulnerable to lists who either have fast moving vehicles or take less vehicles. Guard also have some ways to deal with them (mass flamers). If you read that battle report from either player's side it is very, very obvious that luck player a great factor in the game. As I said before, I am not saying that Norbu wouldn't have won either way. But in that particular game his dice were hot. We can agree on that.

Also, keep in mind that I never said I would use GK. Remember that BT are my main force right now and what I am most familiar with. I also said that I could test any number of lists that I am familiar with. I could easily do the testing with Wolves or even IG (who admittedly have a tough time with Scarabs and Cron's in general).

Imotekh is great and all but dice don't always manage to even out and personally I find that he can be way, way too hit or miss. It also isn't a guarantee that he hits that many vehicles as he could just as easily end up hitting one over and over, or hitting the unit that may have been inside the vehicle originally (I won't pretend to be able to run all the numbers here but I am fairly certain that out of 8 vehicles Imotekh won't be hitting over 50% of them in 3 turns).

As I said before. I have no personal investment in this topic. If I honestly thought FO's were a good choice I would agree here, I just don't. I probably won't until I have had the chance to play against someone who uses them in a manner I hadn't thought of or who uses them in a list where I find that they really work. I don't find that Necron player's need infiltrators as they have many fast units that can move across the board quickly and be used as harassment. Foot units also work well whether infiltrating or not since they can move under the protection of night-fight. Infiltrating itself doesn't seem a particularly great advantage because in Pitched and Spearhead you will gain minimal distance through it (many codexes also have infiltration stoppers, Servo Skulls and Chooser of the Slains come to mind). In Dawn of War infiltrating can be even worse due to the deployment being table-halves. Out-flanking certainly has its merits but I am not sure the Crons need it due to their speed and the inability of the FO's to always threaten even when deploying right into the opponents deployment zone.

I think points spent on FO's will almost always be better spent on taking larger amounts of troops (Immortals are great because of the 24" range and they also have the ability to stun vehicles. 6 of them average a glance on AV11 and they can do it from up to 24" aways, they also have a greater chance of putting the hurt on infantry and are slightly more survivable than Warriors). I also think that if you are taking FO's without having maxed out FA or HS you are making a mistake. Any extra points left-over for Cron players can always go towards taking utility-based Crypteks. Veilteks offer a lot of tactical flexibility when it comes to objective or quarters based missions, Tremorteks can do quite a bit to make vehicles such as LRs nervous or slow down foot-based CC units.

I could see the FO's being used in a setting where you play above 2k, but at a 2k or below point level I think there are just too many better choices. I doubt he'll mind so I'll post JGrand's Crons:
2x Overlords with Weave/Scythe and a CCB
4x Lance-tek (2 pulse), 1 Tremortek, 1 Veiltek
4x 6 Immortals with Tesla
5 Warriors
2x 6 Wraiths (3 coils, 1 pistol)
7 Scarabs
3 Annihilation Barges

I find this to be an extremely balanced Cron list with equal emphasis on Shooting/Assault/Missions. To fit FO's in such a list would require a substantial decrease in either CC/Shooting/Scoring. All of those things I find to be more important than having an infiltrating unit. Where can he really shave off the points to add a unit such as FOs and why would he really want to? He has more than enough CC for most armies to handle so adding more would be redundant and would require him to drop valuable shooting or scoring units.

On an aside... The Night Scythe is a very, very effective unit for its point cost. It has the ability to move 36", it is a skimmer and averages FIVE str 7 hits a turn. If you can show some transport vehicles for that point cost which are similarly effective, go right ahead (the only one that comes to my mind is the GK Psycannon Razor but that unit is way, way too good). Combine that with the ability to take 9 Destructors at a reasonable price and the ability to protect itself with Nightfight and I think you have a very, very good army. The only reason I think you don't see more is because of the lack of models. It also isn't very easy to convert since it is a flyer and before we saw the leaks we had little idea of what size it should be whilst still being an acceptable alternative (not to mention the kit-bashing required would be PRICEY).





Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think the Infiltration tactic is most important to armies that are slow or lack the ability to threaten targets at range. Crons are lucky because their best units are fast (CCBs, Wraiths, Scarabs) and they don't need to rely on range because they have protection from Night Fight.

JGrand:

The one thing I've learned from this thread is your "TAC" list cannot take on Green Tide in a NOVA format. So really when you and LValx say "TAC" what your are saying is "Take All Completely-meched-out-lists"?



In regards to GW, take a good look at a codex some time. I'll help you out, on one of the first pages there's this section where they credit those who have contributed. Add up the number of different people, give them a reasonably sufficient salary, factor in a few years of production, multiply the results together and tell me what you get.

Now, I never said that GW is perfect, any game with the plethora of options that they have is going to have some under performers. But, you seem to think that there is one most awesomesteststest unit out of each FOS and the rest are trash. I think that's none-sense.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

I don't understand how you can continually list Hulk and Dash

Hulk has also brought Nids in multiple formats, all termie DA's, is an advocate for using Ogryns, etc. With Dash, yes I was really referring to his use of 3rd edition very unpopular at the time codexes. And as RT already pointed out, and I can't believe this even needs to be spelled out, but the point is good generals can make use of a much wider variety of units then what novices and netlisters consider "competitive". 9 times out of 10 what people really mean when they use the term "competitive" is "so easy a baby seal can use it".

Dash won local tournys with his Necrons, Hulk has won more then he lost with every list he's brought as far as I know. And before you say "but did they win and GT's"...please, take a minute to consider A.) the very small number of any list of any kind that win GT's every year and B.) the overwhelming amount of netlists pulled from the most recent couple of codexes that enter a GT every year. The trend is obvious to anyone with a modicum of understanding of basic statistics, and clearly shows that using "GT winners" as the basis of your argument is tragically flawed. "The Triangle" wasn't winning NBA championships in the 70's and 80's, spread offenses weren't winning NCAA MNCs before the 90's...does that mean either one of these innovations were "non competitive" prior to them being "competitive" ?

ShadarLogoth wrote:JGrand:

The one thing I've learned from this thread is your "TAC" list cannot take on Green Tide in a NOVA format. So really when you and LValx say "TAC" what your are saying is "Take All Completely-meched-out-lists"?



In regards to GW, take a good look at a codex some time. I'll help you out, on one of the first pages there's this section where they credit those who have contributed. Add up the number of different people, give them a reasonably sufficient salary, factor in a few years of production, multiply the results together and tell me what you get.

Now, I never said that GW is perfect, any game with the plethora of options that they have is going to have some under performers. But, you seem to think that there is one most awesomesteststest unit out of each FOS and the rest are trash. I think that's none-sense.

Grand got beat by a great player, who will be playing along with 31 other players at one of the top tournaments in the country (you have to win a GT-level event to qualify). It is also a particularly difficult list to play against in a NOVA format. His list is perfectly capable of doing beating a horde list. Let's see your list... I am sure it isn't particularly good at removing over a 100 T4 models with 4+ saves.

As I said with my GK list, TAC to me also includes dealing with hordes. My BT just have a difficult time being truly balanced due to awful troops choices.

You said millions spent on playtesting.. They may have spent millions on putting the codex together BUT that doesn't necessarily mean they spent millions playtesting. If that is the case then GW has some very, very dumb employees. Do you honestly think think things such as Pyrovores were tested out well? Do you actually think that GW tested Rad and Psychostroke grenades? If they extensively play-tested you wouldn't have such a wide spectrum of both broken and useless units. Just as there are units that are obviously overpowered there also exist units that are obviously underpowered.

We also never said there was merely one unit in each FOS worth taking. There are obvious units that are better and if you are going to build the best list you can possibly come up with it will generally include those but the Cron codex being a good codex has many worthwhile choices. Hell, i'll give you a run down of what I think can be used to good effect:
HQs: Imotekh, Necron Overlords, Destroyer Lords

Elites: Triarch Stalker
Troops: Immortals, Night Scythe, Ghost Ark
Fast Attack: Wraiths, Scarabs, Tomb Blades
Heavy Support: Annihilation Barge, Monolith, Spyders

I do think the Elites section is particularly weak (I think many do, including your beloved Hulksmash, hell he didnt even bother to review that specific section of the codex lol). But almost every other slot has some units that I think have merit and can be used in an effective way. If I am playing in a tournament setting trying to do my best to win will I consider all of them? Probably not, because I wouldn't say I am a top tier player. But if I were I could see myself doing so. The event and who will be there also plays a factor. At an event as big as NOVA I will choose to take my absolute best list and ignore anything that I feel is unoptimized.

In regards to GW, take a good look at a codex some time. I'll help you out, on one of the first pages there's this section where they credit those who have contributed. Add up the number of different people, give them a reasonably sufficient salary, factor in a few years of production, multiply the results together and tell me what you get.

I've already said all I wanted to say about Flayed Ones and the huge misconceptions about the current metagame by some posters in this thread, but I'll say that you're a bit off base if you truly think GW really playtests their books.

I know people who work for GW and because of that I understand the mentality the people in that company have and what they look for in their future employees. They are always excited about new models and releases and they live and breathe their hobby, but mostly they don't even know their own rules. Most of the people inside GW actually openly dislike 'tournament players' and somehow believe they're hurting the hobby with their power gaming and whining and demanding for better army books. GW used to (they don't do this anymore) have secret playtest groups of players who didn't officially work for GW but signed NDAs about what they were testing. Two of my real life friends were part of one such a group when testing a previous edition of Warhammer, and they were extremely frustrated by the fact that while all of the testers found the rules full of holes and with room for improvement they weren't listened to and the suggested changes were never implemented. Even glaring mistakes that had been spotted still made it into print. Afterwards GW canceled external playtesting altogether.

It's a lot of work to put a codex together but most of it is the art, the layout, the fictional background material, models etc and not the rules. I'm not particularly disappointed in GW's army books the past couple years because I know what to expect. You should also wake up and smell the coffee, because each time you notice a really weak unit or that something is overpriced or underpriced, there's really no great mystery or plan to it. It's simply because the guy who wrote it didn't think it through very carefully and made a huge mistake.

A couple of years ago I still used to think that GW pointed their units incorrectly by about 5-10% one way or the other and I felt that it was sort of acceptable in a game like this, but then a couple of tournaments started using 'extreme' custom composition scoring systems where the weaker and unpopular armies got 250, 500 or even 1000 points more for their allowance than the power books, and still the top tier lists came out on top with no sweat at all. Some of the units or even entire army books and codex books are so bad that even if you didn't know the truth (that there is no competitive playtesting) you'd have to come to the conclusion that there is no competitive playtesting. Humour yourself and one weekend when your gaming group gets together, take a couple of the army books you find a bit weak and give them massive discounts and see what happens. For example, if you reduce the price of every unit in Codex: Tyranids by 10% (200 points extra in 2K pts) they'll still get their ass handed to them. Now go wild and reduce the price of a decked out T-Fex by 100 points and a decked out Carnifex, Trygon, Tervigon and Tyrant by 50 points, and maybe now you feel like you're going to get a game. Still the Tyranids won't be a favorite of any kind against anyone. Afterwards if you're like me you'll be a bit puzzled how someone managed to get something so wrong because it doesn't seem like it's easily possible. For GW it is, because they don't think this part of the hobby is very important.

ShadarLogoth wrote:
Hulk has also brought Nids in multiple formats, all termie DA's, is an advocate for using Ogryns, etc. With Dash, yes I was really referring to his use of 3rd edition very unpopular at the time codexes. And as RT already pointed out, and I can't believe this even needs to be spelled out, but the point is good generals can make use of a much wider variety of units then what novices and netlisters consider "competitive". 9 times out of 10 what people really mean when they use the term "competitive" is "so easy a baby seal can use it".

Dash won local tournys with his Necrons, Hulk has won more then he lost with every list he's brought as far as I know. And before you say "but did they win and GT's"...please, take a minute to consider A.) the very small number of any list of any kind that win GT's every year and B.) the overwhelming amount of netlists pulled from the most recent couple of codexes that enter a GT every year. The trend is obvious to anyone with a modicum of understanding of basic statistics, and clearly shows that using "GT winners" as the basis of your argument is tragically flawed. "The Triangle" wasn't winning NBA championships in the 70's and 80's, spread offenses weren't winning NCAA MNCs before the 90's...does that mean either one of these innovations were "non competitive" prior to them being "competitive" ?

Hulk does use some odd lists and challenges himself with some odd units. Great. I agree. I've never once said that competent generals can't make use of bad units. Those units are still bad. They are just being piloted by someone who is very, very good. Are you putting yourself in this category? And all things considered, when two players of equal skill play their lists will become a factor. So at the highest level of competition, GTs, your list will matter quite a bit because you will be playing against people of similar skill. I think there is a reason why Hulk decided to bring his SW's to the Invitational and Open, instead of the Nids and I think that has a bit to do with the level of competitiveness.

I am curious, what is the most recent large event you attended? I can tell you one thing, at recent tournaments I have been to I have hardly faced any netlists. I think you are making some assumptions here. At NOVA last year I faced:

Hybrid/Foot Sisters of Battle
Monolith based Necrons
Razorspam Blood Angels
AV14/Chimera based IG
Wyche-cult DE with Duke
Grimnar based Space Wolves
CSM with summoned Daemons

I do think you can look at who and what wins and draw something from that. If you really believe there's nothing to be learned by examining who and what wins GTs, well, then we have a fundamental disagreement that probably won't be solved.

Second, I don't know enough about BBall and its history to sit here and debate that with you. I do, however, know a fair amount about football and that game is changing frequently with new strategies being used to great effect. This has A LOT to do with the changing of the game's mechanics and rules though and I wouldn't be too surprised if the same held true for Basketball. Infiltration could be MUCH, much better in the next edition. Deep strike could be revamped, etc, etc. And maybe then FOs will become more attractive to me. Who knows. But in this current edition and game format I do not think they fit particularly well.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
If a baby seal can use the unit, it must be very, very good. Do you think that GW is only capable of making extremely good and easy to use units and do not make very poor and not well thought out units?

I don't know how I can scream this any louder: BAD UNITS CAN BE PLAYED WELL BY HIGHLY COMPETENT GENERALS.

The problem is that most people are not that competent and I feel as though this thread was designed for a more average gamer. I think a more average gamer will not see great results with such a sub-par unit as Flayed Ones.

The one thing I've learned from this thread is your "TAC" list cannot take on Green Tide in a NOVA format. So really when you and LValx say "TAC" what your are saying is "Take All Completely-meched-out-lists"?

Yes, I lost to one of the two qualifying players in a field of 32. Which means my list CANNOT beat non-mech lists. Let's not worry about the fact that I lost 7-4 on Kill Points (which included an incorrect ruling, in which case I tied primary 6-4). The game also only went 5 turns. A 6th or even 7th changes that game. But hey, I guess playing internet tough guy who doesn't understand 40k beats actually going to competitive events, right?

In regards to GW, take a good look at a codex some time. I'll help you out, on one of the first pages there's this section where they credit those who have contributed. Add up the number of different people, give them a reasonably sufficient salary, factor in a few years of production, multiply the results together and tell me what you get.

Now, I never said that GW is perfect, any game with the plethora of options that they have is going to have some under performers. But, you seem to think that there is one most awesomesteststest unit out of each FOS and the rest are trash. I think that's none-sense.

GW does not balance every unit. If you cannot see this, you are either completely dumb or completely clueless. I can list a number of untakeable units from each codex. They do not balance everything. There is a reason you see some units 90% of the time. You are not some random genius who sees value in units that no one else can. There are good, bad, and mediocre units. Sorry that you are butt hurt that you wasted money on Flayed Ones. No need to try and justify it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again, if you want to take time out of your busy schedule of being condescending and incorrect, I'd be happy to throttle you on Vassal.

Therion: I couldn't disagree more with your analysis. Every 5th edition book save Tyranids (who most certainly have had some success, your acting like they never won ever) has been filled with many "competitive" options. You think this is by accident? You think Ward et al just slings gak against the paper and some of it sticks? Judging from the Codexes GW employs at least 8 to 10 full time play testers in addition to 8 to 10 full time game mechanic designers. This is in addition to the massive amount of customer feedback they have available to them (which if you really don't think a multi-national company like GW takes this into account you have your head completely planted in the sand). Full time. As in, they collect a pay check at the end of the week after spending the whole week play testing. But your small vocal minority of power gamers who play with their plastic toy soldiers on the weekends are better at properly analyzing balance then the people who do it for a living? Really? Is that really what you are saying?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
JGrand.



Keep up with the ad hominems buddy. Throw out enough vitriol and you might just win the intertrons soon.

Keep up with the ad hominems buddy. Throw out enough vitriol and you might just win the intertrons soon.

I guess dodging arguments and putting up memes is what people do when they are wrong. That's cool. Still waiting on an army list or you to play on Vassal. I suppose you're just scared that I'll put an end to all the crap you're spewing too fast

I guess dodging arguments and putting up memes is what people do when they are wrong.

Dodging arguments? I've responded to every actual reasonable "argument" that has been brought up on this thread. Instead of having the intellectual honesty to ascertain the veracity of what I say, you have, in unsurprising form, resorted to ad hominems and the intrinsically flawed and narrow pool of data that is GT winners. Yet you bring lists filled with competitive choices and don't win GTs. This isn't a knock against you though. In fact, in a GT with 64 people, 98.5% of the people could bring lists filled with what you would call competitive choices and they most certianly not win. Are you still not seeing the flaws in this data set?

I've already expressed the logistical complications baring me from vassal at this time. RT has offered to play some vassal with FOs, you are more then welcome to play him, or you can keep trying to derail my thread and shouting down my dissenting opinion with ad hominems. It's certainly your choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I don't know how I can scream this any louder: BAD UNITS CAN BE PLAYED WELL BY HIGHLY COMPETENT GENERALS.

Yes, I realize that is your opinion, but to me, bad units, intrinsically, cannot be played well, if they are truly bad. The word bad has a meaning. It does not mean what you think it means if a unit can be used effectively by some one who knows how to properly take advantage of its idiosyncrasies. Going back to the football analogy, a wide receiver that is 5'2" and runs a 5.6 forty would truly be a bad wide receiver. Nobody, from Tom Landry to Tom Bellicheck is going to unlock some secret Rosetta Stone on using 5'2" slow wide receivers. Now, in contrast to this, we have the full back position. In the current football meta if you will, it's grown to be a less and less popular position. However, their is nothing intrinsically bad with the fullback position. It merely has lost popularity with the prevalent offensive play styles currently embraced.

Judging from the Codexes GW employs at least 8 to 10 full time play testers in addition to 8 to 10 full time game mechanic designers. This is in addition to the massive amount of customer feedback they have available to them (which if you really don't think a multi-national company like GW takes this into account you have your head completely planted in the sand). Full time. As in, they collect a pay check at the end of the week after spending the whole week play testing. But your small vocal minority of power gamers who play with their plastic toy soldiers on the weekends are better at properly analyzing balance then the people who do it for a living? Really? Is that really what you are saying?

Allright now I'm totally done with this thread. Are you serious? 'Judging from the Codexes'? You mean, you look at a codex and then just decide on an arbitrary number of 16 to 20 people who were fully paid to deal with the mechanics and balance issues? You have to be the most deluded person in the GW hobby and it's not even close. How many people do you 'judge' to work for Games Workshop games design overall? Not only do you vastly overestimate the size of this company I find it incredibly entertaining that you actually seem to appreciate the codex books. The depth and skill cap in this game is as deep as a puddle and it really would have to be a 16 to 20 people convention of fanatics and fanboys if they came up with a product this poorly tested and balanced. Of course, that's not true, because there is no group of 16 to 20 paid playtesters, that's just a number you took from your ass after 'judging the Codexes'.

By the way the word intrinsically was cool only the first time you used it in a sentence. Try inherently next time when you try to impress with your 'none-sense'. I'm sure if you talk enough about football, dodge arguments and ignore entire sections of posts against you while posting enough pictures everyone will forget we're spending our valuable time arguing with a person who doesn't live in the real world. Just stop.

Hurray one down, two to go. Then we can get a real discussion of how to use them going. I want to take a unit to the next two tournaments to see how they do, however I am fine tuning my current list and to work them in would require a total revamp that I just don't feel like painting right now lol.

I think it would be interesting to use them as a flank guard or even as a bubble wrap for our vehicles. I am already thinking of trying wraiths in my list as a vehicle shield and counter attack unit for my shooty army.

Leth wrote:Hurray one down, two to go. Then we can get a real discussion of how to use them going. I want to take a unit to the next two tournaments to see how they do, however I am fine tuning my current list and to work them in would require a total revamp that I just don't feel like painting right now lol.

I think it would be interesting to use them as a flank guard or even as a bubble wrap for our vehicles. I am already thinking of trying wraiths in my list as a vehicle shield and counter attack unit for my shooty army.

I'm wondering whether I should replace my D&D combos with flayed ones. I mean, a D&D combo is 155pts and scatter can really nerf their effectiveness. I like having the ability to target backfield units (like long fangs, devastators) early in the game and FO might give me that ability, as well as free up a couple of VOD.

Given that the D&D combo basically arrives, shoots and dies (and sometimes whiffs badly), all I'd need the FO to do is to live long enough to get to the long fangs/devastators - once they are in combat I'd be happy if they just stayed there for a couple of turns!

Yes, I realize that is your opinion, but to me, bad units, intrinsically, cannot be played well, if they are truly bad. The word bad has a meaning. It does not mean what you think it means if a unit can be used effectively by some one who knows how to properly take advantage of its idiosyncrasies. Going back to the football analogy, a wide receiver that is 5'2" and runs a 5.6 forty would truly be a bad wide receiver. Nobody, from Tom Landry to Tom Bellicheck is going to unlock some secret Rosetta Stone on using 5'2" slow wide receivers. Now, in contrast to this, we have the full back position. In the current football meta if you will, it's grown to be a less and less popular position. However, their is nothing intrinsically bad with the fullback position. It merely has lost popularity with the prevalent offensive play styles currently embraced.

I actually like the fullback analogy here, but for different reasons. The reason many teams in the NFL have dropped the fullback is because a. you have limited roster spots, b. you have other players such as a tight end that can play some fullback if needed and c. the game has changed to the point in which you don't need a fullback.

Sure, you can take Flayed Ones, but you have limited points. In the Necron codex, there are far better "players." In addition, if you want hard hitting and fast CC, you can employ Wraiths (which reach combat usually by turn 2, which is about the best Flayed Ones can hope for). In addition, Wraiths can actually threaten a variety of targets. Scarabs are another unit which can bully the same type of units that Flayed Ones can. The difference is that Scarabs also have duality. Finally, the game has changed to the point in which you just don't need Flayed Ones. Maybe if tanks weren't so prevalent. Or if Grey Hunters, Blood Angels, Genestealers, and all kinds of GK weren't the norm. But they are. There is no room in the game for a unit that tops out at threatening TAC marines. Much like the fullback, Flayed Ones are incredibly situational.

At the end of the day, many of the teams still using the fullback are gimping themselves. The same can be said for Flayed Ones. The difference is that in the NFL, teams are only using up one roster spot out of 53. In Warhammer, you are donating 1/10th of your points at 2k which can be better spent on:

CCB Overlord
Royal Court members
Triarch Stalkers
Immortals
Warriors
Night Scythes
Scarabs
Wraiths
Annihilation Barges
Spyders
Doom Scythes

If I was to go up to 2500 points from my current 2k list, I wouldn't even think about Flayed Ones. In fact, I can easily get to 3000 points of Necron stuff before I would even consider them. There is just too many other good weapons to waste a spot on a "fullback".

ShadarLogoth wrote:

I guess dodging arguments and putting up memes is what people do when they are wrong.

Dodging arguments? I've responded to every actual reasonable "argument" that has been brought up on this thread. Instead of having the intellectual honesty to ascertain the veracity of what I say, you have, in unsurprising form, resorted to ad hominems and the intrinsically flawed and narrow pool of data that is GT winners. Yet you bring lists filled with competitive choices and don't win GTs. This isn't a knock against you though. In fact, in a GT with 64 people, 98.5% of the people could bring lists filled with what you would call competitive choices and they most certianly not win. Are you still not seeing the flaws in this data set?

I've already expressed the logistical complications baring me from vassal at this time. RT has offered to play some vassal with FOs, you are more then welcome to play him, or you can keep trying to derail my thread and shouting down my dissenting opinion with ad hominems. It's certainly your choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I don't know how I can scream this any louder: BAD UNITS CAN BE PLAYED WELL BY HIGHLY COMPETENT GENERALS.

Yes, I realize that is your opinion, but to me, bad units, intrinsically, cannot be played well, if they are truly bad. The word bad has a meaning. It does not mean what you think it means if a unit can be used effectively by some one who knows how to properly take advantage of its idiosyncrasies. Going back to the football analogy, a wide receiver that is 5'2" and runs a 5.6 forty would truly be a bad wide receiver. Nobody, from Tom Landry to Tom Bellicheck is going to unlock some secret Rosetta Stone on using 5'2" slow wide receivers. Now, in contrast to this, we have the full back position. In the current football meta if you will, it's grown to be a less and less popular position. However, their is nothing intrinsically bad with the fullback position. It merely has lost popularity with the prevalent offensive play styles currently embraced.

By bad I mean of lesser quality. Do you not think that there is a sliding scale of badness and goodness with which to describe things? FOs are of far lesser quality than Wraiths. Wraiths are good, what would you like me to describe FOs as?

Anyway, you've done a good job misdirecting, condescending and showing quite a bit of ignorance. Hell, at least Grand and I had the brass to post up our lists and be transparent. You are the outlier here and you have done nothing to prove FOs are worth taking for a competitive player. If you honestly think posting internet memes from 4Chan helps you win arguments, well, that shows your immaturity right there.

I was fine with all the debating about the unit but once you started spouting off complete nonsense about the state of GW and their playtesting, I realized I was dealing with someone delusional.. You assume to know things that you do not and you have done it all thread.

I am sure you will believe that you have won some debate here but honestly your opponents are quitting out fatigue, shame and embarrassment for you. If that makes you feel better, go right ahead, I guess we all need something to feel good about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.S. Quit with the Ad Hominem reference. Thinly veiled insults are also Ad Hominem. Hypocrisy doesn't serve well for argumentation.

Both sides have been insulting, though from this witness' perspective I think Shadar has generally kept it more polite.

Some of his arguments have been a bit dodgy, and I'd really like to see a sample list or two, but overall he's made some perfectly respectable and reasonable points.

I think the overall thrust of the thread is that FOs really aren't particularly good, but can have some uses and advantages which people haven't thought of or tried, and could surprise some folks. I think if they had I4, Fearless, Rending, or were Troops (too bad no character was included to make them so) they'd be well worth using in some assaulty take all comers builds.

Going back to a point I made several pages ago.

A small unit (5 to 8) can work, and give good results for a very low point cost. It's just enough CC force to win combat resolution against backfield units like a tac squad, dev squad, long fangs, or lootas. Against any MEQ opponent the I2 of flayed ones is a huge advantage when fighting in the space marine's back field. If long fangs or a dev squad fails a morale test the necron I2=MEQ runs from combat instead of taking fearless wounds, and running from combat next to their own board edge will cause the unit to run off the board. There is also the added advantage that if a 65 point unit falls on their face it's not a huge loss. It's a significant perspective return for a low point cost and risk of investment.

Large units with a Dlord are a bad idea.

They can perform the same tasks as a smaller unit at a higher point cost, which isn't a good selling point for the unit.

They can eat 300 point units that hang out too close to the board edge, but then what? Now there is a 400 point unit on the board that can't survive a counter attack from antoher 300 points of purifiers, crowe, paladins, FNP genestealers, gaunts with poison/FC, orks, FNP BA, or various combinations of SW units. That's pretty much the entire meta, and one bad round of CC means their I2 puts them 1 morale test away from annihilation. At 400 points if they fall on their face a necron player can't just write off the unit like it was a 65 point unit.

O.k so played two games with 15 FO blob in a wraithwing list.

against GK: bloodswarm nanoscarab'd the GK strike squad on their objective, i contested the game with ten of those guys, (I JUST WONT GO DOWN!) and won that game.

The next game was against IG and it was killpoints, popped right in front of basalisks and they got lucky with scatters and landed right on top of the blob, killing them instantly, but that was one vital turn where the IG player could have been shooting at the much scarier stuff, I won 10 killpoints to 2

Mannahnin wrote:Both sides have been insulting, though from this witness' perspective I think Shadar has generally kept it more polite.

Some of his arguments have been a bit dodgy, and I'd really like to see a sample list or two, but overall he's made some perfectly respectable and reasonable points.

I think the overall thrust of the thread is that FOs really aren't particularly good, but can have some uses and advantages which people haven't thought of or tried, and could surprise some folks. I think if they had I4, Fearless, Rending, or were Troops (too bad no character was included to make them so) they'd be well worth using in some assaulty take all comers builds.

I think you're right.

However, as it stands -and should without question- the Flayed Ones are the WORST unit in the entire codex.

Everyone should stop and think about that for a minute. Every codex has a unit that is the 'worst' in it. In this case it just happens to be FOs. I'm not saying they're unplayable (unless you factor in the fact that they cost the same price money-wise as Termies), but I am saying that every other unit in the codex is more powerful.

Anyone who wants to argue with this point, is welcome to nominate a new unit for the title of 'worst unit in the Necron codex', and state their case. However, nobody will tolerate kumbaya-singing whitehat arguments like: 'there is no worst unit in the Codex, everything is wonderful, unicorns are magic!'.

azazel the cat wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Both sides have been insulting, though from this witness' perspective I think Shadar has generally kept it more polite.

Some of his arguments have been a bit dodgy, and I'd really like to see a sample list or two, but overall he's made some perfectly respectable and reasonable points.

I think the overall thrust of the thread is that FOs really aren't particularly good, but can have some uses and advantages which people haven't thought of or tried, and could surprise some folks. I think if they had I4, Fearless, Rending, or were Troops (too bad no character was included to make them so) they'd be well worth using in some assaulty take all comers builds.

I think you're right.

However, as it stands -and should without question- the Flayed Ones are the WORST unit in the entire codex.

Everyone should stop and think about that for a minute. Every codex has a unit that is the 'worst' in it. In this case it just happens to be FOs. I'm not saying they're unplayable (unless you factor in the fact that they cost the same price money-wise as Termies), but I am saying that every other unit in the codex is more powerful.

Anyone who wants to argue with this point, is welcome to nominate a new unit for the title of 'worst unit in the Necron codex', and state their case. However, nobody will tolerate kumbaya-singing whitehat arguments like: 'there is no worst unit in the Codex, everything is wonderful, unicorns are magic!'.

I would say destroyers are in far worse shape than FO, and take the title of worst unit in the codex.

Top 2 reasons why I would nominate destroyers as the worst unit in the codex.

They are grossly over priced in points.

They compete with wraiths, scarabs, and tomb blades in the same force org.





Also on FO some of the bad news isn't that bad.

Small units of FO do have their uses, and can be very useful for a 65 point unit.

The bad models and over priced models can be negated by converting warriors into FO. If a player has a lot of bits, and a lot of close combat weapons we can be talking about a very fun conversion project.

There are good units in the elites slot for necrons, but they are expensive, and it is common for necron players to not have all 3 elites slots filled. It's far more common to see necron lists with 1 or 2 elites slots open than 1 or 2 FA slots open.

Large units of FO are so bad that using a small 65 point unit on strangers might make you look like a clueless noob, which can be a good mind game to play on someone in a tournament setting. Pretty good bargain for 65 points if I might say...

azazel the cat wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Both sides have been insulting, though from this witness' perspective I think Shadar has generally kept it more polite.

Some of his arguments have been a bit dodgy, and I'd really like to see a sample list or two, but overall he's made some perfectly respectable and reasonable points.

I think the overall thrust of the thread is that FOs really aren't particularly good, but can have some uses and advantages which people haven't thought of or tried, and could surprise some folks. I think if they had I4, Fearless, Rending, or were Troops (too bad no character was included to make them so) they'd be well worth using in some assaulty take all comers builds.

I think you're right.

However, as it stands -and should without question- the Flayed Ones are the WORST unit in the entire codex.

Everyone should stop and think about that for a minute. Every codex has a unit that is the 'worst' in it. In this case it just happens to be FOs. I'm not saying they're unplayable (unless you factor in the fact that they cost the same price money-wise as Termies), but I am saying that every other unit in the codex is more powerful.

Anyone who wants to argue with this point, is welcome to nominate a new unit for the title of 'worst unit in the Necron codex', and state their case. However, nobody will tolerate kumbaya-singing whitehat arguments like: 'there is no worst unit in the Codex, everything is wonderful, unicorns are magic!'.

I'll take you're FO's and Raise you a Triarch praetorian unit.

Jump infantry, one wound, 3+ save, fearless. for 40 points a model? feth that
6" plasma pistol? that's slowed, oh and the only reasonable build is a pistol and a rending weapon, certainly not worth it's points.

Well I think we can come to the conclusion that, although FO's are by a long shot not a great unit, they still do have a fair few uses. So until we see a list (looking at you Shadar) FO's are just going to stay that not so great unit. For me I'm going to stick with my Tomb Blades and Pretorians.

Triarch Pretorians are definitely worse than Flayed Ones. Though they could be playable if 6th makes Assault weapons give you +1A in close combat.

Regular Destroyers are poor. Heavy Destroyers are pretty good, though, especially with Zandrekh for the option of tank hunter.

Therion wrote:
Allright now I'm totally done with this thread. Are you serious? 'Judging from the Codexes'? You mean, you look at a codex and then just decide on an arbitrary number of 16 to 20 people who were fully paid to deal with the mechanics and balance issues? You have to be the most deluded person in the GW hobby and it's not even close. How many people do you 'judge' to work for Games Workshop games design overall? Not only do you vastly overestimate the size of this company I find it incredibly entertaining that you actually seem to appreciate the codex books. The depth and skill cap in this game is as deep as a puddle and it really would have to be a 16 to 20 people convention of fanatics and fanboys if they came up with a product this poorly tested and balanced. Of course, that's not true, because there is no group of 16 to 20 paid playtesters, that's just a number you took from your ass after 'judging the Codexes'.

By the way the word intrinsically was cool only the first time you used it in a sentence. Try inherently next time when you try to impress with your 'none-sense'. I'm sure if you talk enough about football, dodge arguments and ignore entire sections of posts against you while posting enough pictures everyone will forget we're spending our valuable time arguing with a person who doesn't live in the real world. Just stop.

It's called the credits, where they list the names of people in specific rolls, it is on one of the first pages, look it up genius. Nothing like slamming me with entire post that just displays your ignorance there champ. And grammar smack? Awesome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
JGrand:

You make a fair point there. Many teams have gone with a more versatile hybrid TE over a fullback, however there are certainly still many teams, any team with a strong running attack in particular (the Texans for instance) that place a high amount of value of having that mobile bruiser to open up a holes. Sometimes, there is just no substitute for a good dedicated fullback, just like sometimes there is no substitute for a unit that can be placed on an enemy's deployment zone objective and stand up to shooting or CC, or threaten back field heavy support early.

schadenfreude wrote:Going back to a point I made several pages ago.
A small unit (5 to 8) can work, and give good results for a very low point cost. It's just enough CC force to win combat resolution against backfield units like a tac squad, dev squad, long fangs, or lootas. Against any MEQ opponent the I2 of flayed ones is a huge advantage when fighting in the space marine's back field. If long fangs or a dev squad fails a morale test the necron I2=MEQ runs from combat instead of taking fearless wounds, and running from combat next to their own board edge will cause the unit to run off the board. There is also the added advantage that if a 65 point unit falls on their face it's not a huge loss. It's a significant perspective return for a low point cost and risk of investment.

You meant Ld10, not I2 right?

So, going back to my question earlier, smaller packs of flayed ones might be a good replacement for my D&D combos? I use them mainly for taking out exactly the squads you mentioned, but the D&D squads are only effective about 2/3 of the time (bad scatter rolls!).

I am sure you will believe that you have won some debate here but honestly your opponents are quitting out fatigue, shame and embarrassment for you. If that makes you feel better, go right ahead, I guess we all need something to feel good about.

Thanks LValx, it's good to know you're out there worried about my mental state. I'll be sleeping better tonight.