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.

You meant Ld10, not I2 right?

No, he meant I2. If they actually manage to beat and break an enemy unit, they're likely to fail the Sweep roll and let that unit run off the board. Which is one of the better ways to finish off a SM unit, as they can save against No Retreat wounds on their 3+ if you catch them.

MarkCron wrote:
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 think what he's saying Mark is that the I2 means they won'y be catching them in a sweeping advance, so instead of staying in combat and taking Fearless wounds they will be running off the board edge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Doh! Mannahnin beat me to it

According to the Blood Angels codex there were 9 people listed under Games Development.

The Necron Codex also lists 9, but also lists 5 additional playtesters.

The Grey Knights lists 8.

schadenfreude wrote:
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.

I do like your idea of using them small, to me though using them large has the advantage of A.) more use out of RP, particularly when you wanna finagle the extra movement out of them this is huge B.) Much more survivable if they decide to point all their guns at you the turn they arrive, again allowing RP to do its thing, and C.) more versatile. 2/3rds of the game are objective based, a large unit of Flayed Ones is much harder to move off an objective then a small one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:According to the Blood Angels codex there were 9 people listed under Games Development.

The Necron Codex also lists 9, but also lists 5 additional playtesters.

The Grey Knights lists 8.

Do the GK and BA books not mention playtesters at all? If so then I could see the source of the disconnect. And my bad, so we're looking at 14 full time employees dedicated to this specific task, not 16 to 20.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and Shaden I'm not actually advocating using them with the DLord exclusively, but if he happens to be in the army anyway (maybe with a Wraith or Triarch Praetorian escort initially) then you have the option to add his combat prowess to the FOs, not too mention some ablative wounds to hide behind if his initial escort gets shot up. The DLord (with warscythe/SW/MSS/RO) is a beat stick on his own in CC though, I think you will find that the DLord + a large group of FOs isn't going to be easily dealt with by most CC threats.

They're not dedicated. Those are the folks who worked on it, and they also work on other things at the same time.

Blood Angels
Alessio Cavatore
Robin Cruddace
Graham Davey
Andy Hoare
Jervis Johnson
Phil Kelly
Andrew Kerrick
Jeremy Vetock
Matthew Ward

Necrons
Robin Cruddace
Matthew Hobday
Jervis Johnson
Phil Kelly
Mark Latham
Adam Troke
Jeremy Vetock
Sarah Wallen
Matthew Ward
additional
Tris Buckroyd
Paul Hickey
Matt Hilton
Martin Morrin
Gary Shaw

Grey Knights
Robin Cruddace
Matthew Hobday
Jervis Johnson
Phil Kelly
Mark Latham
Jeremy Vetock
Sarah Wallen
Matthew Ward

Given the repetition of names I think we can safely assume that in the area of actual games development/playtesting they have about 9-10 people. None of whom have any recognition as competitive players (Jervis is renowned for losing most every game he's played for White Dwarf).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ironically, the one that is listed as having the most testers (Necrons) is also one of the better balanced.

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!'.

Az, even if they are, which I obviously don't believe they are, I don't think that necessarily means they have no place in a competitive list or are unplayable. They clearly bring something different that no other unit brings, particularly out of its FOS. This isn't a situation like Pyrovores where the only thing it kind of does ok (Spored dropping on dev/long fangs) can be done much better and more efficiently with YGS in the same FOS, and come out of an FOS that is desperately need for anti tank in that particular codex.

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.

I assume you are talking about Codex: Necrons. It has five names on it. Not 8 to 10 like you said and you've no idea if they were ever paid. GW has a history of using playtesters and mentioning them in the credits without ever paying them anything. GW also has a history of never listening to what the playtesters have to say. You made the claim that GW employs 8 to 10 full time paid play testers and 8 to 10 full time paid game mechanic designers. The ball is still in your court, champ.

Given the repetition of names I think we can safely assume that in the area of actual games development/playtesting they have about 9-10 people.

Exactly. Basically, they list everyone that works for the company in this area, period. Then they list a couple of friends they played against during the lunch break as a 'thanks for the help'. I have the feeling that ShadarLogoth wants to believe GW is a multi-billion dollar global company that operates from a skyscraper with a hundred people working feverishly on every floor. Whenever something GW does looks, feels and/or tastes amateurish, it's because that's what it is.

Therion wrote:

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.

I assume you are talking about Codex: Necrons. It has five names on it. Not 8 to 10 like you said and you've no idea if they were ever paid. GW has a history of using playtesters and mentioning them in the credits without ever paying them anything. GW also has a history of never listening to what the playtesters have to say. You made the claim that GW employs 8 to 10 full time paid play testers and 8 to 10 full time paid game mechanic designers. The ball is still in your court, champ.

Ok so it turns out it was 9 designers and 5 testers, I wouldn't say I was that far off. Do you have any actual proof for the rest of your allegations?

Alessio used to be well known as a competitive WH player before he went to work for GW, IIRC. Other that that, I believe the point about none of them being known as good players as accurate. Of course, that doesn't really tell us if they're good or not.

I've known a number of folks who did outside playtesting for GW in the past as well. They did routinely complain that their feedback was not listened to. Their in-house playtesting has been a bit of a joke for years. There was a WD once with a picture showing counts of playtest games with a new codex at one point that was discussed on here, and everyone was kind of appalled at how low the numbers were. That was a while back.

So Therion, you're 100% convinced that the game you have been playing for (at least 5 years) and that millions of people play with some level of competition every year is run by completely poo slinging primates...yet you're still playing and still posting on a forum dedicated to this game? So they are so bad and so blind they can barely manage not to drool on the codex as they write it but some how their game system, I guess by just dumb luck, is balanced enough that they have what 12 playable codexes with multiple playable builds out of each one?

Ok so it turns out it was 9 designers and 5 testers, I wouldn't say I was that far off.

Didn't you just say you based your claims on the credits? Did you misread the credits when you wrote about your judgment of the codex, or why did you claim it was 8 to 10 paid designers and 8 to 10 paid playtesters?

So Therion, you're 100% convinced that the game you have been playing for (at least 5 years) and that millions of people play with some level of competition every year is run by completely poo slinging primates...yet you're still playing and still posting on a forum dedicated to this game? So they are so bad and so blind they can barely manage not to drool on the codex as they write it but some how their game system, I guess by just dumb luck, is balanced enough that they have what 12 playable codexes with multiple playable builds out of each one?

GW doesn't run the competitive aspect of the game. The players do. GW releases garbage all the time and they've done it as far as I remember. I've played their games since 1990. What GW did exceptionally well was create a fictional universe that really captures our imagination and keeps us in the game despite all of the crap. There are times and editions when composition scoring and custom rules are more prevalent, and times when the official non-regulated GW product is more playable. Overall though the tournament players pretty much rule for themselves. GW doesn't care about us and we don't care about them.

Mannahnin wrote:I've known a number of folks who did outside playtesting for GW in the past as well. They did routinely complain that their feedback was not listened to. Their in-house playtesting has been a bit of a joke for years. There was a WD once with a picture showing counts of playtest games with a new codex at one point that was discussed on here, and everyone was kind of appalled at how low the numbers were. That was a while back.

Seems like all the playtesters (when they still existed) were treated similarly then. The fact that GW just doesn't care about balance and game mechanics is particularly appalling because there are atleast a couple dozen players out there who play more than 50 games a year and would gladly spend a couple hundred hours testing a new edition or a new army book for free.

Therion wrote:

Ok so it turns out it was 9 designers and 5 testers, I wouldn't say I was that far off.

Didn't you just say you based your claims on the credits? Did you misread the credits when you wrote about your judgment of the codex, or why did you claim it was 8 to 10 paid designers and 8 to 10 paid playtesters?

So Therion, you're 100% convinced that the game you have been playing for (at least 5 years) and that millions of people play with some level of competition every year is run by completely poo slinging primates...yet you're still playing and still posting on a forum dedicated to this game? So they are so bad and so blind they can barely manage not to drool on the codex as they write it but some how their game system, I guess by just dumb luck, is balanced enough that they have what 12 playable codexes with multiple playable builds out of each one?

GW doesn't run the competitive aspect of the game. The players do. GW releases garbage all the time and they've done it as far as I remember. I've played their games since 1990. What GW did exceptionally well was create a fictional universe that really captures our imagination and keeps us in the game despite all of the crap. There are times and editions when composition scoring and custom rules are more prevalent, and times when the official non-regulated GW product is more playable. Overall though the tournament players pretty much rule for themselves. GW doesn't care about us and we don't care about them.

OK fair enough. I think if you look at how popular most of the 5th edition codexes have been it clearly shows them trending in a positive direction here though. I just don't feel like they would be making any progress at all if they truly didn't care, and anytime they publicly say something to this effect it is more of a CYA the an actual "yeah we really don't try at all."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To add to this, I think each successive edition has allowed for more balanced, dynamic, and competitive gaming then the last. I think we can both agree that the core rule set of 5th edition for the most part the best yet.

I think we can both agree that the core rule set of 5th edition for the most part the best yet.

I like fifth edition too but I'm not optimistic for sixth. Tuomas Pirinen designed a perfectly adequate core rule set for fantasy battle too but first the game was ruined by a stream of unbelievably imbalanced army books and then an absolutely terrible new edition of core rules.

I'll still keep my thumbs up. I wish GW all the success in the world.

While we're on the subject (and the FO train is completely derailed ) I've never been very surprised with some of the bigger changes in each edition, as they seem, at least to me, to address the primary complaints of the previous edition, which at least appears to show they actually do listen.

Also, the guys over here:

http://www.thecodexproject.com

I (sort of) know (the owner of the website is a customer of my company) and have seen many of their ideas find their way into published codexes. I think it's pretty clear that GW listens to some input, while discarding others for whatever reason they find necessary, and we have to allow at least the possibility that the reason they don't take piece of advice A.) is that they see that having an imbalancing (is that word?) effect on unit roll or strategy B.).

ShadarLogoth wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
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 think what he's saying Mark is that the I2 means they won'y be catching them in a sweeping advance, so instead of staying in combat and taking Fearless wounds they will be running off the board edge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Doh! Mannahnin beat me to it

I2 is awesome if necrons win cc and are near a MEQ player's table edge, the same logic for flayed ones works on scarabs and wraiths. Flayed ones just happen to be the only Necron unit that can outflank.

Thinking about it a little more, I do see some additional advantages of the small group now. Now, if they are "stuck" with their best way to contribute is tying up a shooty dreadnaught, they are doing so far more efficiently. I honestly had completely written off taking them small but I'll have to try it out more.

Just from my prior experience, the big groups generally always did something important.

I didn't want the topic to revolve around my list in particular, but I do see the value of posting it as if its honestly appraised it highlights some of the possible synergy available to the Flayed Ones." As I alluded to previously it does include another less popular unit with the Triarch Praetorians. Hopefully I'll be able to illustrate some of the method to my madness.

HQ
225.....Imotekh
190.....Destroyer Lord (Warscythe/Mind Shackle Scarabs/Res Orb/SWeave)

Royal Court:
40.......Chronotek
55.......Pulsetek

Elite
195.....Flayed Ones (15)
240.....Triarch Praetorians (6) (Particle Casters/Void Blades)

Troops
195.....Warriors (15) (Imo/Chrono)
65........Warriors (5) (Pulsetek)
65........Warriors (5)

Fast Attack
150......Tomb Blades (5) (Gauss Blasters/Shadowlooms)
250......Wraiths (6) (3 WC, 2 PC)
150......Scarabs (10)

Heavy Support
180......3 Tomb Spyders (2 Gloom Prisms)

2000

For a more conventional list and still keeping the FOs you can easily swap the TPs and TBs for more scarabs/wraith/spyders. What has lead me in this direction is a general desire to not put all my eggs in one basket. Scarabs can be very effective AT, however against a Chimera with a dozen flamers they have severe limitations. Also, Wraiths are fantastically versatile, but in a null vehicle list primarily relying on CC the Triach Praetorians edge against vehicles is what justified their inclusion. To me, they are more resilient scarabs that can get called into Wraith like duties if needed. Now, certainly Wraiths are generally superior at Wraith like duties, but, FA slots being thin, and again, needing to up the anti-tank numbers a bit.

So the general thrust of the list of course is null vehicle CC focused, as I think this design works best when taking Imotekh. The real MVP though has been the Destroyer Lord with a Res Orb. This is a great mobile augment that can be moved around from the Triarch Praetorians he is originally running with, to the Flayed Ones or Imo's Warrior squad (particularly if Imo is on his last wound, augmenting the chance to get to that Phylactery roll), basically what ever the fight calls for.

People clue in on this pretty quickly and make his unit a primary threat, which with T5, 3+/(cover 4+) and RP 4+ (Plus the DLords 2+) the TPs tend to eat quite a few bullets rather efficiently. Once they hit vehicle lines I tend to split them up, but if needed they can come together on a Land Raider and make pretty short work of it.

The Tomb Blades offer a reliable way to stun vehicles to prime them for a next turn assault (averaging about 1.5 glances at rapid fire range, or 1.5 Pens and 1.5 glances against AV 10) and provide an extremely mobile (and resilient) cover wall that can fill in gaps in cover for the Scarabs/TPs/Flayed Ones/Warriors, but also Turbo Boost behind a Vehicle to shut the doors on escaping squishy bits.

So the basic strategy against Mech spam is to use the Triarch's Pistols (6 S6 shots), the Phaeroned Warriors, and the Tomb Blades to augment what ever the lightning doesn't hit (particularly on the front lines) on turn one to setup favorable turn two assaults. Rinse and repeat as necessary to properly de-mech the enemy. While generally the TPs and Scarabs then focus on de-meching the Flayed Ones and Wraiths focus on what comes falling out. Obviously the Spyders add to which ever as needed once they have joined the fray. Against GK I tend to play much more conservatively, moving the army up together to stay within range of the Gloom Prisms.

It's definitely not an Alpha Strike list, I'm primarily relying on Night Fighting and inherent (just for you Therion ) resilience to buy me time to execute the strategy. Going Null Vehicle and effectively neutering a good chunk of anti tank firepower has allowed me to generate some pretty impressive numbers: (Yes S8+ still loves to shoot at Wraiths, but with a 3++ its still inherently inefficient.)

42 T4 4+ RP 5+ wounds
30 T3 Stealth (generally 3+ cover) wounds
5 T5 Stealth (generally 3+ or 2+ cover) wounds
6 T5 3+ RP 4+ wounds
3 T6 2+ RP 4+ wounds
3 T5 2+/3++ RP 5+ (chrono'd) wounds
9 T6 3+ wounds
12 T4 3++ wounds

So a total of 110 wounds, not quite the quantity of a Green Tide list but generally much more resilient wounds to take down (better saves, better toughness, RP, Night Fighting) (with the notable exception of the Scarabs, but I'm generally getting 6 to 9 extra basis out of them as well).


So in short (too late ), although I realize in looks pretty unorthodox at first glance, in practice I find it plays quite similarly to a more traditional Wraith Wing/Scarab Farm Imotekh list. The big thing I like about it is that although it has a redundancy of roles, it doesn't homogenize the choices. Therefore, if I'm fighting something that is really good against Scarabs or really good against Wraiths, I'm not getting tabled because of a bad match up.

I was thinking a 9 man flayed one pack for 117 points either deep striking(with zandrekh) or outflanking would be a nice destraction/ unit for going after backfield units. I feel that this is definately one of the weaknesses for the necrons in this edition is digging enemies out of cover, or at least tying them up. With nemesor you could also give them furious charge and they could be a threat to enemies vehicles. I would always deep strike them into cover,
1/6 chance of dying combined with a 1/3 of getting back up so maybe 1 will die from dangerous terrain. Also the main reason for 9 would be the three casualties for a test. Then bump a warrior unit to 6 or something like that to make the multiples work out. Think I will try them in a 1850 tournament next weekend.

if what whitehat is saying about jumpinfantry striking at I10 on the charge, praetorians are going to be pretty nifty...so are wraiths and every other necron JI unit

Basimpo wrote:if what whitehat is saying about jumpinfantry striking at I10 on the charge, praetorians are going to be pretty nifty...so are wraiths and every other necron JI unit

That is a pretty intriguing possibility, and would not surprise as many JI units are currently considered over priced.

As they currently stand I rate Praetorians a bit higher then most as I see them as hybrid between two of the best units in the Codex (Scarabs and Wraiths) in a slot that doesn't compete with either. I think most of their bad press comes from the rod of covenant variety (who would benefit quite a bit from the potential I10 on the assault change) rather then the VB/PC combo, which basically converts them into Scarabs that don't fear templates/blasts/strength 6 weaponry.

We are going to need another thread for Praetorians aren't we?

Maybe we should just keep the utility of these underused units a secret!

MarkCron wrote:We are going to need another thread for Praetorians aren't we?

Maybe we should just keep the utility of these underused units a secret!

Heh no doubt. I was reluctant to even mention them as it seems to paint the picture of being stubbornly non-conformist just to be obstinate, but there are really no units in the new Dex I label as completely bad. DAs and GAs for instance seem a little pricey, but with the aggregate of tools at the Necrons disposal I can certainly envision an army list that makes viable use of them.

Actually, you won't be the first. There was an army list recently from another person who was using them as well - their description of the strategy they were going to use them is similar to yours.

Unfortunately, I can't remember the list!

ShadarLogoth wrote:

MarkCron wrote:We are going to need another thread for Praetorians aren't we?

Maybe we should just keep the utility of these underused units a secret!

Heh no doubt. I was reluctant to even mention them as it seems to paint the picture of being stubbornly non-conformist just to be obstinate, but there are really no units in the new Dex I label as completely bad. DAs and GAs for instance seem a little pricey, but with the aggregate of tools at the Necrons disposal I can certainly envision an army list that makes viable use of them.

I'll admit, I have not given a lot of playtime with flayed ones, but I have with the Triarch Praetorians. I tried them in both configurations, with and without a Dlord, and personally, Nearly every situation I had them in, I just wish had more wraiths/Wraiths instead. They were just not *that* good.

We'll have to see what 6th brings. I'd LOVE to bring them out in a competitive list.

Sasori wrote:

ShadarLogoth wrote:

MarkCron wrote:We are going to need another thread for Praetorians aren't we?

Maybe we should just keep the utility of these underused units a secret!

Heh no doubt. I was reluctant to even mention them as it seems to paint the picture of being stubbornly non-conformist just to be obstinate, but there are really no units in the new Dex I label as completely bad. DAs and GAs for instance seem a little pricey, but with the aggregate of tools at the Necrons disposal I can certainly envision an army list that makes viable use of them.

I'll admit, I have not given a lot of playtime with flayed ones, but I have with the Triarch Praetorians. I tried them in both configurations, with and without a Dlord, and personally, Nearly every situation I had them in, I just wish had more wraiths/Wraiths instead. They were just not *that* good.

We'll have to see what 6th brings. I'd LOVE to bring them out in a competitive list.

Yeah I remember you dabbling with them a bit and coming away unimpressed. I am a huge fan of both JI and jetbikes in particular, as is probably obvious from my list, so I rather the like the fact that I have another source to pull them from outside of FA. Also, being primarily Imo-centric for the majority of my newcron playing time has had me drift away from ABs, and in need of a diversified CC anti-tank approach.

Great post with some fine tactics.

I am returning to the game after a few years off and had considered Flayed Ones for a CC unit. Glad to see that, with enough of them, they can stand on their two feed, or someone elses'.

Seems any interest has folks running their mouths about something they don't have experience to even mention. Glad to see that someone is willing to speak up against them.