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.

Zahndrek wouldn't use Flayed Ones. He doesn't remember they exist. :p

Personally, I have to say Scarabs and Spyders are my main winners, especially combined with Obyron to put the Spyders where I want them and help them keep up with the Scarabs.

Then again, I've been known to run 30 bases of scarabs and 9 spyders at the start of a game...

Furious Charge on orks?

Unfortunately I don't often get to play against Orcs... as in... currently never. I keep using Nemesor though because as I continue to play new people I'll run into Hit and Run and Stealth and the like.

Tank Hunter though... always useful.


As for the Flayed Ones talk... I mean... use them if you wish but I just don't think they are justified. I'd rather have their point cost in Scarabs any day.

 rednecroncryptek wrote:

The downsides to FO is the fact that they are 1. Initiative 2. Expensive (money-wise) and 3. Finecast

4. No AP
5. No Fearless
6. New Models look donkey.

With Immothek & Flayed ones, add a destroyer lord with a Tachyon arrow, then deepstrike them in the rear of marked vehicle and blast away. Next turn the Lord can attack something....

the issue there is, the unit you mark with the Bloodswarm Nano-Scarabs is determined randomly.
Completely stupid move from a design perspective.
If you have been able to decide what unit to mark, they may have been slightly useful. As they are now, there's nothing they do that Warriors can't do better.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 rednecroncryptek wrote:

The downsides to FO is the fact that they are 1. Initiative 2. Expensive (money-wise) and 3. Finecast

4. No AP
5. No Fearless
6. New Models look donkey.

I Second that,.. they should at least have made their attacks rending and let them cause fear against 'umies! Not that that would make them desireable,.. but it would be more correct fluffwise/model looks wise...

Best units of the codex.

Dlord in a group of wraiths.

Annihilation Barges

Night scythes

 skoffs wrote:
the issue there is, the unit you mark with the Bloodswarm Nano-Scarabs is determined randomly.
Completely stupid move from a design perspective.
If you have been able to decide what unit to mark, they may have been slightly useful. As they are now, there's nothing they do that Warriors can't do better.

Yeah, because Warriors are awesome at infiltrating and assaulting entrenched enemy firesupport.....or troops...or assaulting anything ever without investment into Phaeron and attached court.

Hell, why bring anything else for that matter? Just bring 120 Warriors and call it a day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 rednecroncryptek wrote:

The downsides to FO is the fact that they are 1. Initiative 2. Expensive (money-wise) and 3. Finecast

4. No AP
5. No Fearless
6. New Models look donkey.

7. Most of us have never actually used them but our pre-conceived notions are echoed back upon us on the internet so why bother? Oh, and their new models suck...

ShadarLogoth wrote:

 skoffs wrote:
the issue there is, the unit you mark with the Bloodswarm Nano-Scarabs is determined randomly.
Completely stupid move from a design perspective.
If you have been able to decide what unit to mark, they may have been slightly useful. As they are now, there's nothing they do that Warriors can't do better.

Yeah, because Warriors are awesome at infiltrating and assaulting entrenched enemy firesupport.....or troops...or assaulting anything ever without investment into Phaeron and attached court.

...
Assaulting? Why bother, when you can just do something more effective, like shoot things?
Infiltrating? Why not try a more effective method of insertion? (veil or NS)

Yes, FO can deepstrike/infiltrate as is, and so don't require extra things being added to their unit to help their mobility, but their limitations are their biggest discouragement to fielding (ALL they can do is be somewhere... then they die).
Even with the increased cost that comes with adding Lords/Crypteks or Ghost Arks/Nightscythes to their units, Warriors are much more versatile.

FO have two purposes: tar pit or distraction.
Warriors have multiple purposes: tar pit, distraction, objective capture, strike squad anchor, anti-AV, character protection, etc.

"Oh, but Flayed Ones are a force to be reckoned with, if you add a Destroyer Lord!"
Yes, but practically ANYTHING is better when joined by a Destroyer Lord. How does that make them special?

Assaulting? Why bother, when you can just do something more effective, like shoot things?

Yeah, so don't bother with the DLord, or Wraiths, or anything else while you're at it I guess...?

Infiltrating? Why not try a more effective method of insertion? (veil or NS)

Why is that more effective? (it's not, necessarily) Is it always more effective? (the answer's no) The Flayed Ones have the option when it is the most effective form of deployment, as do they have the option to DS.

Yes, FO can deepstrike/infiltrate as is, and so don't require extra things being added to their unit to help their mobility, but their limitations are their biggest discouragement to fielding (ALL they can do is be somewhere... then they die).

Or they start somewhere...and then go somewhere else, and then kill something, taking an objective away from your opponent, and winning you a game...? Or your opponent shoots at them instead of the Wraiths/TPs/DLord, so you have more Wraiths/TPs/DLords alive when they hit the lines, making their death an effective way of keeping your more expensive toys alive? Or maybe they just show up, don't move, and die with no opportunity costs. Maybe...

Even with the increased cost that comes with adding Lords/Crypteks or Ghost Arks/Nightscythes to their units, Warriors are much more versatile.

More versatile? I guess, aren't Warriors are also "more versatile" then Wraiths and Annhilation Barges? That certainly doesn't mean that their inclusion precludes taking those units.

FO have two purposes: tar pit or distraction.

Says the person that never uses them to the person that's used them in a hundred plus games since the codex dropped. They have a lot more uses then that. All you have to do is pull up any of our several discussions on the topic if you wish to find them out.

Warriors have multiple purposes: tar pit, distraction, objective capture, strike squad anchor, anti-AV, character protection, etc.

Flayed Ones kill most vehicles (rear 10) much faster then Warriors, point for point, once they are within range. And they are just as good as eating bullets as Warriors are, and don't fold nearly as easily in assault, so I would say they are superior at character protection as well. I'm not sure what a strike squad anchor even is (stormtek squad maybe? fair point if that's what you mean). And Warriors are a tar pit? Seriously? Come on man, at least pretend to take this discussion seriously .

Warriors have Gauss Guns and score, but are incredibly vulnerable to assault. Flayed Ones have to get close (CC) to do damage and deny, but have no heavy vulnerabilities when trying to remove them outside of a small handful of hard hitting assault units. They eat bullets extremely well, and take assaults extremely well. You take them because you can make them a threat early (Infiltrate/Outflank/DS) and they have the resiliency numbers to make them getting shot at over other units a winning proposition for you. Of course, your opponent might realize them and not shoot at them...in which case your Infiltrated-will-be-assaulting-by-turn-2 Flayed Ones aren't being shot at. Things could be worse.

"Oh, but Flayed Ones are a force to be reckoned with, if you add a Destroyer Lord!"
Yes, but practically ANYTHING is better when joined by a Destroyer Lord. How does that make them special?

Well, the fact that they, like the DLord, actually want to be in CC makes them a superior pairing with him then most units that don't. Also, comparing the Flayed Ones to say, Wraiths, you can augment 60/80 attacks with preferred enemy and 20 bases with a Res Orb where as the Wraiths only get the former and for only 18/24 attacks (albeit S6 rending attacks). Bigger squads just tend to get more mileage out of a DLord then smaller squads. The DLord also augments the Flayed Ones speed and assault range whereas he only matches the speed/assault range of the Wraiths.

Now, I know I've said this before but it bears repeating, I still think the DLord is more ideal with Wraiths or TPs then Flayed Ones (particularly TPs). However, if you are already running a DLord with a Res Orb with some TPs, a large group of Flayed Ones for him to hop over to once his TP escort is either dead or about to engage with an inferior opponent (like a tank) is definitely a very useful option to have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skoffs wrote:
the issue there is, the unit you mark with the Bloodswarm Nano-Scarabs is determined randomly.
Completely stupid move from a design perspective.
If you have been able to decide what unit to mark, they may have been slightly useful. As they are now, there's nothing they do that Warriors can't do better.

This I'll completely agree with you on. It does have the impact of molding your opponents deployment to some extent, however I wish at the very least I could figure out where the Bloodswarm might drop them before deciding whether or not the DS/Outflank/Infiltrate. It can still be a useful tool, but not quite as useful as it would be otherwise.

My initial point I was trying to stress: Necrons excel at shooting.
When on the table, Warriors and Flayed Ones are practically the same, apart from one having a rapidfire gun, and the other having two extra attacks in CC.
If Warriors get tied up in combat, they're next to useless, as they're best when shooting.
If Flayed ones AREN'T in combat, they're next to useless, as they've got nothing to do but stand there.

Most people prefer to keep their Necron infantry out of combat, as they have a tendency to fold (Warrior and Flayed Ones alike).
If I have a unit of marines in front of a unit of Warriors and a full squad of Wraiths, I sure as hell am not going to be charging while I have the option to blast the suckers from a safe distance.
Flayed Ones don't have that option.

There is no situation that comes to mind where a unit of FO charging an enemy would be better off than an equal squad of Warriors standing back and shooting said enemy.

In fact, perhaps it would be best to amend my initial statement to say, "there's nothing Flayed Ones can do that anything else in the codex can't do better"

 skoffs wrote:
My initial point I was trying to stress: Necrons excel at shooting.
When on the table, Warriors and Flayed Ones are practically the same, apart from one having a rapidfire gun, and the other having two extra attacks in CC.
If Warriors get tied up in combat, they're next to useless, as they're best when shooting.
If Flayed ones AREN'T in combat, they're next to useless, as they've got nothing to do but stand there.

Agree with this to an extent, but it's an extremely simplistic way to look at the game. Flayed Ones most certainly can be impacting a game when they aren't actually in CC, (as can any dedicated CC unit).

Most people prefer to keep their Necron infantry out of combat, as they have a tendency to fold (Warrior and Flayed Ones alike).

But Flayed Ones don't. That's the whole point.

If I have a unit of marines in front of a unit of Warriors and a full squad of Wraiths, I sure as hell am not going to be charging while I have the option to blast the suckers from a safe distance.
Flayed Ones don't have that option.

So? Who cares about that option? The Flayed Ones are going to assault with the unit of Wraiths, and either destroy their opponent or get tied up in CC and not have to be shot at. "Warriors don't have that option"...

There is no situation that comes to mind where a unit of FO charging an enemy would be better off than an equal squad of Warriors standing back and shooting said enemy.

When sitting back and shooting the enemy with a couple Gauss Flayers is going to do very little and not help you win the game at all? That situation? It comes up, like a lot.

In fact, perhaps it would be best to amend my initial statement to say, "there's nothing Flayed Ones can do that anything else in the codex can't do better"

Infiltrate? Deep Strike? Be a resilient CC unit? The are they best in the codex at all three categories.

The best in all three categories?

Infiltrate: yes, by default, as nothing else can (but no one really cares too much, there are better ways to get things into place).

Deep strike: no, they are the only deep strike-able unit in the codex that has zero shooting options and has no choice but to sit there for an entire turn doing nothing.

Resilient CC unit: not really, as there are tougher, better armored resilient CC options available (besides, we usually prefer avoiding combat whenever possible).

 skoffs wrote:
The best in all three categories?

Infiltrate: yes, by default, as nothing else can (but no one really cares too much, there are better ways to get things into place).

No, there's not. Infiltrate is the best deployment option in the game for turn one. Just because you don't use it doesn't mean it isn't effective and good.

Deep strike: no, they are the only deep strike-able unit in the codex that has zero shooting options and has no choice but to sit there for an entire turn doing nothing.

Yeah, because Wraiths have "shooting options" right, like the ones no one ever takes? Then, they are one of two Deep Striking units that can do so with out scattering, and the other one requires two separate expensive HQs working in tandem to pull it off. And yes, they don't shoot. Which really seems to be the only knock you have against them, because you say it in every post. Oh, and they most certainly do do something the turn they arrive. Is called run. It's really all you want them to do in the first place, bare actually getting to assault, so I'm not sure why you continue to lament over a lack of option you don't need in the first place...

Resilient CC unit: not really, as there are tougher, better armored resilient CC options available (besides, we usually prefer avoiding combat whenever possible).

No, there's not. Point for point, they are the most resilient unit in the codex versus the widest variety of weapons, tied only with Warriors. Since Warriors aren't exactly CC units that pretty much leaves them as the most resilient CC unit in the codex. And again, we get it, you like shooting. Certainly doesn't mean that it's the only viable option.

*sigh*
You know, you talk a lot about how well they work for you, but I don't think I recall ever seeing any proof of this.

The reason we believe other things work better than flayed ones is because we've seen evidence of their effectiveness in battle reports.
Battle reports featuring FO?
Extremely rare.
Battle reports where FO actually did well?
No examples comes to mind.

I'm not saying it's impossible for them to be used effectively, it's just a lot easier to believe they aren't garbage if there's something more than one person's word to back it up.

Basically, if you want to convince people Flayed Ones are anything more than the worst unit in the codex, try showing us some proof beyond mere theoryhammer.

The problem with using FO as frontline units is that they lack fearless, so a single harditting MC will run the whole unit down. It is true that they can potentially beat up other weakish CC infantry, eg IG blobs or Orks, abd they can grind marines down, but they are so vulnerable to getting swept that they can't be called a real CC unit. TWC/terminators/MC's/Nobz, all beat them by winning combat and just eating the survivors. Wraiths stick around to the last man, are faster, and have a wider range of targets they can beat up thanks to rending and high strength.

The options listed are all good units, but honestly, the work horse of my army is the Twin Linked Tesla Destructor, either on an Annihilation Barge or a Nightscythe. I have 3 of each in my list, and they decimate all of the things.

ShadarLogoth wrote:

 skoffs wrote:
The best in all three categories?

Infiltrate: yes, by default, as nothing else can (but no one really cares too much, there are better ways to get things into place).

No, there's not. Infiltrate is the best deployment option in the game for turn one. Just because you don't use it doesn't mean it isn't effective and good.

Deep strike: no, they are the only deep strike-able unit in the codex that has zero shooting options and has no choice but to sit there for an entire turn doing nothing.

Yeah, because Wraiths have "shooting options" right, like the ones no one ever takes? Then, they are one of two Deep Striking units that can do so with out scattering, and the other one requires two separate expensive HQs working in tandem to pull it off. And yes, they don't shoot. Which really seems to be the only knock you have against them, because you say it in every post. Oh, and they most certainly do do something the turn they arrive. Is called run. It's really all you want them to do in the first place, bare actually getting to assault, so I'm not sure why you continue to lament over a lack of option you don't need in the first place...

Resilient CC unit: not really, as there are tougher, better armored resilient CC options available (besides, we usually prefer avoiding combat whenever possible).

No, there's not. Point for point, they are the most resilient unit in the codex versus the widest variety of weapons, tied only with Warriors. Since Warriors aren't exactly CC units that pretty much leaves them as the most resilient CC unit in the codex. And again, we get it, you like shooting. Certainly doesn't mean that it's the only viable option.

Infiltrate might be the most effective deployment,.. but not when you have to buy expensive easy breaking resin crap... which you have to buy more than once,.... Then,.. attaching a ress orb can only be done when giving a Destroyer lords,... which i sure as hell do not want in my Flayed one pack when there are wraiths or destroyers on the table..

The ability to not scatter comes at a cost of 225 points of Imothek... which wont be seen in small to medium games since his point costs and effectiveness can be achieved for cheaper cost...
Even if you run, which wont be far,.. why the hell would you throw 65/130 points at least ,of not that awesome toughness/armoursave in the rearfield of your enemy ?? Yeah so they run,.. still target practice in most cases,.. which if you take wraiths, they do even better... the inv save and extra wound makes them stay on the field longer,.. Deep striking while not being able to charge in that turn? Might as well just not use those points... and even if 1 does survive, lol,.. what is it going to do?? Even as destraction they are overruled by swarms of scarabs and wraiths hastening to the frontline...

And its not if you need it or not,.. if you are going to throw something at the rear of yor enemy,.. make sure it can at least try to damage something before joining the scrap heap.. We are not saying what you do, say or think is wrong,.. but most just agree that those points can be put to better use elsewhere as yes, IMO, Flayed Ones are the least effective unit in the entire codex...


And LOL? Seriously? Most resillient CC unit in the codex? Pleeeeease read again my boy,.. even destroyers peform better in cc because of preferred enemy, higher toughness, and better armour save.. I had 3 destroyers hold of 5 ogryns for 4 turns, and they won,... i dont think ill ever see 3 flayed ones do that... And then, lords are better in cc, wraiths are better, i think even a triarch stalker will out peform them,.. oh Lychguards, they rock...


And no, shooting is not the only option.. but what you suggest is like a squad of fire warriors dropping their most awesome guns and then charge,.. its just not smart... Necrons perform waaaay better in the shooting front then in CC, and even there they can be very annoying..


So yes,.. flayed ones CAN be effective,.. but why bother with them if everything else out peforms them...

Any time I'd consider bringing Flayed Ones I'd probably rather have a bunch of Scarabs instead. Seriously.

Why attach a DLord to them? It just drags his T6 down to a T4. If you want to assault something - you've got much better units. Scarabs can't infiltrate or deepstrike but they can haul arse across the board with 12 inches of movement per turn with Fleet and Ignore Terrain.

I've really tried to like Flayed Ones and even considered using them as a Deepstrike/Infiltrate unit to draw fire away from more valuable targets - but ultimately I'd rather have Scarabs which will not only live longer but will cause a bit more panic as they can actually tear down vehicles and buildings mighty quick.

Sure you can use them if you want - but for the points you will be investing to make them effective why not just take something cheaper, faster, and ultimately more deadly.

Initiative 2 is hell - the only way other Necron CC units get past it is by being overall a bit more fighty than most. These guys? What do they have to justify being so fragile?

If I may ask, what do people actually have against FOs?

Same S/T as a SM
More Attacks
RP
can be blobbed
faily cheap

Of course, they could be better, but couldnt everything?

Infiltrate might be the most effective deployment,.. but not when you have to buy expensive easy breaking resin crap... which you have to buy more than once,.... Then,.. attaching a ress orb can only be done when giving a Destroyer lords,... which i sure as hell do not want in my Flayed one pack when there are wraiths or destroyers on the table..

The bold is pretty much the only part of your entire post that has any proper perspective. You don't like the models, and it's going to take a lot to convince you that the unit performs well because you have not interest in buying the models in the first place. Perfectly acceptable position to take, but the rest of your post just shows you really have zero experience with them.

The ability to not scatter comes at a cost of 225 points of Imothek... which wont be seen in small to medium games since his point costs and effectiveness can be achieved for cheaper cost...

Okay...

And LOL? Seriously? Most resillient CC unit in the codex? Pleeeeease read again my boy,.. even destroyers peform better in cc because of preferred enemy, higher toughness, and better armour save.. I had 3 destroyers hold of 5 ogryns for 4 turns, and they won,... i dont think ill ever see 3 flayed ones do that... And then, lords are better in cc, wraiths are better, i think even a triarch stalker will out peform them,.. oh Lychguards, they rock...

It's very hard to take this post seriously. Destroyers? Triarch Stalkers? Do you know how to analyze a units capabilities relative to their points cost? You get 3 Flayed Ones per Destroyer/Wraith and 12 per Stalker. Flayed Ones are significantly more resilient per point to most weapons, shooting or CC, then Wraiths/Stakers/Scarabs/LG, all their primary competition. Why? Because you get a lot more bodies out of them per point, a T4 4+ and RP, yes, they still have RP although for some reason people seem to forget that, means they will generally eat more small, medium, or big gun fire then any of their competitors. Scarabs for instance, while being slightly more resilient to small arms fire, are highly vulnerable to double T and templates. I've done the math to prove this on a variety of threads, fill free to PM me if you want proof.

The high resiliency is what plays into their nominal roll. Use their variety of deployment options to get them onto a weakly defended objective, charge anything that is there, spread out in some cover to block the objective off, and then GtG and hug trees and force the opponent to have to deal with them through Night Fighting (from Pulses/Imo), a 3+ cover save, and RP. Scarabs/Wraiths/Triarchs can't do that kind of thing, which is no knock against them, its just not their job. They are fast attacking jump units. Now, you could do something like that with Warriors, but you have to invest the additional points to get them there, and if anything with remotely competent CC is close by they will just stroll over and knock them off. However, with the Flayed Ones there acting as a deterrent, the objective is free for capture from a late Veil/Night Scythe/Ghost Arc drop. Even if you don't cap it, in most games taking away on objective in the opponents deployment zone is enough to turn the balance.

And no, shooting is not the only option.. but what you suggest is like a squad of fire warriors dropping their most awesome guns and then charge,.. its just not smart... Necrons perform waaaay better in the shooting front then in CC, and even there they can be very annoying..

Yeah, if Fire Warriors had S4/T4 LD 10 WS 4, 3 attacks and RP....?

So yes,.. flayed ones CAN be effective,.. but why bother with them if everything else out peforms them...

But they don't. Please read above.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jabbdo wrote:
The problem with using FO as frontline units is that they lack fearless, so a single harditting MC will run the whole unit down. It is true that they can potentially beat up other weakish CC infantry, eg IG blobs or Orks, abd they can grind marines down, but they are so vulnerable to getting swept that they can't be called a real CC unit. TWC/terminators/MC's/Nobz, all beat them by winning combat and just eating the survivors. Wraiths stick around to the last man, are faster, and have a wider range of targets they can beat up thanks to rending and high strength.

Yes, there are some CC units that aren't great match ups for Flayed Ones. They do fine against other hordish units, particularly blobs, they are very good against I1 hard hitting CC units, like TH/SS terms, but are very bad against AP3/4 hit at initiative units. The good thing is, the units they aren't good against, aren't exactly the most popular units in the game right now. And, just because you have Flayed Ones in your army doesn't mean you don't have DLords, TPs, Wraiths, etc, to take care of the extremely rare units the Flayed Ones can't handle. Everything else...shooty units, AV10 rear vehicles, you know the stuff that makes up 90% of most peoples choices?...they crush. Flyers? Can't hit them, but outside of the Drake none of them really scare you, and even the Drake has to get through your RP, making the FOs a less then ideal target. Once you're in CC none of that's going to matter any way though.

^
Again, back these claims up with something more than just your word, and people will be more likely to take you seriously.

.

In the mean time, if I might redirect the thread back toward other revised Necron tactics, I put forward for consideration of the general assembly, the showdown for the title of premier Necron anti-MEQ: Wraiths vs Destroyers vs Shooty RCDI...

6 Wraiths (3x Whip Coils) + Destroyer Lord (MSS, SW) = 400 points
gives you 18 S6 Rending attacks, and 3 S7 Preferred Enemy Armorbane attacks, with reduced initiative to the opposing unit.

10 Destroyers (two units) = 400 points
gives you 20 S5 AP3 shots at 24", with Preferred Enemy.

5 Lords + 4 Crypteks (in Ghost Ark) = 390 points
gives you 27 S5 AP3 shots at 12" (plus 5x2 S4 AP5 shots at 24")

Which of the three is better?
Discuss.

 skoffs wrote:
^
Again, back these claims up with something more than just your word, and people will be more likely to take you seriously.

The math and rules back up my claims, plus my personal experience. So you are basically saying you have nothing left but, "nu-uh." Cool. Play some games with them, tabulate some actual data, and come back to me. Stop throwing out inaccuracies regarding a unit you have virtually zero experience with. You made inaccurate statements, I provided with the actual evidence showing where your statements were inaccurate, and now you are retreating to your battle report talking point, as if that had anything to do with the conversation at hand.

ShadarLogoth wrote:

 skoffs wrote:
^
Again, back these claims up with something more than just your word, and people will be more likely to take you seriously.

The math and rules back up my claims, plus my personal experience. So you are basically saying you have nothing left but, "nu-uh." Cool. Play some games with them, tabulate some actual data, and come back to me. Stop throwing out inaccuracies regarding a unit you have virtually zero experience with. You made inaccurate statements, I provided with the actual evidence showing where your statements were inaccurate, and now you are retreating to your battle report talking point, as if that had anything to do with the conversation at hand.

Yes, but as your claim goes against a great deal of skepticism in regards to the viability of Flayed Ones, your personal experience needs verification to be believed/accepted.

I mention the battle reports because this is not the first time someone has asked you whether you would mind posting one which would exhibit FO capabilities.
You regularly dodge the requests by citing more mathhammer and claiming they work magnificently for you, but never showing any practical results of their application.

All I am trying to say is, if you want people to take you seriously, it's not enough just to TELL THEM that Flayed Ones are good, you have to SHOW THEM why Flayed Ones are good.

Let's approach this academically:
Yes, you have evidence that backs your statements up. Now top that evidence off with proof, and your case will be airtight.
It's not up to me to prove FO are any good. As with all claims, the burden of proof lies with whoever makes said claim, the rest of us are the skeptics.

But like all experiments, it can't just be a once off occurrence.
If you post one game, people can claim, "Oh, well, you were just lucky. Failed Ones still suck."
If people see several instances where FO clean up in games, tested against varied opponents, well then, there's no arguing with that.

TL;DR- Hypothesis -> conduct tests -> record results -> post outcome of experiment for peer review.

 skoffs wrote:

ShadarLogoth wrote:

 skoffs wrote:
^
Again, back these claims up with something more than just your word, and people will be more likely to take you seriously.

The math and rules back up my claims, plus my personal experience. So you are basically saying you have nothing left but, "nu-uh." Cool. Play some games with them, tabulate some actual data, and come back to me. Stop throwing out inaccuracies regarding a unit you have virtually zero experience with. You made inaccurate statements, I provided with the actual evidence showing where your statements were inaccurate, and now you are retreating to your battle report talking point, as if that had anything to do with the conversation at hand.

Yes, but as your claim goes against a great deal of skepticism in regards to the viability of Flayed Ones, your personal experience needs verification to be believed/accepted.

I mention the battle reports because this is not the first time someone has asked you whether you would mind posting one which would exhibit FO capabilities.
You regularly dodge the requests by citing more mathhammer and claiming they work magnificently for you, but never showing any practical results of their application.

All I am trying to say is, if you want people to take you seriously, it's not enough just to TELL THEM that Flayed Ones are good, you have to SHOW THEM why Flayed Ones are good.

Let's approach this academically:
Yes, you have evidence that backs your statements up. Now top that evidence off with proof, and your case will be airtight.
It's not up to me to prove FO are any good. As with all claims, the burden of proof lies with whoever makes said claim, the rest of us are the skeptics.

But like all experiments, it can't just be a once off occurrence.
If you post one game, people can claim, "Oh, well, you were just lucky. Failed Ones still suck."
If people see several instances where FO clean up in games, tested against varied opponents, well then, there's no arguing with that.

TL;DR- Hypothesis -> conduct tests -> record results -> post outcome of experiment for peer review.

Agree with this, but then again, the people making the claim that they suck have even less evidence to go by, and very little actual experience. I have yet to see a single battle report where the Flayed Ones failed miserably (although it wouldn't really make a difference to me one way or another if I did, I suppose). Still, the lack of battlereports from either side doesn't stop people from making statements that are clearly inaccurate, nor does it stop me from attempting to elucidate those inaccuracies. People are then obviously free to think what they want. I know for a fact my attempts have resulted in some giving them a second chance (or really a first chance) and they have had good success with them. I can only lead the horse to water after all. Some drink, some don't.

ShadarLogoth wrote:

Infiltrate might be the most effective deployment,.. but not when you have to buy expensive easy breaking resin crap... which you have to buy more than once,.... Then,.. attaching a ress orb can only be done when giving a Destroyer lords,... which i sure as hell do not want in my Flayed one pack when there are wraiths or destroyers on the table..

The bold is pretty much the only part of your entire post that has any proper perspective. You don't like the models, and it's going to take a lot to convince you that the unit performs well because you have not interest in buying the models in the first place. Perfectly acceptable position to take, but the rest of your post just shows you really have zero experience with them.

Bought 8 from previous codex,.. played them twice and decided to drop them.. Game one,.. deepstrike/run and then got swamped in autocannon and lasgun fire... all of em dropped.

Second game against SM they actualy got into combat because of better terrain and higher priority targets for the enemy.. They killed 2 marines before they were wiped a bit later.. The problem is not realy their stats, its the lack of any special rules.. Some fear or rending (which seems logical due to model) would have been nice.. Even though they are a bit cheaper to make them anything special you must spend more points then it worth IMO.

But,.. i will field them once more, since you are so convinced they are good. Ill be playing against IG so maybe their stat difference can make an impact on those frail guardsman...

And no, shooting is not the only option.. but what you suggest is like a squad of fire warriors dropping their most awesome guns and then charge,.. its just not smart... Necrons perform waaaay better in the shooting front then in CC, and even there they can be very annoying..

Yeah, if Fire Warriors had S4/T4 LD 10 WS 4, 3 attacks and RP....?

I'm dropping a bomb right now:
Annihilation Barges are not only the best Necron unit... they are the best unit in the game!
*drops the mic*

 Brymm wrote:
I'm dropping a bomb right now:
Annihilation Barges are not only the best Necron unit... they are the best unit in the game!
*drops the mic*

Point for point, I'd say the best units/models in the game are ABarges, Coteaz, and possibly Heldrakes.

Don't forget Nightscythes!
(well, for best transport in the game, anyway)

 DexKivuli wrote:
Other: Nightscythe.

It can drop troops pretty much wherever you want, and keep them very safe until the end of the game. Plus, it has a pretty effective weapon, and only costs 100 points.

100 points + 65 points of troops = 165 points of excellent value.

Well, sometimes my troops are deployed and next turn they get picked up again.