|
|
| Dark Footdar, viable? | |
|
+8aurynn Alasard Tyrian TheMonkfish3000 Elzadar ligolski JackKnife01 DingK Baron Pompadur 12 posters | |
Author | Message |
---|
aurynn Incubi
Posts : 1626 Join date : 2013-04-23
| Subject: Re: Dark Footdar, viable? Fri Feb 07 2014, 16:37 | |
| Interesting list with quite low amount of shooting. Long range shoting that is. I am interested in how you will fare. Please let us know. | |
| | | Baron Pompadur Slave
Posts : 20 Join date : 2013-12-14 Location : Spain
| Subject: Re: Dark Footdar, viable? Sat Feb 08 2014, 14:21 | |
| I like your army list, but i think 5 warriors is not very good, but if they work fine for you its okey.
I will try to post soon a 1850 points army list. Give me some time.
Just try it and tell me if you can. When you play the GT tell to me how are you doing it.
Thanks to all! | |
| | | Bugs_N_Orks Kabalite Warrior
Posts : 198 Join date : 2011-12-09
| Subject: Re: Dark Footdar, viable? Tue Feb 11 2014, 03:27 | |
| So it was a 50-60 person tournament, and I believe I was the only Dark Eldar Primary (there was at least 2 Eldar Primary with Baron/Vect + Beasts allied in, including Ordosean).
Round 1 vs. S8/AP1 spam Sisters allied w/Coteaz/Xenos Inq./DCA in a Land Raider won 17-3 Round 2 vs. Logan Drop Wolves won 20-0 Round 3 vs. Fast assault CSM/CD tied 10-10 (largely because I was too timid at the start) Round 4 vs. Serpent spam w/Tau allies won 20-0 Round 5 vs. Fast assault CD/CSM lost 0-20
Going in to Round 5 me and my opponent were tied for 3rd at 67 but well within striking distance of the top players (72 and 69), but I honestly just played poorly (partly due to a killer hangover) and got beat pretty soundly. My target priority was off and I made some movement mistakes and my opponent took advantage of them. All in all I'm very happy with the list as the games I didn't win were more a matter of sloppy play than an inherent list weakness. My opponent ended up winning the tournament since the top 2 players had a pretty close game ( 12-8 ). | |
| | | aurynn Incubi
Posts : 1626 Join date : 2013-04-23
| Subject: Re: Dark Footdar, viable? Tue Feb 11 2014, 18:51 | |
| Well I am suspecting for some time now, that DE/E or E/DE are more powerful than Taudar... gratz on very good results. | |
| | | melkorthetonedeaf Hellion
Posts : 67 Join date : 2014-02-10 Location : Webway
| Subject: Re: Dark Footdar, viable? Fri Feb 14 2014, 23:01 | |
| - Elzadar wrote:
- I've tried the 20 warrior blob out of a WWP many times, and always do they seem to overwhelm the enemy and survive for the entire game. Honestly this unit is a very good objective grabber. Otherwise Talosses are good for footslogging, and Cronosses can maybe help your army out by giving them paintokens.
I was wondering about the Kabalite blob coming out of the Webway. I feel like Kabalites are pretty good with cannons if they can only get close enough to do their evil and not get obliterated on the way. My idea was to run up two Haemonculi on either side (Venoms?) and have them drop their portals. It's not all foot, but if all of your shooty dudes are in reserves and the other half of the army is melee-oriented, by the time the Beastmaster, etc gets into CC your opponent might not be as concerned about some dumb old Kabalites. | |
| | | Sponsored content
| Subject: Re: Dark Footdar, viable? | |
| |
| | | | Dark Footdar, viable? | |
|
Similar topics | |
|
| Permissions in this forum: | You cannot reply to topics in this forum
| |
| |
| |
|