THE DARK CITY
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.



 
HomeDark Eldar WikiDark Eldar ResourcesNull CityRegisterLog in

 

 Are grotesques really that bad?

Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
AuthorMessage
Brom
Wych
avatar

Posts : 755
Join date : 2013-03-28

Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Are grotesques really that bad?   Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 I_icon_minitimeSat May 25 2013, 16:17

Quote :
Take for example that a guy who took Best Dark Eldar player at a recent Throne of Skulls Tournament who went 5-0 ran a mostly all wych cult army. Personally I dont see how he won, but the results dont lie.
I believe 2 things contributed. First, I think as a player he must be pretty good. I say this not because of his results although as you say those are obvious, but because it takes a someone pretty in tune with the mechanics of this game to pick up a dex, play 5 games and come up with a list as unorthodox as his and then win a 120 man event with it.
Second, and likely the biggest factor, is the caliber of opponents he faced. I would hazard a guess that most opponents were not at his level when it comes to designing and implementing a strategy, or in terms of counter tactics to defeat that strategy. The desparity of skill level at events like that can be huge.

Quote :
a lot of things work well in local games. But in national. Or master lists. I don't see any of it. No ,foot, grots ,few wyches etc. I only see very. Mobile lr shooting with a few assault elements. Which means the other builds didnt get national rankings
This I can see but I disagree that it validates anything. The notion that only at these types of events do the true best players/lists come out is very hard to substantiate. Tournament scenarios and terrain are often an entirely different game to that played at the LGS. Raiders arent going to be seen much when theres nothing to hide them behind regardless of whether the unit they would of carried is tournament worthy or not.
Back to top Go down
Evil Space Elves
Haemonculus Ancient
Evil Space Elves

Posts : 3717
Join date : 2011-07-13
Location : Santa Cruz, ca

Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Are grotesques really that bad?   Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 I_icon_minitimeSat May 25 2013, 16:40

@bklooste wrote:
a lot of things work well in local games. But in national. Or master lists. I don't see any of it. No ,foot, grots ,few wyches etc. I only see very. Mobile lr shooting with a few assault elements. Which means the other builds didnt get national rankings

I would add that the vast (by a long shot) majority of players are not playing in national events. Because a particular army build is not represented in a "top-tiered" national tournament does not make it an inferior build. Most of us are playing against our local scene with the occasional con-sized tournament from time to time.

_________________
Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 JVMWVbU
"Solutions are good, how many dark eldar archons can you find sitting in their throne rooms whining that they used to rule the universe? Exactly."  -The Burning Eye
Splintermind: The Dark Eldar Podcast
My Dark Eldar Project Log
Back to top Go down
Jehoel
Kabalite Warrior
Jehoel

Posts : 150
Join date : 2011-07-04
Location : Denmark

Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Are grotesques really that bad?   Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 I_icon_minitimeSat May 25 2013, 17:33

I don't get the empty raider strategi at all?? What am I missing. When I play we know exactly what soldiers are in eachothers transport. Doesn't everyone???

_________________
There's a special providence in the fall of a sparrow.
If it be now, 'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now;
if it be not now, yet it will come:
The readiness is all: since no man has aught of what he leaves, what is't to leave betimes?

- Hamlet, Prince of Denmark


Kabal of Eternal Torment/Cult of Last Caress/Coven of Wasted Tears
Back to top Go down
Brom
Wych
avatar

Posts : 755
Join date : 2013-03-28

Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Are grotesques really that bad?   Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 I_icon_minitimeSat May 25 2013, 18:04

Its a backup, a decoy so t speak. Buy a throw away unit(s) with a bare raider(s), park the raiders together with the assault unit disembarked. Now your opponent needs to destroy both/all the raiders to prevent your assault element from embarking in one and boosting into their face. So they are shooting 60 pts skimmers as opposed to potentially more juicy targets.

Edit- I like to take sails/NS on my primary and sails on my decoys if possible. Then put the NS one in front giving cover to the one behind although for shooting purposes the NS is actually further back due to -6".. awesome.
Back to top Go down
Mushkilla
Arena Champion
Mushkilla

Posts : 4017
Join date : 2012-07-16
Location : Toroid Arena

Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Are grotesques really that bad?   Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 I_icon_minitimeSat May 25 2013, 18:10

@Jehoel wrote:
I don't get the empty raider strategi at all?? What am I missing. When I play we know exactly what soldiers are in eachothers transport. Doesn't everyone???

When I mean empty, I mean empty as in nothing in them. deploy the grots next to 3-4 empty raiders, they get in the raider the survives (assuming you are going second).

_________________
Latest Report: BR4: The Repugnant Ramblers Vs Imperial Knights - 1250pts
Pragmatic Realspace Raider Series


“Even the Black Buzzards thought highly of him, and those maniacs were renowned for hating everyone.” - Tantalus, by Braden Campbell
Back to top Go down
bklooste
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 127
Join date : 2013-05-14

Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Are grotesques really that bad?   Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 I_icon_minitimeSun May 26 2013, 04:46

@False Son wrote:
Or the dreaded Eldar S6 spam. But, we'll see how intact that remains in the new codex.

Looks like there is more... just saw a Strength 6 template...in the faq

@Brom wrote:
Incubi are better for meq environments, which is why mine took a back seat. Sucks but the archon kills just like incubi and grots make sure he gets there.
Incubi are murderously killy but are not as durable.

In math hammer terms 3+ and T5 can be comparable but in game incubi get ghosted easier, especially by tau. Marker + iontide/plas suits.. dead. Against non cover ignoring shots the combo of T5 cover fnp is better than 3+

Wracks lack the durability of grots and the armour/ap2 of incubi. IMO they are not in the same league as either of the two for bodyguard or premier combat element duty.

I always have FNP on incubi .. that makes them very durable . I run them with a haemi not an arcon. The haemi often takes the overwatch. (and yes no grenades to charge into cover the 25 points is an extra incubi which is better anyway)

Wracks are pretty good against AP2 and 3 ( with 2 liquiifiers you have a 75% chance of an AP 1-3 template , the hand attacks will do the rest) and very good against high toughness.. 4 Grots is 14 Wracks in points and the Wracks would easily kill the Grots.. 14 Wracks have 42 attacks vs 16 on attack , have 14 wounds vs 12 . If they fight each other the 42 attacks will cause 8 wounds.. versus 4 ..

You cant pack as many wounds into a Wrack unit ( eg 9 and an arcon vs 4 is 9 wounds vs 12 ) but then again it makes the unit less points - That is good Arcons are fire magnets at higher level your transport wont make it , then you have to foot slog it .

So i kind of like Wracks Vs Toughness , Incubi vs armour Wyches vs tanks

Double posting is against the forum rules. Please use the edit button in future. Thanks. Smile - Mush
Back to top Go down
Brom
Wych
avatar

Posts : 755
Join date : 2013-03-28

Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Are grotesques really that bad?   Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 I_icon_minitimeWed May 29 2013, 14:47

Took my grots for a handful of games against tau they performed excellent along with a pair of all RW beast packs. One game I lost all 3 ravagers in the first turn along with various other things. It was looking grim until the grots and beasts got involved and gutted him. Highlight was absorbing nearly the entire army's fire then combo charging and killing multiple FW squads then absorbing 3 missilesides + drones fire again losing the archon and surviving to kill them too. the sides expended 5 marker lights to try and stop them.
Back to top Go down
doomseer11b
Sybarite
doomseer11b

Posts : 304
Join date : 2012-10-09
Location : South Carolina

Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Are grotesques really that bad?   Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 I_icon_minitimeWed May 29 2013, 16:04

Lol brom that sounds exactly like my game. Ravagers didn't go down, but my rolls were tainted with horrible luck. In reference to the wracks vs grots, I disagree that wracks would normally win. With lucky rolls on the LG you get 2 possibly 3 wounds if you placed your grots close together. Then EVEN with FC, you're still wounding on 5's. grots get armor and FNP. 3 wounds each with a 4 man squad..... Not including the 2+ save IC or Urien who will negate 1-3 wounds and absorb another and then regenerate next turn??? You'd have to roll pretty well with the wracks and pretty horribly with grots.

_________________
"... get me the holy hand grenade!!!! .... 1..2.....5, 3 SIR 3!!!!"
Back to top Go down
https://www.twinlinkedgaming.com
Count Adhemar
Dark Lord of Granbretan
Count Adhemar

Posts : 7558
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : London

Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Are grotesques really that bad?   Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 I_icon_minitimeWed May 29 2013, 16:12

@doomseer11b wrote:
Then EVEN with FC, you're still wounding on 5's.

Wracks have poisoned weapons, so 4+ to wound. Still think the Grots would win though.

_________________
Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 YhBv3Wk
You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?
Back to top Go down
Mushkilla
Arena Champion
Mushkilla

Posts : 4017
Join date : 2012-07-16
Location : Toroid Arena

Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Are grotesques really that bad?   Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 I_icon_minitimeWed May 29 2013, 16:16

@Count Adhemar wrote:
Still think the Grots would win though.

Yeah an aberration with a venom blade is can crush most things to dust, 6 S5 attacks that wound on 2s and re-roll to wound is a load of fun. Especially seeing as grotesques normally come with an acompanying succubus/archon/haemi. Very Happy

_________________
Latest Report: BR4: The Repugnant Ramblers Vs Imperial Knights - 1250pts
Pragmatic Realspace Raider Series


“Even the Black Buzzards thought highly of him, and those maniacs were renowned for hating everyone.” - Tantalus, by Braden Campbell
Back to top Go down
doomseer11b
Sybarite
doomseer11b

Posts : 304
Join date : 2012-10-09
Location : South Carolina

Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Are grotesques really that bad?   Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 I_icon_minitimeWed May 29 2013, 16:30

True, I keep forgetting about wracks poisoned weapons.

_________________
"... get me the holy hand grenade!!!! .... 1..2.....5, 3 SIR 3!!!!"
Back to top Go down
https://www.twinlinkedgaming.com
Tony Spectacular
Kabalite Warrior
Tony Spectacular

Posts : 225
Join date : 2012-07-31
Location : Philadelphia

Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Are grotesques really that bad?   Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 I_icon_minitimeWed May 29 2013, 21:37

@bklooste wrote:
14 wounds vs 12

Mmm...but those are 14 T4 wounds vs 12 T5 wounds. Hardly skewed towards the Wracks. Plus, granting T5 to the associated IC is HUGE. My T5 Archon with HB and ST is an absolute monster.
Back to top Go down
bklooste
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 127
Join date : 2013-05-14

Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Are grotesques really that bad?   Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 I_icon_minitimeThu May 30 2013, 16:04

@Count Adhemar wrote:
@doomseer11b wrote:
Then EVEN with FC, you're still wounding on 5's.

Wracks have poisoned weapons, so 4+ to wound. Still think the Grots would win though.

1 on 1 yes.. but 20 points of wracks are probably about equal to 35 points of Grots , see above where 14 wracks easily beat there point equivalent.
Back to top Go down
SleepyPillow
Kabalite Warrior
SleepyPillow

Posts : 188
Join date : 2012-04-07
Location : Germany

Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Are grotesques really that bad?   Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 I_icon_minitimeThu May 30 2013, 16:10

To bad you never use more than 9 wracks (or 10 without IC) which makes your point...pointless?

_________________
Once committed, fear not the blade.
Back to top Go down
bklooste
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 127
Join date : 2013-05-14

Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Are grotesques really that bad?   Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 I_icon_minitimeThu May 30 2013, 16:31

@Tony Spectacular wrote:
@bklooste wrote:
14 wounds vs 12

Mmm...but those are 14 T4 wounds vs 12 T5 wounds. Hardly skewed towards the Wracks. Plus, granting T5 to the associated IC is HUGE. My T5 Archon with HB and ST is an absolute monster.

Every major melee char in the new eldar Codex and a ton of others will kill your Archon ..Phoenix lords are imune to instant death , the Avatar is higher initiative and will kill you ... As well as blood thirsters etc.

re T4 or T5 , they only have 1 wound so instant death is irrelevant but if your facing something with instant and a Grot loses then you loose 3 wounds .. and those are just the things that can take your Archon down.

Another issue is challanges so you need a 2nd char = more points..

ANother major issue with Grots is you can only field 4 , so lose 1 and you hit 25%.


As i have said I dont think DE are a Death Star list .. The Archon is too vulnerable.


I mean an Archon with shield , Ghost plate and HUsk Blade is 135
4 Grots 140
Haemi for challanges 50
Transport with Shield 70

Thats 400 points...and will receive all the enemy heavy fire..

If your set on archons
2 * archon with Venom bland and Ghost Armour = 150
8 Wracks = 80
2 Venoms = 110
Total : 340 .

or even
2 * archon with Venom bland and Ghost Armour = 150
14 Wracks = 80
2 Transports = 120
Total : 410 .

@SleepyPillow wrote:
To bad you never use more than 9 wracks (or 10 without IC) which makes your point...pointless?

No its just to show that Grots are MUCH worse VALUE than Wracks.. You can run 9 Wracks and an Archon quite effectively for significantly less points.

@doomseer11b wrote:
True, I keep forgetting about wracks poisoned weapons.

Which is also very usefull vs high Toughness opponents like Blood thirsters etc.. Grots are much betters vs orc grots , guardsman etc but are you sending your Archon into them ?

Triple posting, like double posting is against the forum rules. Please use the edit button in future. Thanks. Smile - Mush


Back to top Go down
Brom
Wych
avatar

Posts : 755
Join date : 2013-03-28

Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Are grotesques really that bad?   Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 I_icon_minitimeThu May 30 2013, 20:43

Quote :
No its just to show that Grots are MUCH worse VALUE than Wracks.. You can run 9 Wracks and an Archon quite effectively for significantly less points.
I agree for the most part, although in this instance I believe you get what you pay for and as an elites choice wracks are lackluster so the haemie is a required expenditure, one which Ive moved away from.

Quote :
Thats 400 points...and will receive all the enemy heavy fire..
This pretty much sums it up and its exactly what I want. Something resilient and threatening to everything except land raiders/liths.
If my area was still saturated with meq I would likely go back to 8 incubi but I mostly face xenos.

Regarding value, its not so easily decided by cost because there are so many factors. Templates, vehicle explosions, anti infantry weapons, S8-9 weaponry, all hurt wracks more. S10 and ID weaponry is what grots fear. Im more likely to see the former. Wracks are great and at lower pts values they are an option ive used in lieu of grots. At 1500+ I prefer the grots.

I would like to hear more about new eldar combat ICs/units since I havent seen the rules yet. Do they bypass 2++ invulns or force rerolls maybe?
Even considering such ICs/units the archon remains one of the nastiest little dudes in the multiverse. Simply sending him at someone causes serious concern because when hes rolling well, and it happens, NOTHING stops him. That said ive failed plenty of saves on the very 1st dice haha.
Back to top Go down
Shadows Revenge
Hierarch of Tactica
Shadows Revenge

Posts : 2587
Join date : 2011-08-10
Location : Bmore

Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Are grotesques really that bad?   Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 I_icon_minitimeThu May 30 2013, 20:54

also if all your buying is ghost plate on your archon... then you really need to rethink your strategy...

_________________
Status:
Usurping Kabal leadership for his Patriarch

Current List:
First 2k GSC List
Back to top Go down
Mushkilla
Arena Champion
Mushkilla

Posts : 4017
Join date : 2012-07-16
Location : Toroid Arena

Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Are grotesques really that bad?   Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 I_icon_minitimeFri May 31 2013, 07:27

@bklooste wrote:
Every major melee char in the new eldar Codex and a ton of others will kill your Archon ..Phoenix lords are imune to instant death , the Avatar is higher initiative and will kill you ... As well as blood thirsters etc.

Last time I checked no one takes phoenix lords, and unless their price has significantly dropped no one will. So that leave the autarch, which the Archon slaughters. And the avatar, which is not immune to instant death, and has five attacks, that's on average 2.77 saves you will need to make on your shadow field. And guess what if the avatar charges you and get's six attacks, he will be striking at I1 for charging through cover.

Now considering an archon with shadow field, huskblade and soultrap is 135pts. Avatar cost 60pts more Where is the problem? It seems in all your discussion you forget to take the shadow field into account. The reason the archon is so powerful, is your opponent cannot account for how many successful shadow field saves you will make, he can't account for how many 5-6s you will roll to wound either.

Yes there are fightier special characters out there, the thing is no one takes them because they are over-costed.

Ironic that you talk about these "National Rankings" that you hold so highly and then use terrible characters that no one uses to justify why an archon is bad choice, I mean who the hell is going to run Abaddon in any kind of serious play? If people are taking those kind of terrible special characters to compete in your "National Rankings" then I really don't know what to say. Smile

Grotesques are a superior bodyguard unit than wracks, they are T5, they take less wounds from small arms fire, they take less hits and wounds from exploding transports, less hits from templates and blasts. They are a cheap way of absorbing a disproportionate amount of fire that will be directed towards your archon/succubus/haemi. They also provide more force concentration, 4 grotesques with an arhcon/succubus is 15 T5 FNP wounds in a single transport, 9 wracks with an archon/succubus is 12 T4 FNP wounds in a single transport (that lose FNP to S8 weapons). Hell add two succubus to the squad and you have 18 T5 FNP wounds in a single transport. No other unit gives you that much wound density. They only need one intact transport to get to the enemy, this is what makes them reliable, if you have the right kind of list.

Here's two games using them for reference, they did fantastic in both, and in both games I went second and lost a whole bunch of transports. Like I said earlier, deploy a bunch of empty raiders near the grotesques, and one will still be standing for them to jump into and flat out towards your opponents line:

BR24: The Black Buzzards VS GK Mech - 1000pts
BR25: The Black Buzzards VS Tau Mass Broadsides - 1500pts

Hope that helps. Smile

_________________
Latest Report: BR4: The Repugnant Ramblers Vs Imperial Knights - 1250pts
Pragmatic Realspace Raider Series


“Even the Black Buzzards thought highly of him, and those maniacs were renowned for hating everyone.” - Tantalus, by Braden Campbell


Last edited by Mushkilla on Sat Jun 01 2013, 13:33; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Count Adhemar
Dark Lord of Granbretan
Count Adhemar

Posts : 7558
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : London

Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Are grotesques really that bad?   Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 I_icon_minitimeFri May 31 2013, 09:40

In a straight fight of Wracks vs Grotesques, the Wracks will probably win due to a ) poisoned weapons negating the Grots Toughness and b ) weight of attacks. The fight however drags on for about 5 full turns and leaves the Wracks pretty much decimated at the end anyway. That however is not the point of taking Grotesques. As has already been pointed out, the Grots are there to absorb firepower, deliver an Archon and hopefully do a bit of damage themselves. At this, they are far better than an equivalent points value of Wracks.

_________________
Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 YhBv3Wk
You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?
Back to top Go down
Tony Spectacular
Kabalite Warrior
Tony Spectacular

Posts : 225
Join date : 2012-07-31
Location : Philadelphia

Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Are grotesques really that bad?   Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 I_icon_minitimeFri May 31 2013, 10:39

@bklooste wrote:
Another issue is challanges so you need a 2nd char = more points..

Most of the time I want my Archon in that challenge so I can activate the Soultrap, but in the rare cases where I don't, that's what the Aberration is for. A Haem is nice if points allow, but hardly necessary.

Besides, even when facing someone with Ewarrior, the huskblade is still ap2.
Back to top Go down
doomseer11b
Sybarite
doomseer11b

Posts : 304
Join date : 2012-10-09
Location : South Carolina

Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Are grotesques really that bad?   Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 I_icon_minitimeFri May 31 2013, 15:41

I don't know about anyone else, but when I play grots, I NEVER send them into a situation they will not win and definitely not a situation where their 3 wounds will not be utilized. This is just basic tactics. You send them to an important enemy unit, not their Death Star. I usually try and take out long range weapons first then worry about mid range, which is where the grots come in. They're great for taking out troop choices, which in turn forces your opponent to deal with them or they will have no scoring units. In reference to ID weapons, we have enough fire power to take out units with poisoned shooting attacks. Or even use the wyches for what they're there for.... Tarpitting. If these are the issues some of you have been facing, with no disrespect, but I think you guys need to rethink what grots and wracks are used for.

_________________
"... get me the holy hand grenade!!!! .... 1..2.....5, 3 SIR 3!!!!"
Back to top Go down
https://www.twinlinkedgaming.com
shadowseercB
Wych
shadowseercB

Posts : 550
Join date : 2012-10-21

Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Are grotesques really that bad?   Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 I_icon_minitimeFri May 31 2013, 18:26

I think a strong point for grotesques, I have played with them alot, would be against terminators. Unfortunately they can get one shot and they would attack last or at the same time last. Incubi are amazing and can certainly get the job done provided they dont get shot down by strength six weapons or flamers on charge/running in the field.

_________________
15,000 Dark Eldar
20,000 Eldar
7,000 Mechanicum
3,500 Harlequin
Back to top Go down
Brom
Wych
avatar

Posts : 755
Join date : 2013-03-28

Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Are grotesques really that bad?   Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 I_icon_minitimeFri May 31 2013, 18:59

Regarding eldar combat characters, I just finished reading over a comprehensive list of everything in the new dex and I gotta say....wow. Not one for allies and ill wait to pass judgement like I did with tau but holy cow did they get some nice buffs.

Oh ya but point is I didnt see anything that negates shadow fields..

Edited for stupidity.
Back to top Go down
Tony Spectacular
Kabalite Warrior
Tony Spectacular

Posts : 225
Join date : 2012-07-31
Location : Philadelphia

Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Are grotesques really that bad?   Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 I_icon_minitimeSat Jun 01 2013, 01:37

@Brom wrote:
Edited for stupidity.

If you don't mind (or even if you do, in true DE style), I believe I've just gotten my first Dark City sig.
Back to top Go down
bklooste
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 127
Join date : 2013-05-14

Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Are grotesques really that bad?   Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 I_icon_minitimeFri Jun 07 2013, 11:24

re Wracks yes you need a haemi but they effectively cost nothing since you can now get venom gun boats for 20 less

re the 400 points.. I didnt mean fire to kill I meant they will take your raider out first then hit you with either a super IC , S10 rails / Meusa cannon, poison or tar pit you . And you have a good portion of your army shut down .

re Eldar a number of issues
The Avatar is I10 and has a lot of AP2 attacks
The Phoenix lords are nearly all I7 ( Ill is I6) and are imune to instant death , most have some sort of Ap2 or > 6 stength 6 attacks.
Biggest issue is rending on all shurikens which means on a 6 to wounds its AP2.. Not so nice to put wounds on the archon then.. Even worse the S6 spam is still there so S6 shurican cannons which they have a lot of will instant kill you on a 6 to wound.

Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Are grotesques really that bad?   Are grotesques really that bad? - Page 4 I_icon_minitime

Back to top Go down
 
Are grotesques really that bad?
Back to top 
Page 4 of 5Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
THE DARK CITY :: 

COMMORRAGH TACTICA

 :: Drukhari Tactics
-
Jump to: