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.

I see all this hoopla about a specific eldar build called "Footdar". Supposedly some guy that's a really good painter and a fluff bunny made it to the top 16 of Adepticon with a list like that. How is that supposed to be any good? Isn't Mech Eldar or Max outflanking war-walkers with dual autarchs the only way to play the army and even have half a chance against newer stuff?

Plus I thought it was pretty well established that Eldar just can't compete with newer codicies like Grey Knights! What gives? Doesn't this just prove that Adepticon is nothing but a "Casual Event' and not a real competitive tournament like NOVA?

I can't decide if your serious or being sarcastic (damn you Internet!). Footdar can be a viable army, it's not easy to play and has some bad match ups but it can compete. The guy who played it at adepticon is reece here on Dakka, he owns a game store and is one of the best players in the country.

Yeah, but his "tactics" are that every unit can both move, shoot, and assault. A good 40k army should be built around specialist units that excel in one area, and Eldar even more so.

I don't doubt that that the guy wins a lot of games (wow, he owns the store and wins...), but it's just a fundamentally flawed army design. Any decently built, focused list should dismantle footdar easily.

Footdar is probably better than Mechdar now...

I can't believe your being serious, and if you are then your looking at it very naively.
Footdar, in the right hands (a 'noob' probably wouldn't be able to pick it up and do all that well straight away) has the potential to be quite competitive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and could you please explain why it is fundamentally flawed... Because it really isn't.

I agree, not only does footdar suck, but anyone that plays them can't be a serious competitor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, that was a bit harsh. I'm sure that with the right, lucky matchups, a footdar player can do ok, but in the long scheme of things, he's gonna get tabled by the top players.

Footdar is an excellent way to play eldar. The difference is just about any fool can win with grey knights, space wolfs or imperial guard, but to play eldar requires tactical skill.

So yes, foot-dar are bad for your run of the mill bandwagoning 40k kiddies.

rodgers37 wrote:Footdar is probably better than Mechdar now...

I can't believe your being serious, and if you are then your looking at it very naively.
Footdar, in the right hands (a 'noob' probably wouldn't be able to pick it up and do all that well straight away) has the potential to be quite competitive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and could you please explain why it is fundamentally flawed... Because it really isn't.

Gladly. As ozy said, it's not terrible, it's just like any other gadget or gimmick army: skilled players that know how it works can take it apart. It relies more on surprise and unfamiliarity than actual strength.

It's built around mid ranged shooting backed up by decent hand to hand, while staying reasonably durable thanks mostly to Fortune. This works great, unless it faces good anti-pskyer abilities, high density long range shooting, or fast moving assault armies. Alas, Space Wolves have all three.

Even standard mech list can succed against it as long as you use supressing fire on the more manueverable units, and bum rush the wraithguard brick in the rhinos. At best, he's popping a few vehicles. Then assault with everything.

Someone should have told all the players this guy beat.

Hollowman wrote:Someone should have told all the players this guy beat.

Well, if you've never played against that list, it can stomp you pretty good. It's no different than any other similar list (draigowing, all drop pods, Daemons, nob bikers) that relies on skewing expected results 45 degrees. You can't expect to win the first time you play it.

Why I think it's bad is that it's a terribly finnicky list, so you have to be both a skilled player and willing to spend time learning it's nuances. All this for a list that while it can clean up against the uninitated, has gaping holes.

If a good player spent that kind of time tweaking a more balanced, take on all comers list he'd have better results. Admittedly, he wouldn't get accolades for playing such a "unique" list.

Hollowman wrote:Someone should have told all the players this guy beat.

Maybe the guy in question was lucky. Maybe he poisoned his opponents before the match. Maybe he brought weighted dice. Maybe god almighty made his opponents roll poorly. The mind boggles to think of all the possible ways he could have won three whole games in a row.

Seriously, the sample set here is so small that what you're talking about is just an anecdote. I've lost games against worse players because I've had wretched luck, does that mean that in those games my list was underpowered? That I was a bad player?

Polonius wrote:It's built around mid ranged shooting backed up by decent hand to hand, while staying reasonably durable thanks mostly to Fortune. This works great, unless it faces good anti-pskyer abilities, high density long range shooting, or fast moving assault armies. Alas, Space Wolves have all three.

Also, I'd add strong mid-range shooting. I'm pretty sure guardians don't like deepstriking heavy flamers or guardsmen FRFing them.

I still like the idea of footdar, but I'd agree that building a foot horde with eldar is a little rough. It seems like a pretty solid tapestry, and it should do well against most things, but it's a tapestry that has some frayed edges - if you opponent grabs and yanks, the whole thing unravels.

I've never had much success with it. Granted I haven't spent a whole lot of time figuring out how to make it work, but to me, one of the Eldar's chief advantages is their speed and manuverability, and a foot-dar army really takes that advantage away.

Polonius wrote:Yeah, but his "tactics" are that every unit can both move, shoot, and assault. A good 40k army should be built around specialist units that excel in one area, and Eldar even more so.

I don't doubt that that the guy wins a lot of games (wow, he owns the store and wins...), but it's just a fundamentally flawed army design. Any decently built, focused list should dismantle footdar easily.

Like tony's space wolves list?

O wait.

whitedragon wrote:I see all this hoopla about a specific eldar build called "Footdar". Supposedly some guy that's a really good painter and a fluff bunny made it to the top 16 of Adepticon with a list like that. How is that supposed to be any good? Isn't Mech Eldar or Max outflanking war-walkers with dual autarchs the only way to play the army and even have half a chance against newer stuff?

Plus I thought it was pretty well established that Eldar just can't compete with newer codicies like Grey Knights! What gives? Doesn't this just prove that Adepticon is nothing but a "Casual Event' and not a real competitive tournament like NOVA?

I also seem to remember you steamrolling Footdar with your fluffy list.

Obviously can't be that good a build.

Perhaps the player wanted to play lots of infantry Eldar and learned through necessity how to make it work well enough?

Of course he'd do better with a more forgiving army but if that's the army he wants to play...

Whitedragon, you dirty rat!

Hahaha, I am going to put the pimp hand on you next time we play! hahaha

Eldrad 210

Troops

Wraithguard x 10 w/ spiritseer lock and conceal 396
Wraithguard x 10 w/ spiritseer lock and conceal 396
Dire avengers x 5 w/ exarch 2x shuri catapults and bladestorm 92

Heavy

Wraithlord 2x flames 1 missle, one scatter laser 135
Wraithlord 2x flames 1 missle, one scatter laser 135
Wraithlord 2x flames 1 missle, one scatter laser 135

1499

Wraithguard up front dire avengers shooting from behind the wall of wraithguard, and wraithlords behind throwing out missiles and scatter lasers. You have extremely tough troops slogging up or holding objectives if you are playing objectives. In kill points its only a 7 kp army at 1500 … there are more versions but that’s one of my fav footdar lists to run and I can say it has been quite successful. Plus its awesome to see the look on a space marines player to find out his missile is wounding on 4’s for the wraithlord

I fielded a similar to Reecius' footdar list last week, I was nearly tabled in turn 3 against Necrons. This must mean the OP is right, the alternative is too depressing to think about.

It's easily possible, but just like any Eldar list it's going to be a tough run and will have to come down to good planning and jumping on opportunities that present themselves. Also the higher the point cost, the better Footdar can be compared to Mechdar. Footdare are total fail below 1250 IMHO, just not enough to draw fire and deal damage with.

Footdar are only bad if you try to play them like Mechdar. Ignore some of the great Mechdar units (Dire Avengers and Fire Dragons particularly) and stock up on units that Mechdar find utterly useless (Guardian Defenders, Dark Reapers, Harlequins).

Ok, that was fun.

*high-fives whitedragon and Polonius*

SMOKEBOMB!

He drew tony kopach wolves 4th round and won his first game in the top 16. He is just really good. An army with multiple tools in the hand of any excellent player can be good. Ben mohlie wins all the time with vulkan marines that on paper don't look that scary, and I dare say the average player could not compete with.

Hm I think Footdar are not terribly good. They are tough as nails but they are a sitting target. in addition they suffer against DE and against any good mass infantry (GH-Spam, Massorks, footguard) they are good against anti mech-MSU razorlamers, but thats it.

Reeces score on Adepticon either gives him credit as a good player or discredits his opponents. Of course if he knows the army well and others don't he has a certain advantage too.

bdix wrote:He drew tony kopach wolves 4th round and won his first game in the top 16. He is just really good.

How can you possibly make that statement as the only justification for the conclusion. He won A game, ONE game. A single one. A game wherein the results of almost every action are based on the roll of a dice.

It's this kind of sloppy reasoning that drives me crazy, and it seems to come out in tournaments the most. Were 40k a game where there were absolutely no uncontrolled variables (like tennis, say (but even then...)), then I could maybe see this as true, but in 40k?

Yes, a single person won a single game, therefore that person is a tactical genius and the list he brought is practically invincible...

Ailaros wrote:

bdix wrote:He drew tony kopach wolves 4th round and won his first game in the top 16. He is just really good.

How can you possibly make that statement as the only justification for the conclusion. He won A game, ONE game. A single one. A game wherein the results of almost every action are based on the roll of a dice.

It's this kind of sloppy reasoning that drives me crazy, and it seems to come out in tournaments the most. Were 40k a game where there were absolutely no uncontrolled variables (like tennis, say (but even then...)), then I could maybe see this as true, but in 40k?

Yes, a single person won a single game, therefore that person is a tactical genius and the list he brought is practically invincible...

Are you kidding? I'm taking your rage as a troll.

Reecius went 3-0-1 at the biggest tournament in the country. His one DRAW was against the defending champion of not only adepticon, but also nova. You would have to be smoking crack to deny he has skill. My reasoning is far from sloppy.

You can talk about luck all you want, but when players consistently make the top of tournaments, there is a certain skill to be respected. Granted, at the top tables where everyone theoretically has skill, a certain luck plays into it.

Ailaros wrote:

bdix wrote:He drew tony kopach wolves 4th round and won his first game in the top 16. He is just really good.

How can you possibly make that statement as the only justification for the conclusion. He won A game, ONE game. A single one. A game wherein the results of almost every action are based on the roll of a dice.

It's this kind of sloppy reasoning that drives me crazy, and it seems to come out in tournaments the most. Were 40k a game where there were absolutely no uncontrolled variables (like tennis, say (but even then...)), then I could maybe see this as true, but in 40k?

Yes, a single person won a single game, therefore that person is a tactical genius and the list he brought is practically invincible...

I dont see you in the top 16 of adepticon with footdar.

Well, in the hands of a good player, footdar is viable. Its all about synergy.

bdix wrote:Reecius went 3-0-1 at the biggest tournament in the country.

So what?

At best, you're making an argument that's a cross between an argument from authority fallacy and extrapolating causation from a tiny data set. At worst, you're being a fanboy.

Just because a person wins a couple of games (no matter which games they are) doesn't suddenly make them an expert whose word is irrefutable. Especially not in a game where there are as many uncontrollable variables as 40k.

wuestenfux wrote:Well, in the hands of a good player, footdar is viable. Its all about synergy.

Sure, but the point Mannahnin was making was just the opposite. In the hands of a good player, footdar may be viable, but at the mercy of a good player, it's not. You can't only look at just one side of the table when talking about player skill. Anything that player skill allows you to do can be undone by your opponent's skill.

Ailaros wrote:

bdix wrote:Reecius went 3-0-1 at the biggest tournament in the country.

So what?

At best, you're making an argument that's a cross between an argument from authority fallacy and extrapolating causation from a tiny data set. At worst, you're being a fanboy.

Just because a person wins a couple of games (no matter which games they are) doesn't suddenly make them an expert whose word is irrefutable. Especially not in a game where there are as many uncontrollable variables as 40k.

wuestenfux wrote:Well, in the hands of a good player, footdar is viable. Its all about synergy.

Sure, but the point Mannahnin was making was just the opposite. In the hands of a good player, footdar may be viable, but at the mercy of a good player, it's not. You can't only look at just one side of the table when talking about player skill. Anything that player skill allows you to do can be undone by your opponent's skill.

Based on your definition of skill , nobody can be defined good at anything? How do you define a higher tier player?

Reece won the majority of his games, against top tier players, with an out dated army. I dont understand what else you can ask him to do. What he did auto qualifies him as a good player. You cant accidentally beat really good people at adepticon. He Tied with Tony Kopach who has WON Adepticon and WON Nova, and got 2nd this year.

Honestly you sound jealous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ailaros wrote:

bdix wrote:Reecius went 3-0-1 at the biggest tournament in the country.

So what?

At best, you're making an argument that's a cross between an argument from authority fallacy and extrapolating causation from a tiny data set. At worst, you're being a fanboy.

Just because a person wins a couple of games (no matter which games they are) doesn't suddenly make them an expert whose word is irrefutable. Especially not in a game where there are as many uncontrollable variables as 40k.

wuestenfux wrote:Well, in the hands of a good player, footdar is viable. Its all about synergy.

Sure, but the point Mannahnin was making was just the opposite. In the hands of a good player, footdar may be viable, but at the mercy of a good player, it's not. You can't only look at just one side of the table when talking about player skill. Anything that player skill allows you to do can be undone by your opponent's skill.

I would bet my Life that Reece would absolutely Table your IG Blob.

Smitty0305 wrote: How do you define a higher tier player?

Somebody who understands the odds they're playing and plays them as exactly as they intend to. It's a similar skill set to how you become a more successful blackjack or backgammon player over time.

Smitty0305 wrote: You cant accidentally beat really good people at adepticon. He Tied with Tony Kopach who has WON Adepticon and WON Nova, and got 2nd this year.

And you can't deny the role of dice as well as other non-controllable factors (like terrain or particular mission, or who he played against in what order, or if his opponents got enough sleep the night before, etc. etc.) in a game of 40k. Furthermore, because there are these uncontrollable factors, 40k isn't a game of skill in the same way that chess or football is. Saying that a person won a game of 40k based purely on their character is a person is just as silly as a baseball player thanking Jesus for a home run he hit.

Furthermore, I'm not saying that reecius isn't a good player, but I am saying that you can't know that over just a couple of games. The sample set is too small.

Smitty0305 wrote: Honestly you sound jealous.

I'm actually not. I don't care what other people win whichever games of 40k (well, that I'm not playing in). In order to be envious of success, I'd have to put a great value on the particular success, which I don't.

What you're seeing isn't jealousy that somebody won a couple of games of 40k, but contempt at people who use this fact as a shoddy excuse to make unreasonable arguments about abstract ideas.

It's less jealousy, and more...



... which should have little, if any bearing on a discussion on the quality of an entire army play style in general.

Smitty0305 wrote:I would bet my Life that Reece would absolutely Table your IG Blob.

Dear god, your arguments have devolved to chest thumping?

Yes, footdar are good because your dad could beat up my dad...