"Eldar units must support each other" - an often repeated yet puzzling mantra

[RandomThoughts]

When I first came to Warseer seeking advice for improving my Eldar gameplay, I was horribly puzzled by the often repeated yet hardly ever properly explained advice that "Eldar units have to support each other".

I believe I am starting to understand how Synergy works, and the more I do the more I believe said advice to be of little use for fresh Warlocks and Autarchs.

Let me explain: At starting point levels -and I believe every fresh Eldar player should start out at 750 and slowly work his way up, coming back to 1K now and then- points are, obviously, at a premium. Paying 200+ points for a pure support squad and its transport just never worked for me, I'd much rather have a few hard hitting things that could stand on their own.

Looking back now, I think I missunderstood some of the advice. The way I see it now, it's not so much about using two or three units totaling at 600+ points to take out a single enemy squad worth 120 points (and this exact example has come up in recent tactica discussions here on Warseer).

I think the best summary of this approach to Eldar synergy can probably be made as:
Specialist units with vulnerabilities benefit from other specialist units in support range that can cover for their weaknesses.

The thing is, there is no general supporting. What I would tell a new player is: Don't bother until you get a good feeling for which units actually need the support of others.

Case in point, when I plan to run a Banshee Serpent up the flank of a Marine army, I'm extremely worried about Dreadnoughts as they should be tremendous deathpits for Banshees.
None of that bothered me overmuch in the past - as long as one doesn't face a Dreadnought one doesn't have to think about anti-Dreadnought strategies (even though I personally do try to keep a step ahead of my regular opponents, which might be the reason behind my current W-D-L ratio...)
But these days, before I ever take Banshees, I always make sure I have Fire Dragons or a Seer Council on my list already.

Now, I know some of the more experienced ("competitive") players will roll their eyes, a debate might break out on whether Banshees are *ever* worth taking, but that's not the issue I am talking about.

What I am talking about is that there should always be a specific thought, motive or reason when you talk about units supporting each other. There is no universal synergy - which I think is a paradox in itself.

So, my position is this: New Eldar players shouldn't bother too much with all the cryptic advice about mutual support and synergy. I think it is unreasonable to ask new players to look at units in anything else but a vacuum. An understanding of Synergy can only come with familiarity of the units and their strengths and limits.

And most of all, I think more experienced players should stop handing out the generalistic advice "Eldar units need to support each other". If you want to help less experienced players, give them specific combinations of squads that work well together and explain where their synergy comes from, but don't give them the feeling they are doing something wrong if they don't apply a mantra that doesn't really make much sense to them (yet).

Generally speaking, I think I would suggest avoiding to speak about synergy in general, vague terms at all. It's not only not helpful, it's also confusing. and that is never a good thing.

- - -

Finally, coming back to the issue of Banshees and the question if they are even worth taking, I'd like to get something else off my chest:

Speaking about units as if they were in a vacuum is generally agreed upon to be a bad thing. Yet so many people here talk about tactics and strategies (i.e. army composition) as if they happened in a vacuum.

One of the best signatures I've seen so far reads (something like):
"There is no single formula to determine the best solution, that can only ever be achieved by looking at every available option and comparing their relative pros and cons."

To put this in other words: Claiming that there are no or only a few competitive builds for any army is pretty subjective. I might be wrong here, but I think it depends a lot on situational circumstances, most of all the local metagame and the environment we, each of us individually, play in.

I will admit that certain builds work better all around, but squads that are useless in one environment can work pretty well in another. Heck, I've seen some of my own Eldar units switch from so-good-they-are-broken to so-bad-they-are-broken as my regular opponents expanded their strategies and model collections.

As I said, it's hard to argue the value of any given unit in a vacuum. I wonder how long it will take for me to switch from a strong a proponent of 3-strong Jetbike units to a critic of them. And when I do, it won't be because the models have different rules or stats all of a sudden. The game changes and evolves, at least for many of us.

I'll have to make a cut now, but before I do, I want to say:
I'm not trying to argue one way or the other, I'm not trying to bash anyone here, I'm just running out of time to shine light on both sides of the issue right now. I'll be back eventually. The topic at hand, anyway, is the issue of Synergy and whether it is understood correctly, whether we all mean the same when we talk about it.

RT

[Russell's teapot]

An interesting post...

Speaking about units as if they were in a vacuum is generally agreed upon to be a bad thing. Yet so many people here talk about tactics and strategies (i.e. army composition) as if they happened in a vacuum.

I think that this is very important. I'm often puzzled by people not allowing army lists in tactica threads. The merits or demerits of a certain unit can often only be seen in the context of the army it is a part of.

[OneMeanDuck]

I love me some banshees. My most competative armies have 8 banshees in them and I even find uses for them against orks and bugs... (Though few)

To each their own. I have found the best builds online dont do much for me. After game after game of playing I have created lists that get shot to pieces yet preform extreemly well in many different metagames. I have access to about 4-5 different stores that I run around between and banshees have yet to fail for me.

[Whitehorn]

Personally I'd rather talk vacuum unless you have a case scenario. Introducing the 'other army' has often lead to 'your army won't beat my army' pettiness, which can be quite a worthless discussion. I've seen people post unbeatable lists as an argument, but they have no idea how to use it in a game, because they cannot think.

The biggest skill beyond writing your army list is the ability to react to what is happening within a game. You could argue over every situation until you are blue and still be left wanting if you cannot apply tactics within a game.

So I look at strategy and games as very different entities. Writing a list is a discussion on its own. Knowing how to use units and adapt to the evolving game is another.

Thus synergy has two sides in my mind. You can write your list, imagining units working together on the field, even planning certain scenarios and armies to be faced and how best to try and negotiate them. Ultimately, the best experience and muscle to grow is your ability to react and respond and make those choices every single game you play.

I play hawks and storm guardians, I prefer the underdog.

[Ace Rimmer]

I've played all of the unit's in the CWE dex and they all have their uses. It is always a matter of the right tool for the right job and sometimes people never experience the right job for certain units, or when they arise, don't have the unit in their army, so it misses it's chance to shine.

[Worsle]

The problem is eldar units don't really benefit from synergy more than any other army. That and if eldar really was an army of specialist they wouldn't need synergy to do their job. For example doom + banshees? Shouldn't be needed, banshees are meant to be a specialist unit and if they really where they would not need help to do their job. That is not synergy but dependency. I know you did not want to get into the are banshees good debate and that is really not my point here either. My point is there are a lot of things that are said about eldar because they are said about eldar, not because they are true.

Russell's teapot yep without an army list a lot of units are hard to properly evaluate. Why I always cringe at the copy and pasted grey hunter set ups. Not the only offender but often the worst or at least most frequent. People just keep using the same parts no matter what the overall army really needs.

However I will say this, some units are useless and some armies really are very limited in builds. Not so much the newer books where you will find a lot of genuine options but the older you book the harder it is to find a lot of good options to run with. Some units do shine in a new context but at the same time other units can just be lacking.

[Rhana Dandra]

Quote:
''The problem is eldar units don't really benefit from synergy more than any other army. That and if eldar really was an army of specialist they wouldn't need synergy to do their job. '' Originally posted by worsle. (Sorry the quoting wasn't working for a moment here).

So true. Eldar don't benefit more but they really suffer if they don't synergise.

[Rhana Dandra]

I'm not sure what the OP meant but if it's advice on how to properly synergise; then I'm your man

I started playing Eldar a while ago at the release of the current codex and since then I've really got to grips with them, althrough many arduous games were I had to really fight hard to win. You're right about fresh Eldar players just looking at units in a vacuum, I know I did with things like Warp Spiders and Banshees, but eventually the more competitive you play, the more synergy you need.
From reading your post I get the impression that it's the cost of synergising 3 or so units to take out 1 far cheaper one. This is not how synergy should be implemented. Yes perhaps maybe you could zoom your serpents with dragons in them to take out a transport and then have your scorpions lying in wait ready to pounce on the contents or whatever, but that's all for one turn and to kill maybe say, 175 pts after using ~300pts, not smart.

New players I guess often jump at the prospect like I used to, and looked fo any oppurtunity to synergise, wasting valuable time and points whilst losing a grip on the bigger picture that your opponent mostly doesn't have to worry quite as much about. It's hard at first for them to learn to pull off synergy, but it's very rewarding and doing so actually offers the chance to face combat successfully other armies with ease, and to be prepared for any army like Marines can be.

So how to best go about doing it? Farseers and Autarchs. I can't say ow important these guys are. Their powers are seriously underestimated and most decent players will recognise them as cheating even!, and I can see why: the ability to call in accurate reserves whilst being able to adapt to any battlefield role, the power to re-roll to hit, to wound and saving throws, forcing your enemies to take psychic tests on 3d6 etc.
Generally this is the reason that Seer councils on jetbikes are so effective as they can rapidly mobilise to where the support is needed and they have a decent punch as well, but their primary role should be support and this is neglected.
Don't be afraid to hide them and fortune that neighbouring squad as opposed to themselves, maybe place them at your gunline and re-deploy to the different sides to help out your different units with target priority. Who knows.
Now these councils are expensive though, most ~500pts+ and so this is often too high a price to pay and one might argue that this is just as worse as the example of one turn synergy as I have previously stated. Agreed and it takes a lot of skill and math to determine when to support and when to strike out with them. In fact they are a risky approach unless you're a bit of an expert (like moi) and I would not recommend them as they leave the greatest room for error unless taken at maxed out squads, 2 in fact, but here the synergy goes out the window and we're back to just super units.

What to do? Well I would ask you to take an autarch for mechanised lists to call in reserves and then you can better retain the initiative, but what I really want to talk about is farseers. Think of them as the Synapse creatures in a nid army. Put them in a serpent maybe with a cheap 3 warlock bodyguard and then conduct your attacks like the squad was a Hive beast, staying central to your force.
As for the combos of units to take, well I'll get onto that later when I have time to respond to your question properly. Got to go......

[Chapters Unwritten]

Very well said.

I have found that a lot of tactical discussion amongst the community lately is full of a lot of sound and thunder which folks do not readily understand. People ALWAYS compare units and do not think on a book-to-book scale.

In the Space Wolves thread that is up right now a lot of folks have been being real tossers about the idea.

I think that when we talk about anything to do with an army, the other aspects of an army should come up as well. So as we discussed the unfairness of the Wolves dex in that thread, I brought up that a lot of the strengths are there to make up for other weaknesses. This has been met by a complete lack of acknowledgement, where people just want to go "But a Grey Hunter has counterattack it should cost more than its analogs" and similar such arguments. Not a single detractor in that thread has acknowledged any of the supposed downsides of that book even exist. Which I suppose is mostly due to the hyperbole of the internet. But still.

When we discuss a unit we need to see the entire context of that unit. The Eldar is a great army in that it forces you to really see it that way no matter what when you hit the table. Many players talk about these core concepts without knowing what they mean (I know the terms "internal and extrenal balance" have been thrown around in that Space Wolves thread like a middle manager abusing superfluous terms like "At the end of the day..." and "The bottom line here is...").

[Carlosophy]

Its not difficult really. Doom an enemy unit and make sure you bladestorm it before your banshees charge.

[Kellindel]

The biggest skill beyond writing your army list is the ability to react to what is happening within a game. You could argue over every situation until you are blue and still be left wanting if you cannot apply tactics within a game.

Yes are correct in all respects but I think the biggest skill you need is to learn how to make the other guy react to you no matter who goes first. If he has to react to your actions then he's not getting what he needs to do done. And in most cases you'll be getting your goals completed...

Know which unexpected tactic to use and when will help win the games as well.

I've had many players tell me "That was stupid" many times during a game only to tell me "So that was your plan" at the end of the game of a hard fought, but won game.

I think playing years of Battletech and running my ammo hogging mechs around 20 heat all the time showed me that being brave in the face of self-destruction has it's own rewards.

I play hawks and storm guardians, I prefer the underdog.

Same units, same reason!!!

[Irisado]

I think the best summary of this approach to Eldar synergy can probably be made as:
Specialist units with vulnerabilities benefit from other specialist units in support range that can cover for their weaknesses.

Just to be clear, this is not unique to Eldar. This applies to any group of specialists in any army.

There is no universal synergy - which I think is a paradox in itself.

I completely agree, and this is another one of those issues which can end up being applied to too many cases, which results in its losing all useful meaning as a result.

And most of all, I think more experienced players should stop handing out the generalistic advice "Eldar units need to support each other". If you want to help less experienced players, give them specific combinations of squads that work well together and explain where their synergy comes from, but don't give them the feeling they are doing something wrong if they don't apply a mantra that doesn't really make much sense to them (yet).

This is very difficult for army list reviewers. A lot of new Eldar players don't tend to give us (the army list reviewers) enough information about how they are intending to play, which army type they want, or any strategic thoughts they may have had, all of which makes offering specific advice about unit combinations very awkward.

It's awkward in the sense that imposing unit combinations which are not suited to their preferred list type or style of play is far too dictatorial, yet advice that is too vague doesn't tend to help much either.

Obviously, new players who have never played 40K before are likely to be treated more leniently, but players who are familiar with the game, albeit not the Eldar army, really are recommend to do some research by reading existing guides and tacticas first, and make sure that they give as much information as possible, as well as ask specific questions where appropriate, in order to receive the sort of advice which they are looking for.

Generally speaking, I think I would suggest avoiding to speak about synergy in general, vague terms at all. It's not only not helpful, it's also confusing. and that is never a good thing.

I agree with this point. I used to talk about synergy, but I stopped doing so a couple of years ago, because I realised two things. First, I was applying it incorrectly, and second it wasn't helpful.

To put this in other words: Claiming that there are no or only a few competitive builds for any army is pretty subjective. I might be wrong here, but I think it depends a lot on situational circumstances, most of all the local metagame and the environment we, each of us individually, play in.

This is something I have been saying for some time, and I think that you make a very good and very accurate point.

N.B. Your article has been added to the Eldar Tactica Index.

I think that this is very important. I'm often puzzled by people not allowing army lists in tactica threads. The merits or demerits of a certain unit can often only be seen in the context of the army it is a part of.

Army lists fall into two different categories. Those which are asking for composition advice in preference to strategic and tactical advice belong in the Army Lists board, those which are broadly fixed in terms of compostion, but whose author wants help with how to use them well belong in tactica threads or the Tactics board.

That and if eldar really was an army of specialist they wouldn't need synergy to do their job. For example doom + banshees? Shouldn't be needed, banshees are meant to be a specialist unit and if they really where they would not need help to do their job. That is not synergy but dependency.

Your example is one of force amplification (Doom enhances the killing power of the Howling Banshees) not synergy. In addition, this would only be a case of dependency if Howling Banshees could not defeat any opposition without the aid of Doom, and they can defeat units without the aid of Doom.

[razormasticator]

What to do? Well I would ask you to take an autarch for mechanised lists to call in reserves and then you can better retain the initiative, but what I really want to talk about is farseers. Think of them as the Synapse creatures in a nid army. Put them in a serpent maybe with a cheap 3 warlock bodyguard and then conduct your attacks like the squad was a Hive beast, staying central to your force.
As for the combos of units to take, well I'll get onto that later when I have time to respond to your question properly. Got to go......

I have both a Jetlock/Farseer Bike council and a Foot Council that I like to run in a serpent. They are a tough nut to crack for sure. I think I prefer the Wave Council myself, its cheaper and just as effective. The Jetlocks are nice, and ca dish out some punishment for sure. But they tend to add up to a quarter of your lists points, and that I cant always jive with. It depends on the situation.

[fidesratioque]

razor, how many warlocks in your Wave Council?

[razormasticator]

razor, how many warlocks in your Wave Council?

I have tried it small, 1 farseer and 4 warlocks. And then I have tried it big, up to 8. (no codex in front of me, I am pretty sure it can go as large as 10? but I am at work here and quoting from memory)

I do recall the extra Warlocks and powers whilst expensive made taking the unit that large very, very sturdy. Taking a casualty at that size isn't as big of a deal. My main issue has always been getting them where i need to be and how many spears to buy/take.

The same applies to the Jetlock council, though at the size of 8 your talking big, big points.

[fidesratioque]

I used to often play 6 warlocks in a Falcon, with two farseers in my army (the farseers were never far away from the warlocks and sometimes would leave their old unit, usually a Guardian squad, and join the warlocks). That system worked pretty well. Six fortuned warlocks with a farseer is pretty dirty. Kills anything but terminators, really.

[Rhana Dandra]

You could potentially have a seer council of 12! Autarch, Farseer and 10 warlocks.
Pretty nasty.

Re: my comment on different combinations earlier isn't going to do you much good if you don't know what you're contending with, and so only generalised ones will suffice, but, since they're obvious, I'll just get back to synergy:

I think you do raise a very good point about the vagueness of the term synergy that everyone appears to be throwing around nowadays, especially when dealing with Eldar, partly due to their reliance on it more than any other force imo.
It is for this reason that you have to give those advice givers credit though when they emphasise the importance of synergy for Eldar, as it is vital let's be honest, and it is in fact quite difficult to actually engineer a definitive, specific synergetic tactic that is the be all and end all of them, even more difficult to explain it to someone who is new to this army...

[RandomThoughts]

First of all, thanks for all the positive receptions. Posting here on Warseer is a real blast!

Secondly, this post:

I'm not sure what the OP meant

made me realize how badly I failed at making myself clear.

It was to be expected, though, as I didn't really know where I was going with this thread myself before I started typing, but I think it might be helpful if is put things into a sharper focus.

Synergy

1. There is no such thing as "general synergy". By it's very definition, it is the result of two or more units working well together.

2. Unless the synergy effect is really, really powerful, it's better to field units on their own merit, but keep possible combinations in mind. Running a squad with Powerweapons and a squad with Witchblades in close proximity, for example, gives either one the option to take down an opposing unit the other one would struggle hard against. However, should either one completely depend on the other, you set yourself up for fail. The enemy now only has to take down one unit to cripple two of yours.

3. The exception to this rule is when the bonus from synergy offsets the cost of the investment. In Warmachine MKI, there is a very specific synergy I stumbled on upon reading the rulebook for the very first time:
One faction has (had?) a unit very similar to Ork Lootas, incredible damage output offset by horrendous to hit rolls. One of the Warcasters available to the same faction (their equivalent to Farseers) has/had a power that targets one enemy unit (similar to doom) and makes all shooting attacks against that unit automatic hits (think more powerful guide). You can imagine how these two units perform together...
Furthermore, loosing the Warcaster means you already lost the game, while loosing the gunners didn't leave the Warcaster useless in an way.

However, since there are few synergy effects on a similar level of awesomeness in the Eldar book (that I am aware off), my resolution stands:
a) Tale units on their own merit. b) Keep track of possible combinations.

4. Using units in combination can result in situations where you end up popping a transport with a few Shurican Cannon shots and shooting the transported unit with Dire Avengers or Fire Dragons before charging charging them with Banshees or Scorpions.
This may look like overkill, like spending far too many resources on a pretty simple task. The thing is, doing so may result in favorable results, i.e. destroying an immediate threat with little to no casualties of your own.

The thing is, you shouldn't have to rely on this combination of three different units to work together to bring down one enemy squad. Combining their force should be an option you can choose from that gives you a noticeable advantage over using units independently to achieve individual tasks.

5. One of the best examples for synergy effects are Farseers, or force multipliers as some call them. I recently started a thread about the hidden cost of fielding a force multiplier, but I think my whole point there has been included in this debate here, especially the question of dependency and finding battlefield roles for units independently.

6. Talking about synergy in abstract terms is often pointless and worse, can be confusing to others. The worst case I can think of is telling fresh players they "have to" (direct quote for a recent thread in which a new player asked for advice) use synergy. It will puzzle them, and probably even distract them from what they really need to do first, which is get a grip on how the units work on their own and what specific strengths and weaknesses they bring to the table. Once thy figure that out, they will be ready to think about synergy between them - but that's only my personal opinion, obviously, based on my experiences learning how to use Eldar.

On Army Composition and Competitiveness

1. Looking at real life military doctrine, there is a distinction between strategy, tactics and logistics. Leaving out logistics for the moment, as it's application to a tabletop game would probably resolve around issues like getting all your models pained in time for the next battle and not coming late or without provisions (food, water) to a tournament, this leaves us with strategy and tactics.

The very definition of the two says that strategy is the planning that takes place before the enemy is engaged while tactics are the decisions made once you're on the actual battle field. Strategy often dictates which tactics are available to you, as you need the proper units and equipment, and knowing how to exploit the enemy's weakness is also often the result of endless hours of planing and pondering. Tactics on the other side inform strategy, as specific situations on the battlefield and how individual units perform will change your perception of them, and specific problems that you couldn't overcome will usually get you thinking and planing and counter-analyzing after the game is over.

2. Oversimplifying things, one can claim that strategy is the art of army composition while tactic is the art of wielding the army once it's on the board. Both constitute towards victory or defeat. Failing to compose a well-rounded army should and will cripple a player as much as poor execution on the field. Therefore, mastery of the game comprises, in my opinion, of mastery of both skills.

3. This very simple notion is my answer to the sometimes repeated claim that "Every unit is competitive" and "you can win with any army if you have sufficient battle skills". Yes, you can, obviously, but I would counter-claim that "sufficient" in this case should be read as "superior". Years ago I suggested that Judo was about technique and not about power. The reply was simple: Often you will run into an opponent with similar mastery of technique, and then being able to push a bit harder will be all that decides the match.

Or, to put in in different terms, while I still cling to the notion that I can outwit and outsmart and outmaneuver any opponent with my whimsical yet fast and elusive space elves, I sometimes realize that this may not always be the case.

(This is probably also the reason for my strong disdain of Ork Nobs and Landraiders and similar "Deathstar" units, as well as pure gunline armies: I can't outmaneuver them, picking them apart piecemeal. The idea that my opponent can defeat me by simple putting a few powerful units on the table without matching any of my skills just rubs me the wrong way...)

So, to summarize my thoughts so far: Claiming that battle skills alone determine the winner of a game means complete and utter disregard for strategy and the endless hours some of us put into army composition, comparing the relative advantages and limitations of various units, looking for possible synergies, drawing up contingencies for problems we tend to run into on the battlefield repeatedly and so on.

On the other hand, however, this also means that any victory with an army list I didn't compose myself will, for me at least, feel shallow. It may still have been my tactical skills that defeated my opponent, but I could take no pride in my strategic skills. It's as simple as that, really.

4. HOWEVER, claiming that only certain builds are "competitive" sounds as wrong to me as "every unit is competitive". I know from personal experience that when I still played the game (any game, really) on my own (without the shared wisdom of the internet at my fingertips), I often ran into absolutes. "This unit is undefeatable", "I can't win against this army", and so on. And it was true - for me at that time. That doesn't make it a universal truth, however.

I understand that certain army builds will do better in most circumstances than others. Guiding people that look for advice in the direction of these builds is certainly helpful, but I take offense when this is considered the ONLY valid advice and people giving different advice are scoffed upon.

5. The game never takes place in a vacuum. Certain units and armies will fair better or worse depending on local metagame, specific strategies and tactics applied by your opponent(s), sometimes even by your own style.

I personally tend towards conflict avoidance, not just on the tabletop but in all aspects of life. This may explain my love for elusive armies that shy away from the enemy, avoid direct confrontation and try to win through careful maneuvering and battlefield control. This might be one of the reasons why Jetbike units of 3 work so well for me. No matter what happens on the battlefield, I am seldom tempted to use them more aggressively than I should, thereby increasing their longevity. Sometimes I *choose* to be more aggressive with them, but that's a deliberate decision then. My instincts will always tell me to hold them back as safe as possible.

On a similar note, War Walkers dominated my opponents for a long, long time, until they finally figured out ways to deal with them. Since then the unit I once considered broken (in a good way) has become a unit I consider broken (in a bad way). A simple change in my local metagame has completely changed my perception of the competitiveness of a unit.

6. Taking all this in consideration, I think it's very subjective whether a build is competitive or not. In addition, telling people the army list they wrote up is crap is kind of rude. The criticism might be valid (I still cringe at the Eldar army I saw deployed at my LGS a few weeks ago: 20 footslogging Avengers, 10 footslogging Warlocks and an Avatar - they were picked apart with gusto, and they deserved it in my opinion), but I think the way it is presented may not always be optimal.

7. There is a piece of wisdom I personally hold in high regards: Advice is often best served when disguised as a question.

"How does your army deal with tanks?", for example, will often get better results than "You need more AT!".

Perhaps the army owner admits that he doesn't know. Than you can offer a few suggestions of your own.

Or perhaps he will tell you that he never faces any tanks in his local meta game, so he doesn't have to. I myself never needed more than a scatter laser to pop whatever vehicles came before me until very recently. Which is why I am currently beefing up on AT, fielding Wraithlords with Bright lances and Missile Launchers for the very first time; until a week ago i strongly proposed the use of Scatter Lasers, which was a sensible choice in my situation.

Outright telling a person his list is flawed, or worse yet crap, on the other hand, has a much higher chance to annoy him. And none of us like to listen to advice given by people we find annoying. It's all basic psychology, really.

8. Also, based on my personal opinion of strategy as a skill that should be mastered. I personally find it tremendously helpful when more advanced players take the time to ask questions about my army composition, asking me why I field a certain unit, how I intend to deal with certain (realistic!) situations, and so on.

- - -

[continued in next post due as my post exceeds the allowed character limit]

[RandomThoughts]

[continued from previous post due as my post exceeds the allowed character limit]

- - -

Speaking about units as if they were in a vacuum is generally agreed upon to be a bad thing. Yet so many people here talk about tactics and strategies (i.e. army composition) as if they happened in a vacuum.

I think that this is very important. I'm often puzzled by people not allowing army lists in tactica threads. The merits or demerits of a certain unit can often only be seen in the context of the army it is a part of.

While I personally agree absolutely, this is just part of what I was saying. Units should not only be looked upon in the context of the army they are fielded in, but also in the context of, say, the armies they regularly have to fight against.

I love me some banshees. My most competative armies have 8 banshees in them and I even find uses for them against orks and bugs... (Though few)

Exactly what I'm saying, there are no absolutes, only relatives.

To each their own. I have found the best builds online dont do much for me. After game after game of playing I have created lists that get shot to pieces yet preform extreemly well in many different metagames.

So, essentially, you agree with the points I brought forward?

Just asking, because if you do, I won't have to argue with you. ;-)

Personally I'd rather talk vacuum unless you have a case scenario. Introducing the 'other army' has often lead to 'your army won't beat my army' pettiness, which can be quite a worthless discussion. I've seen people post unbeatable lists as an argument, but they have no idea how to use it in a game, because they cannot think.

I think we agree more than you believe.

I speak out against generic advice because it will always be colored in subjective experiences. So why not be frank and tell what they are. That way advicees can decide for themselves whether any specific piece of advice is of value for their own game.

I am not talking about "your army could not beat my army" talk. That's not very productive, obviously. I'm talking more about "I usually face three Land Raiders with minimum sized troops inside. Therefore I find multiple squads of Fire Dragons is a basic requirement for successful play".

In short: Give reasons for and against units instead of just saying they are good or crap in general terms.

The biggest skill beyond writing your army list is the ability to react to what is happening within a game. You could argue over every situation until you are blue and still be left wanting if you cannot apply tactics within a game.

Exactly what I was saying above.

So I look at strategy and games as very different entities. Writing a list is a discussion on its own. Knowing how to use units and adapt to the evolving game is another.

Agreed.

Thus synergy has two sides in my mind. You can write your list, imagining units working together on the field, even planning certain scenarios and armies to be faced and how best to try and negotiate them. Ultimately, the best experience and muscle to grow is your ability to react and respond and make those choices every single game you play.

I'd claim the two of them are directly intervined.

But I don't think we disagree enough to warrant opening a discussion over it.

I play hawks and storm guardians, I prefer the underdog.

To be honest, the lowly Storm Guardian has garnered quite a bit of respect recently. Some people are already proclaiming them the best troop choice available to them, or at least as good as any of the others.

But honestly, I guess the real reason you feld them is because the work well for you. If you didn't feel they performed well, if they disappointed you time and again, if you became frustrated by them, would you still field them? Honestly?[/quote]

I've played all of the unit's in the CWE dex and they all have their uses. It is always a matter of the right tool for the right job and sometimes people never experience the right job for certain units, or when they arise, don't have the unit in their army, so it misses it's chance to shine.

Yes - and no. I agree that each unit has a use. But some just have to offer more than others. This is not an absolute either, but depends on the situations you repeatedly come up against.

The problem is eldar units don't really benefit from synergy more than any other army. That and if eldar really was an army of specialist they wouldn't need synergy to do their job. For example doom + banshees? Shouldn't be needed, banshees are meant to be a specialist unit and if they really where they would not need help to do their job. That is not synergy but dependency. I know you did not want to get into the are banshees good debate and that is really not my point here either. My point is there are a lot of things that are said about eldar because they are said about eldar, not because they are true.

First of all, I agree about the points you make. As you might have noticed, I tried to focus on the distinction between synergy and dependency in my post above.

However, the first time I fielded Mech Banshees they won me the game singlehandedly (with some help from my new Mech Dragons). The Dragons destroyed a Terminator Squad (defeating the last man in close combat on his charge), mounted up again and delivered the killing blow to a tank, while the Banshees slaughtered through Honor Guards and Captain after their Serpent tankshocked the Devestators standing next to them off the table. They finished the combat with near full strength, leaving my opponent with little more than a few assault squads he didn't dare advance towards the still reasonably sized Banshees. And I didn't even have Doom in that game...

I know, it's fairly anecdotal and the mathhammer would probably suggest I had tons of luck, but my point is: Banshees can work on their own without Doom, Doom just makes them killier.

I will admit, though, I recently started to think that they are overpriced. I think 160 points of Banshees fight like a unit that should be around 130 points.

I think we are still on topic, too, as what we are discussing now reflects directly on some of the points I made above.

Russell's teapot yep without an army list a lot of units are hard to properly evaluate. Why I always cringe at the copy and pasted grey hunter set ups. Not the only offender but often the worst or at least most frequent. People just keep using the same parts no matter what the overall army really needs.

See my opinion on army composition as a skill that demands honing.

However I will say this, some units are useless and some armies really are very limited in builds. Not so much the newer books where you will find a lot of genuine options but the older you book the harder it is to find a lot of good options to run with. Some units do shine in a new context but at the same time other units can just be lacking.

I think Codex creep and how it affects Eldar might be worth a discussion thread of its own.

Back on topic, I agree with you that units do not perform as well as others and that certain builds are more effective than others. I do question the absolute value of any such estimation, however, a there are a lot of subjective and situational factors that come into play. I tried to adequately explain what I mean by this above, so I won't repeat it here.

Quote:

''The problem is eldar units don't really benefit from synergy more than any other army [...]"

So true. Eldar don't benefit more but they really suffer if they don't synergise.

This is exactly what we should be discussing in this thread!

I'm not convinced yet, one way or the other, so I would really like to get more input on this specific point. Including arguments, reasons, case studies, everything you can offer! Please.

I'm not sure what the OP meant but if it's advice on how to properly synergise; then I'm your man

Not exactly. I'd like to discuss what Eldar synergy really is and how and it works and how it does not work. Using the knowledge gained in the discussion afterwards to dominate our enemies is just a nice little extra.

I started playing Eldar a while ago at the release of the current codex and since then I've really got to grips with them, althrough many arduous games were I had to really fight hard to win. You're right about fresh Eldar players just looking at units in a vacuum, I know I did with things like Warp Spiders and Banshees, but eventually the more competitive you play, the more synergy you need.

This is exactly what I experienced as well. However, when I first started out, I found the constant advice to use synergy extremely annoying, as I knew it was there yet didn't know how to follow it. This is in parts what inspired this thread.

From reading your post I get the impression that it's the cost of synergising 3 or so units to take out 1 far cheaper one. This is not how synergy should be implemented.

Exactly what we need to discuss.

Yes perhaps maybe you could zoom your serpents with dragons in them to take out a transport and then have your scorpions lying in wait ready to pounce on the contents or whatever, but that's all for one turn and to kill maybe say, 175 pts after using ~300pts, not smart.

I agree - to a point. Should the situation present itself, however, making use of it could mean dealing 175 points of casualties to the enemy while simultaneously denying him any chance to retaliate. But this is very situational and should therefore fall under the purvey of tactics, not strategy, in my opinion.

New players I guess often jump at the prospect like I used to, and looked fo any oppurtunity to synergise, wasting valuable time and points whilst losing a grip on the bigger picture that your opponent mostly doesn't have to worry quite as much about.

Very relevant. Thank you!

It's hard at first for them to learn to pull off synergy, but it's very rewarding and doing so actually offers the chance to face combat successfully other armies with ease, and to be prepared for any army like Marines can be.

I have to ask again, so you basically agree with the points I make above?
Just asking to make sure we're really on the same page.

So how to best go about doing it? Farseers and Autarchs. I can't say ow important these guys are. Their powers are seriously underestimated and most decent players will recognise them as cheating even!, and I can see why: the ability to call in accurate reserves whilst being able to adapt to any battlefield role, the power to re-roll to hit, to wound and saving throws, forcing your enemies to take psychic tests on 3d6 etc.
Generally this is the reason that Seer councils on jetbikes are so effective as they can rapidly mobilise to where the support is needed and they have a decent punch as well, but their primary role should be support and this is neglected.
Don't be afraid to hide them and fortune that neighbouring squad as opposed to themselves, maybe place them at your gunline and re-deploy to the different sides to help out your different units with target priority. Who knows.
Now these councils are expensive though, most ~500pts+ and so this is often too high a price to pay and one might argue that this is just as worse as the example of one turn synergy as I have previously stated. Agreed and it takes a lot of skill and math to determine when to support and when to strike out with them. In fact they are a risky approach unless you're a bit of an expert (like moi) and I would not recommend them as they leave the greatest room for error unless taken at maxed out squads, 2 in fact, but here the synergy goes out the window and we're back to just super units.

Great post, has really given me some food for thought, I'd reply in more depth but I am kind of running out of time here... I still need to get a birthday present for a mate before shops close.

What to do? Well I would ask you to take an autarch for mechanised lists to call in reserves and then you can better retain the initiative, but what I really want to talk about is farseers. Think of them as the Synapse creatures in a nid army. Put them in a serpent maybe with a cheap 3 warlock bodyguard and then conduct your attacks like the squad was a Hive beast, staying central to your force.
As for the combos of units to take, well I'll get onto that later when I have time to respond to your question properly. Got to go......

I'll take that "later", as I also have to go soon.

However, I recently started a tread on the use of Farseers. Perhaps you might find the time to share a bit of your wisdom there? I'd really appreciate it!

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=294833

Its not difficult really. Doom an enemy unit and make sure you bladestorm it before your banshees charge.

I'm honestly not sure if this rely is sincere or sarcasm.
I'm really sorry about that, I really feel bad about it.

I think the best summary of this approach to Eldar synergy can probably be made as: Specialist units with vulnerabilities benefit from other specialist units in support range that can cover for their weaknesses.
Just to be clear, this is not unique to Eldar. This applies to any group of specialists in any army.

True

And most of all, I think more experienced players should stop handing out the generalistic advice "Eldar units need to support each other". If you want to help less experienced players, give them specific combinations of squads that work well together and explain where their synergy comes from, but don't give them the feeling they are doing something wrong if they don't apply a mantra that doesn't really make much sense to them (yet).
This is very difficult for army list reviewers. A lot of new Eldar players don't tend to give us (the army list reviewers) enough information about how they are intending to play, which army type they want, or any strategic thoughts they may have had, all of which makes offering specific advice about unit combinations very awkward.

It's awkward in the sense that imposing unit combinations which are not suited to their preferred list type or style of play is far too dictatorial, yet advice that is too vague doesn't tend to help much either.

Very true. I think the best solution is to simply ask questions, though. I can imagine that someone taking the time to post an army list will also be inclined to elaborate further when prodded.

And as I said above, asking questions is a very powerful tool. Politely ask for the reason that he selected each unit, ask which units he considers the core of his army and which ones are just there to fill up points, ask what kind of playing style he aims it, ask what he plans to do when facing heavy tanks, ask whether certain units have specific roles assigned and how he would feel replacing them with something you feel might fit better into the overall theme or the army.

Do you think any of that might be a valuable tool to you reviewing armies?

I used to talk about synergy, but I stopped doing so a couple of years ago, because I realised two things. First, I was applying it incorrectly, and second it wasn't helpful.

Just out of curiosity, may I ask how you used to apply the term?

N.B. Your article has been added to the Eldar Tactica Index.

Things I learned today: "Nota Bene"

Latin, eh? Neat!

And thanks for the honor of adding my thread to the index!

That really makes me

Your example is one of force amplification (Doom enhances the killing power of the Howling Banshees) not synergy.

Would you please elaborate on this distinction. I'm not sure I understand it.

razor, how many warlocks in your Wave Council?

Slightly derailing the thread?

It is for this reason that you have to give those advice givers credit

I absolutely agree.

I'm not trying to bash people for giving advice on using synergy, I just want to improve the method they use. No, make that: The methods we use.

- - -

Got to go now, still need some Storm Terminators and a box of Bikes for my mate's birthday party, shops will close soon, and the people relying on me get the presents might cast a communal Doom on me if I show up without...

[Rhana Dandra]

Ah good a farseer thread, that will be a very good place to begin synergy combinations for eldar, I'll reply there in approximately 6 hours from now.