Eldar, Farseers and why I am in awe of them....aww :)

[Bitrider]

So over the last several months I have found myself with a lot of spare time on my hands. So I have done what any REAL unemployed American does with all that spare time and wasted it doing tons of simple stats math learning about my little toy soldiers. :)

But I digress. I am finding that no matter what army I play against, I always take a Farseer with doom and guide, as well as Eldrad in the list I play with. Arguments aside about taking named characters (note: it's an Eldar thing, don't worry if you don't see the issue with taking named characters), these are the only two HQs I find myself taking. Eldrad and the doom/guide Farseer no matter the army I am fighting ( orcs, grey knights, blood angles and dark Eldar so far) or the list I am fielding to fight that army.

While I do have a spiffy double Autarch, deep strike heavy list that I have been toying with, I am finding it hard if not impossible to build a list without taking Eldrad and the guide/doom Farseer and feel good about being competitive.

Don't get me wrong here. I know that anti-psyker armies will give me fits. I know that Eldar psykers don't fill a 'close-combat HQ' slot/role. I used too play with the Avatar and Jetbike riding autarchs all the time. Heck, Fire dragons are my most favored unit and Fuegan used to be a mainstay for that reason. I am just finding that after reading virtual reams of Eldar dogma, cannon and numerous tactics threads with associated high order math :confused: :rolleyes: and doing plenty of my own exhuastive time wasting math, codex/rules reading and play testing, those two HQs are the 'bees knees' so to speak and are universal as far as my research have gone.

So my point? What say you? Is my self supposed Eldar epiphany just me coming late to the 'common knowledge' party? Am I just having unusal good luck, playing sucky players or just plain talking out of my bum?

TLDR version: taking Eldrad and guide/doom Farseer good, any other HQs not so much.

Thanks all.

Greg

[CouchViking]

Don't feel bad man, I myself have tried several times to take any other HQ than Eldrad and come up short. I have however found that other HQ's taken in tandem with Eldrad are made more feasible in execution (I.E. Avatar and Karandras).

[eldargal]

I never take Eldrad, but I often use dual Farseers. I think Eldrad stunts peoples tactical growth to be honest, along with most SCs.

[Kryczek]

I`ve tried to avoid special charcters as often as i can because as eldargal says they stunt your growth tactically speaking.
I only run a normal 1 with fortune occasionally doom as well, the points this saves me means another unit at the end of the day.

[Defenestratus]

For those of you liking dual seers - give a farseer and a wraithseer a shot.

Also, The Eldrad/Avatar combo can't be denied its allure. If only the Avatar was the powerhouse close combat monster that he should be.

One thing that I think limits the utility of the farseers is the range on the psychic powers. 6" is an awefully short distance for a fragile character like a farseer to be near the the "danger zone" to buff units. I wish I could keep the seer safely tucked by himself in a corner buffing units from across the table - but I guess that would be a bit ridiculous.
12-18" would be ideal on most powers I think.

(also, Eldrich Storm and Mind war need to be buffed IMO)

[Da Gargoyle]

I;m actually in the opposit mode of operations. I usually game a single HQ Autarch with close combat capabilities and a fusion gun. He can be paired with storm guardians or my scorpions. I have had no success with my autarchs, of which I even have one on a jet bike with singing spear. You are probably reading the blog of someone who has failed the psych test and been whisked away by chaos more times than anyone in the whole universe. The failures have outnumbered the successful use of psychs.

So what do you use the remainder of your points on having used up points hungry choices on your HQ. And how big are your games? I am usually involved in 1000pts

Though now I think about it, maybe a far seer with my pathfinders could be handy. Those annoying failed wound roles could improve.

[bloodflow]

I would have to agree. I always find myself gravitating to Eldrad and a guide/fortune seer in my lists. But, it depends on points and tournament settings. I also would have to disagree that a SC hinders a players tactical growth. Especially in a game where probability plays a major role in victory or defeat. A tactically sound person should be able to build a list to take advantage or make up for any shortcomings of playing with or without a SC. I have seen many a competent player succeed on both fronts. I like fighting Vulkan, Draigo, Dante, or George, its al good fun and flavor. But I have never seen any real evidence that playing SC hinders tactical development.

[CouchViking]

Isn't saying special characters hinder your tactical growth a hindrance in itself? I'm confused. Isn't limiting the use of a unit in a codex because it's a "special" unit hindering your tactical growth as a general by not using all resources at one's command? Although, I do understand the logic that special characters are some times seen as cheap or unsporting due to some abilities that they possess (I'm looking at you Eldrad).

[scadugenga]

I never take Eldrad, but I often use dual Farseers. I think Eldrad stunts peoples tactical growth to be honest, along with most SCs.

Absolutely.

In over 20 years of playing Eldar (and yes, I know the big E wasn't available in '88) I have never used the guy.

Not only am I not a huge fan of named SC's, but he's really kind of a crutch that prevents many players from really getting into the nitty gritty of playing Eldar.

[bloodflow]

Absolutely.

In over 20 years of playing Eldar (and yes, I know the big E wasn't available in '88) I have never used the guy.

Not only am I not a huge fan of named SC's, but he's really kind of a crutch that prevents many players from really getting into the nitty gritty of playing Eldar.

I play with and without SC's, but to call them a "crutch" is a little unfair. I have only been playing for 4-5 years, and really only have played Eldar. Some lists I use SC's, some I don't, but I believe I get the nitty gritty of playing Eldar. Now, I cant speak from a whole lot of experience, but I am sure the game was a lot different 10, 15, 20 years ago. I dont know if SC's had the same type of impact back then like they do now. But to call a player, tactically deficient, because he/she is using a "crutch" is a tad harsh.

[eldargal]

There is nothing wrong with using SCs, the problem is when you start to rely on their special abilities in your lists to thepoint you exclude other HQs choices. Then it has become a crutch, and sadly it tends to happen quite easily.

[Hive Mind]

Is it then a 'crutch' to use a Chaplain to get re-rolled hits on the charge? Is it a crutch to use a Tervigon to get FnP? Surely most units are selected for their abilities, special or otherwise?

I only rarely use SCs also but my reluctance is because I'm a fluff-junkie. I never really got the 'crutch' argument. No offence intended, but it always seemed to me to just be an excuse to be a bit snobby about someone else's army.

[eldargal]

No, because I'm thinking more along the lines of army wide abilities not just unit special abilities. So Eldrads ability to cast three powers a turn and his ability to reposition units, Duke Sliscus' extra drug roll, Imotekh's seize the initiative and night fighting rules etc. You often see perfectly good SCs without abilities like this labelled as overcosted or useless (Lelith Hesperax, for example). As I said there is nothing wrong with using them but when you begin to rely on them then you are beginning to stunt your tactical growth.

I'm not saying you shouldn't use SCs if you want too, obviously people can use whatever they like and themed armies are great. The problem is when people start relying on SCs to get the job done, as you see in many Eldar tactica threads where someone nearly always says 'take Eldrad'.:)

[Hive Mind]

Fair enough, that makes sense.

[bloodflow]

No, because I'm thinking more along the lines of army wide abilities not just unit special abilities. So Eldrads ability to cast three powers a turn and his ability to reposition units, Duke Sliscus' extra drug roll, Imotekh's seize the initiative and night fighting rules etc. You often see perfectly good SCs without abilities like this labelled as overcosted or useless (Lelith Hesperax, for example). As I said there is nothing wrong with using them but when you begin to rely on them then you are beginning to stunt your tactical growth.

I'm not saying you shouldn't use SCs if you want too, obviously people can use whatever they like and themed armies are great. The problem is when people start relying on SCs to get the job done, as you see in many Eldar tactica threads where someone nearly always says 'take Eldrad'.:)

So, when a person builds a list there is not a unit that they rely on? There is not a unit that might be a lynchpin to their force? If they build their army around a theme that their codex provides, does that stunt their tactical growth? For example, a mech gurad player that always take a 2-3 Plas-Russ, always, does not matter what little changes they make to their overall list. They are always there. (Mostly due to the meta-game). Or the other guard player that has his aerial stkike force of Vendetta/Valkryies. They rely on these units for something.

It really bothers me when I go to tournaments, and half the crowd is complaining that this person is" hero-hammering", or, "oh...another net list...how original". They are not normally gracious winners or losers. I also find that people that tend to use these SC's are the "newer" players. People that started playing around 4th ed. At least, around my area it is like that. In older editions I learned that SC's couldnt be taken unless the army was a certain amount of points. The game has changed, and I say embrace the people that play SC's, but teach them the merits of playing other ways. Looking at these newer codicies, that is the way most armies are going to go, and newer and some older players are going to be using SC's.

[eldargal]

Like with SCs there is nothing wrong with building a list around a special unit, however if that is the only list you play with then your tactical growth is stunted. If you lose that unit to bad dice rolls, will you be able to recover? Units are, however, a different issue entirely as they seldom have army-wide or game-changing abilities and are rarely unique.

If someone feels they have to take, say, Long Fangs, to win a game simply because they are an extremely strong unit then I would say they have stunted their tactical growth. I favour Howling Banshees, for example, but I don't take them in every game I play. Hell I favour farseers and I don't take them in every game I play either, despite it being perfeclty fluffy.:) As I've siad, the issue isn't with people taking these units, it is with them coming to rely on them at the expense of other choices.

[scadugenga]

I play with and without SC's, but to call them a "crutch" is a little unfair. I have only been playing for 4-5 years, and really only have played Eldar. Some lists I use SC's, some I don't, but I believe I get the nitty gritty of playing Eldar. Now, I cant speak from a whole lot of experience, but I am sure the game was a lot different 10, 15, 20 years ago. I dont know if SC's had the same type of impact back then like they do now. But to call a player, tactically deficient, because he/she is using a "crutch" is a tad harsh.

M'lady Doctor Eldargal has carried the torch quite successfully in fleshing out the reasoning behind the "crutch" of relying o'ermuch on SC's--Eldrad particularly for the Eldar, so I won't repeat the same things (one hopes.)

SC's in 5th edition, specifically with Space Marines, has grown to be less a game about the self-described standard template HQ unit (Space marine captain, Autarch, Archon, etc) and more about the SC.

Most of them are overpowered and under-priced for what they do. Specifically the ones who give you an army wide bennie.

Thus--they are a crutch. They allow you to do more, for less, and that means the player does not have to think as hard, or develop tactical skills as much.

Great examples of this: Eldrad (even though he's a 4th ed SC), Vulkan, Logan, Draigo, Njall, Doom, Swarmlord, Baron, Duke, Creed...this list goes on and on.

They all provide ridiculous benefits for little, or less cost than the standard HQ unit they are meant to replace.

Prior to 4th edition--SC's had to have your opponents permission to be used, or you were stuck.

If you doubt the benefit (and crutch) they can be--look at the ETC--where their use is unilaterally banned.


Edit: Re: personal unit choice: It's not nearly the impact that a SC can have, and can't rightly be called a "crutch." EG prefers Banshees. I'm a Scorpion guy. My buddy is big into Wraithguard and Fire Dragons. That's more theme and fluff than anything else.

There is nothing wrong with using the odd SC now and again--but to only use an SC--there's your crutch.

[Anggul]

The thing with taking Eldrad is that he is always the same rather high points cost. By taking a Farseer with runes of warding, spirit stones, fortune, doom and mind war, I'm paying for the powers I want, which means I have 45pts more to spend elsewhere, and all I lose out on is having the extra power per turn and the little redeployment. Being a Biel-Tan army, it's all aspect warriors so doom is always better than guide due to their BS4 (the only exception is if my Dark Reaper exarch decides to blind-fire, and I'm not paying 20pts and using a power a turn just for that).

I have an Ulthwe army in the works which, of course, includes him, but just because it's an Ulthwe army, and I didn't feel right not using him at least occasionally, him being the big daddy and all.