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 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.