I mentioned doing it with str 4 ap 1 flamers that on a 6 cause instant death.
Never thought of going all Haemonculus, but it is an interesting option...
I also want to see what the new Eldar book has to offer, as if I can get some backup, that might help out a lot.
Anyone have any early ideas for Eldar/Dark Eldar synergy?
Been a while since I am here, and it seems that you are also still around Bigtoof.
Personally, I find that the Dark Eldar -Tau matchup is one of who can blow away the other person's advantage first. Both have the tools needed for it.
I am personally enjoying the idea of a Farseer on a jetbike with the Mantle of the Laughing god and the Spirit Stone special wargear. With that you essentially killl two birds with one stone, reducing the stupid expensive warp charge of two down to one, and also allowing the Farseer to have a constant +3 rerollable cover save. Sure you will lose IC, but if you are playing them as allies, it is not as big of a deal as the footprint of the Farseer is small enough.
In addition, the use of guide which is now improved to 24" is amazing for ravagers. For some reason people are always saying that you can mix and match powers from both the codex and the rulebook, but I am not seeing it so I will hold back from saying that you could potentially take both guide and prescience as powers. War Walkers with Battle Focus is nasty, as it essentially means that they have a jump-shoot-jump and the idea that 24 bs4 scatter lasers is monstrously good on these guys. That 5+ invul is cute, but I will not rely on it much. I am still kind of uncertain about including the Crimson Hunter, for although the BS5 weapons and Vector Dancer is amazing, but I am a little paranoid about it not having any defensive upgrade whatsoever. But I am considering it due to the fact that I could free up one of my Dark Eldar heavy support slots for more ravagers.
As for Dark Eldar-Eldar Synergy, I seriously am surprised that no one is talking about this idea; take Illic Nightspear along with a huge squad of beastmasters and infiltrate them using Illic's special infiltrate rule to bring them as close as possible to the enemy, ignoring the minimum distance you have to stay away from the enemy. The stupid thing about infiltrate is that in the rulebook, it says that as long as there is at least one model with this rule in a squad they have infiltrate. Then if you could possible do so, try to keep the Baron close by enough so that he could attach himself to the unit while Illic detaches himself from the unit so that the unit will not be slowed down by Illic's infantry walking speed and gain the Baron's phantasm grenade launchers. I personally feel that this could be a very effective anti-Tau element.
If one were to play a Footdar list with the Dark Eldar-Eldar elements, you can pull quite a number of shenanigans especially when your main detachment is Eldar. That battle focus is the key for an effective list, and Dark Eldar support in the form of close combat elements complements the list well. Only problem with this list is the flying Heldrakes, but I believe that could be covered with a number of things in the Eldar list and Dark Eldar list.
That being said if you use your beast that way the only way you can assault is if you go second since you can't assault if you go first.
I did not even say a first turn charge. It is more like giving him a hard choice, where he will be hardpressed to shoot either your transports with infantry with it or kill your monstrously huge squad of Beastmasters. Either way if he ignore one or the other, the other will bite him hard. I rather that I keep my Venoms and Ravagers alive of course, but that will not stop me from using said Beastmasters to be a killing blow and vanguard as needed. In addition the psychological factor of having 5, beastmasters, 15 Khymearas and 4 Razorwings around the 18-24" range is terrifying for a Tau player. Sure he could gun down that unit and sure that unit takes two turns to charge if I went first, but that also means that he have only one turn to kill that unit before that unit gobble up his army. Combined this with a Venom Spam, and you have yourself a recipe of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't". If I go second, then that means that the unit will now be able to charge the Tau lines very quickly if they survived the volley. If not they have already bought time for my transports and other vehicles to do a Beta strike that would work in the long run.
The Daemons/Chaos Marines players are already playing with the concept of a Flesh hound unit with Skulltaker, several Khorne Heralds and a Khorne Lord all on juggernauts to play with the scouting that is conferred to the squad. The core is still the same; bring that unit closer and give the opponent(s) a hard option.
There is also another reason why I proposed this combination.
The reason why I propose this is that it gives the current meta something to think about. Everyone seems to be going infantry heavy, but they also want to play a gunline game as well. These days for some reason the players tend to bunker up, believing that by doing so they could concentrate their firepower and take advantage of their special overwatch nonsense and bubbles to win them games. Inversely they also believe that spreading out is a fool's proposition. As a Tau and Dark Eldar player, and indeed as a fairly proficient gamer in 40k I find this prevalent mindset a very foolish proposition.
My main argument against castling is it gives a Dark Eldar player space in deployment but also space to maneuver. Firstly Dark Eldar mobility is dependent on transports, take those out first turn and there goes my ability to redeploy. What deployment will make it hardest for the Dark Eldar player to protect their transports? A more dispersed one for sure. This doesn't have mean the Tau will leave their units isolated if they do it right.
This leads me to say that castling works only when you have multiple combined arms fire lanes and also an flank that will not collapse no matte the odds, such as a terrain. For players, it is imperative that they do not think that castling is an end in itself, but a means to an end. It is two very different mindsets of playing only to defend, and playing to take the hits and then counterattacking.
Of course one does not split up the troops foolishly but they must also remember that they also need to mix the two elements of attrition and also maneuver into their gameplay to win. If you are going to hug one objective securely but leave the other 2-4 objectives unmolested, then you have literally just lost the game. You need to secure that objective of yours AND make them pay for every other objective that they seek to take. If the enemy is more maneuverable than you, of course splitting up will be foolish, but you will also have to engage them and try to not let them isolate your units. But once that maneuverability is gone, then of course you are going to push your advantage.