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.

darn dakka for the log out while I typed my responce. Now I get to put the abbreviated version.

Phyrephly, you make some good points, but in the OP we were asked to make the crazy leap of faith that all units are worth the same points. Thus there are no good or bad units.

As for the article, it is a good article in that it reminds vets and helps explain to new players concepts of metagame application and force multiplication.

As for the term 'Synergy' used, I think the term is slightly out of place--it use seems more to force a theme onto the article.

Basicly instead of 'Synergy' I think it would be more accurate to keep the advice to force multiplication and metagame application. Examples:

You mention 'In Game Synergy' might be to use THSS termies to screen more vulnerable troops. In reality what you are doing is multipling the defensive value of the screened troop with a cover save. Yes you are using 2 units to do this, thus they are working together, but its still just force multiplication--adding something to a unit that wasnt there before with application of tactics.

As for Target Overload Synergy, this is simply metagame application. For example, if you have a 7 LR BA army, they are not really in synergy with each other on their own. They only have value when compared to the opponents army. If the opponent is running a list designed to kill land raiders, then it was a bad metagame matchup. If the enemy can not deal with land raiders, it was a good metagame matchup. A closer analysis of the metagame I think would be more useful than advice to saturate the field.

The great philosopher Mike Tyson once said: "Everyone has a plan until they're punched in the face."

The upshot of this is that while no plan may survive contact with the enemy, that does not invalidate the value of planning, and the value of planning for potential synergies in your army.

But that's Army List forum stuff. Like I said earlier if you consider 'synergy' to be tactics, then the point of discussion is not whether synergy is good, or whether it should be applied, but what tactics to use to get the most out of your army's synergies.

Take Combat Tactics, one of my favourite hobby horses these days. I really like this rule from a game-design point of view (and as an occasional Space Marine player) because it requires specific tactics to be employed to be valuable. I really like the way that a rule called Combat Tactics requires tactics rather than just dice roles or spatial relations. It also enables tactics.

Using other units to lock opposing units in combat so that the Space Marine unit employing Combat Tactics to Fall Back can Fall Back far enough to Rally automatically (instead of being prevented by having an enemy within 6") turns a fairly unreliable rule into a force multiplier. Using it to prevent charges, escape heavy fire, duck out of pinning, engage in hit and runs, and to make Heavy Weapons mobile are some of its uses.

Or take the Tervigon, for example. You can use its bonus radius to turn Termagants into killing machines at the risk of suffering No Retreat wounds from a multi-charge, or you can move the Termagants outside of its Synapse radius so they won't suffer from No Retreat and automatically Regroup if they Fall Back. Either way there are synergies between Termagants and Tervigons. The question is which ones do you want to use?

From an Army List perspective I think I'd want to take Tervigons as HQ so I can have lots of Troop slots open for Termgants. From a Tactics perspect if I had more units of Termagants I think I'd make an onion out of that Tervigon, with picket units outside of its Synapse and screening units inside of its bonus radius, so it can enhance other units with its psychic powers without worry about getting its ass kicked by enemy assault troops like Assault Terminators.

Nice topic Redbeard, thnx.
I value the response from others, e.g. Svendrex, Nurglitch and Augustus as well. Cool discussion.

What a list needs (IMHO):
1 A means of engaging all (or most) targets with some degree of abundance
2 Redundancy (not relying on one unit for all your anti-tank for instance)
3 Flexibility / Movement
4 Resilience
5 ...

A list that has not these things may have synergy but will have an inherent weakness I'd say.

Lists I build have almost always used target saturation as a means of defence. Of course using a force-multiplier can significantly influence a game but as Augustus adds: dependancy is faulty and as Svendrex adds: Mobility has a value of it's own (maybe this is part of what Nurglitch names flexibility).
At the moment I play a Daemons list with Kairos Fateweaver. I'd say it's a force-multiplier. Now using Kairos ability to maximum effect I'd have to use units like Bloodcrushers and other relatively high-save units. Doing this would make me more dependant on Kairos (for instance since Bloodcrushers are slow). So I try to move away from the importance of Kairos in the list by taking stuff like Fiends and Flamers.

(My list: Kairos / Herald of Tzeentch w. Chariot, Bolt, MoS / Blue Scribes / 3 Flamers / 6 Fiends w. UM / 4 Bloodcrushers w. evrything / 9 Horrors w. Bolt and Changeling / 2x 5 Plaguebearers / 2x Prince of Tzeentch w. Bolt and Gaze at 1700 points)

When building a list I check whether it meets the given criteria.

(1 In my list: AT from Kairos / Herald / Scribes / Flamers / Fiends / Princes; AI from Kairos / Scribes / Flamers / Fiends / Crushers / Horrors
2 The list has a lot of different units in somewhat overlapping specialties. Killing one unit will never remove my ability to engage any given threat completely
3 Flexibility? This is why I value the Blue Scribes and Kairos in this list. They have powers to engage a wide variety of threats. For instance the Boon of Mutation / Pavane / Aura of Decay are powers I wouldnt buy for a unit per se, but having it 'for free' is a valuable tool.
Tactical flexibility comes from the Daemonic Assault (Deep striking) and from the movement of Fiends, Flamers, Scribes, Kairos...
4 Resilience comes from Kairos and in some part from target saturation and the ability to react in response to a deployed opponent. )

Augustus wrote:
(1)Generally avoid synergy builds, and don't play Force Multiplication dependent Codices when playing competitively.
(2)Learn to recognize these builds and codices and neutralize the key elements during play.

My list is often identified as a FateCrusher type list. Opponents engage this list by pooring a lot of fire into him, to which he is quite resilient. Point is, Im not dependant on Fateweaver at all and mostly use him as a distracion. He's worth his points, sure, but without it, Im not dead in the water by a long shot. Tricking the opponent into thinking you're playing a typical list or confusing your opponent by bringing a mixed bag of units without apparant theme has value on it's own (Blackmoor used this masterfully with his flootslogging Eldar IMO). Such a list may appear to be without synergy, but the opposite is true for the player proficient with it.

This leads to a conclusion that Augustus also took (if I understand him correctly): don't be (too) dependant on a theme as that would be an inherent weakness. In other words avoid bringing either a Rock or a Paper or Scissors, bring something that is all in one. On the other hand Redbeard replied to that by stating that generalisation has it's own weakness. To me, a list has potential when it reaches that point where all there considerations are most aptly balanced. The trick then becomes learning to play that list. Incidently, to me, lists built with this in mind are way more fun to play than lists that are either Rock, Scissors or Paper (the typical Spam / Alphastrike / MSU list).

Sorry for this incoherent giberish. Hope you can make any sense from it.

Cilithan

DevianID wrote:darn dakka for the log out while I typed my responce. Now I get to put the abbreviated version.

Phyrephly, you make some good points, but in the OP we were asked to make the crazy leap of faith that all units are worth the same points. Thus there are no good or bad units.

As for the article, it is a good article in that it reminds vets and helps explain to new players concepts of metagame application and force multiplication.

As for the term 'Synergy' used, I think the term is slightly out of place--it use seems more to force a theme onto the article.

Basicly instead of 'Synergy' I think it would be more accurate to keep the advice to force multiplication and metagame application. Examples:

You mention 'In Game Synergy' might be to use THSS termies to screen more vulnerable troops. In reality what you are doing is multipling the defensive value of the screened troop with a cover save. Yes you are using 2 units to do this, thus they are working together, but its still just force multiplication--adding something to a unit that wasnt there before with application of tactics.

As for Target Overload Synergy, this is simply metagame application. For example, if you have a 7 LR BA army, they are not really in synergy with each other on their own. They only have value when compared to the opponents army. If the opponent is running a list designed to kill land raiders, then it was a bad metagame matchup. If the enemy can not deal with land raiders, it was a good metagame matchup. A closer analysis of the metagame I think would be more useful than advice to saturate the field.

Re-reading everything I typed, and the comments added, I think I was wrong in some of the things I said.

Definition of Synergy:

- The interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects.
- Cooperative interaction among groups, especially among the acquired subsidiaries or merged parts of a corporation, that creates an enhanced combined effect.

Synergy is actually exactly the correct word to use. Don't call it a Synergestic list, call it Synergestic components. But with the myriad of possiblities given, I could probably find Synergy between Dark Reapers and Shining Spears.

All of that said, I need to change my thinking, Synergy and Application of Synergy. Levels of Synergy for lack of a better term. Use it because it is good.

This is a very well written and thought out article by Redbeard and a top thread with excellent responses. Sorry that my only contribution is negative.
I'm confused
We are asked to take a leap of faith that all units are worth the same cost.

Fine
but then you expect a purely theoretical model to be applied to real gaming situations?

I was impressed with the ideas till reminded of this.
now it just seems kind of seductive gloss.
Isn't the whole point of tactics simply to disrupt the enemy's units interdependancy while preserving your own to gain an advantage?
It's what has been going on since the dawn of organised warfare.

You can call it synergy I guess as it is less of a mouthful.

Gestalt War Theory
sum of the parts and all that?

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
We are asked to take a leap of faith that all units are worth the same cost.

no, you're asked to assume that units are worth what they cost. It's a subtle difference. They're not all the same. But if we don't make that assumption, then instead of discussing how to get more out of something you have, we end up discussing why one unit is overpriced compared to another. For competitive play, that topic has merit, but it's not as interesting.

Fine but then you expect a purely theoretical model to be applied to real gaming situations?

I think that you have to have an understanding of the underlying principles before you can go into specifics.

Isn't the whole point of tactics simply to disrupt the enemy's units interdependancy while preserving your own to gain an advantage?
It's what has been going on since the dawn of organised warfare.
...
Gestalt War Theory
sum of the parts and all that?

Of course. And you might know that. But, it is clear to me that a great many people don't get this. I play against people who clearly get it, and also against people who clearly don't. I've played games where my opponent has missed opportunities to have their units work together for greater impact. So, it's worth getting people thinking about. How can I maximize the use of whatever it is I happened to bring? Are the any opportunities to make this thing worth more than its base cost?

Ah
More clear now thanks
There are some aspects that I would question but they are wholly theoretical and related to gaming only because they were raised by this thread.
As they would only distract will just repeat, is a grand article and has been a good read
thanks.

I have read most of this thread and here is my two cents.
When I build a list I try to make it cohesive. I'll ask the question do all my units contribute to my central strategy. For example I sometimes run a kan wall list. I consider this a defensive build. My plan is to move slowly up the field and use my massive amounts of boyz to hold objectives and take fire while I wait for an opportunity to strike. A BW full of nobz doesn't really belong here. On the flip side if I'm running BW's, I'm not gonna use kans, because they will lag behind, and generally be useless. Neither BW's or Kans are bad but together they don't make sense.
If you look at a list and it seems like just a random collection of units, its a bad list. If you look at a list and everything seems to fit well and there is a central purpose, then it is a good list.
This is basically synergy I just like the word cohesive more.

It might be something to distinguish between tactics and synergy, as there's a difference between units working in parallel, complementing each other, and units working in tandem, enhancing each other. The latter is synergistic, and I don't know the fancy buzzword for the former.

Of the latter, of units working in tandem, I think it would also be good to distinguish between synergies that result from units directly enhancing each other via rules, and synergies that result from units indirectly enhancing each other. I think it would be better to take these indirect synergies that depend on their use in play and just call them 'tactics'.

Finally I think it would be useful to consider dependencies as the flip-side or negation of synergies, where units need to work in tandem to achieve a minimal level of effectiveness. Both this minimal level of effectiveness and the value of synergies in general should also be considered task-relative or task-specific, since the synergy of two units may not help them acheive their goal. An example of this may be, again, the Kustom Force Field: while the combination of the Big Mek and Boyz Mobs may enhance the survivability of both, it will not enhance their ability to cross 24" of space in two turns. Likewise a Sanguinary Priest's ability to confer Feel No Pain will not enhance the ability of local Blood Angels to resist weapons that ignore Feel No Pain. In such cases the synergies will instead be dependencies and represent a sunk cost.

Nurglitch wrote:It might be something to distinguish between tactics and synergy, as there's a difference between units working in parallel, complementing each other, and units working in tandem, enhancing each other. The latter is synergistic, and I don't know the fancy buzzword for the former.

Leveraging.

I'd like so see some more concrete examples of all the concepts talked about here, especially where there are different sets of concepts competing. I liked Augustus's lists from earlier, citing where these concepts materialized in unit combos throughout the armies. Jin posted not too long ago that he felt WHFB was more unified than 40k in terms of tactics: some principles applied to all of the armies. He said his view of 40k was that the armies all played very differently. But this discussion seems to emphasize the ways that tactics in 40k are unified throughout the game.

High level abstract discussions tend to abstract away details like differences in play. After all, Warhammer 40k 5th edition is a basic set of rules extended in various proportions and combinations via the army (and other) expansions, unlike earlier versions that attempted to reinvent the wheel with each new expansion.

Actually I find this hilarious because it's the game design strategy that was applied (and subsequently reviled) in Epic 40k, with the difference being that the rules expansions have been painted the proper colours. And people say GW doesn't learn...

Anyhow, back on topic:

When I think of leveraging I think of debt-driven investing. Besides, the whole parallel thing doesn't really work if you think of leverage as being the intersection of a line and a fulcrum (the fulcrum being a point on another line). I was thinking diversification but that implies the opposite, spreading rather than convergence. With some extra thought I'm inclined to put it in the redundancy category.

Actually the more I think about it the more I'm taken with the notion of a notation like '=', '>', '<' for redundancy, synergy, and flexibility. So the parallelism of redundancy represented by two bars in parallel, the convergence of synergy represented by two bars converging, and the multi-purposing of flexibility represented by two bars diverging to cover more than one purpose.

'≠', '≥', '≤' can be the negation of these concepts (poverty, dependency, specialization). Alternately the '!' as a negation symbol.

The advantage of this notation, that I can see so far, is that ≡ can be 'spam' (= + - is ≡) following the rule of three, » can indicate strategic synergy (what I called Rules Synergy, basically part of list-building), and « can indicate tactics (what I also called Tactics Synergy).

So, for example: Big Mek > Boyz, Boyz = Boyz, Boyz ≡ Boyz, etc.

Excellent post Redbeard, I hope some new players read this. They will learn a lot.

One notion that I missed in the discussion when it comes to synergy is the conga line.
It can be used to mutually grant cover saves to several units.
This especially works for squadrons.

I approve. Good content!

Nice job RB.

I find synergy with a basic russ and a basilisk. They both have the range to hit anywhere on the board, and so can take advantage of the best firing positions available. The basilisk can always be deployed behind the russ. Both can fire when moving. Both Cannons can kill anything.

For these reasons, I feel these two units get synergy with my infantry, who are expendable when protecting the pie, and who can also kill at range, whether it be CCS, PCS, or PIS. With 100+ infantry on the board, I find Creed makes for good synergy, what with twice the orders at twice the range, a special order granting fearless furious charge, and making a chosen unit Scouts.

That last is particularly useful for my support vehicles. With these I try to complement the synergy generated by the bassy/russ/infantry core. I use chimeras to force multiply the infantry and protect the flanks of the russ/bassy, and a plasma sent, devil dog and demolisher to provide high AP and/or get in their face, supporting any advances.

Is that synergy, when you're trying to use support units to fill in gaps in the capabilities of the core units? Basically, I feel like I'm trying to find synergy between all the units of my army. Dakka is usually pretty meh about my lists, but I don't post mechvet, aircav, or powerblob lists so I don't worry to much. On the field I'm fairly satisfied, have fun, and am getting better

@Nurglitch: I've always liked the term effeciency for the value of a single unit on its own, particularly in terms of it's ability to deal damage.

@Chibi: One of the reasons it's ok to assume all units are the same value is that you can start to see the increases in value that synergy creates. It's hard to put a price tag on them, but even once you admit that, say, Berzerkers are better than Howling banshees for the points cost, I'd argue that Banshees with doom might in return be better.

The eldar codex is a perfect example of how prices for synergistic units can be very misleading. There isn't a single unit in the codex that isn't overpriced compared to anything similar in an Imperial book, yet the Eldar remain competitive, if not top tier.

@Redbeard: all in all I think this was a great post. The one potential thing I'd add is that firing precedence can be a factor. It's basic, but a lot of people still forget to take the most obvious shots first, or to shoot at units providing cover first. I'm not sure if this is stricly synergy, but I'll spell it out anyway. One of my rules is to shoot units with only one optimum target first, saving units that can shoot multiple optimum targets until I know which of their targets survives the earlier shooting. For example, lets say I have three Tactical squads, all in rhinos, while the enemy has two landraiders. Rhino 1 is 6" from landraider 1, Rhino 2 is 6" from landraider 2, but Rhino 3 is 6" from both. I would always shoot 1 & 2 first, saving the third unitl I knew which one was more dangerous. Likewise, if I have a squad with flamers right next to a unit, I'll usually take that shot first. I know I'm not going to shoot anything else with the flamers, or shoot anything else at the squad first, so it's good to take those shots and then have a better idea of how the game is going to look.

Polonius:

That sounds more like efficacy than efficiency.

Efficacy on it's own, efficiency relative to points cost.

While I realize that this thread has been dead for some time the thoughts and implications therein have made me think on how I detirmine synergy.

Every one has so far in their own regards, have been correct. What ammuses me though is that while everyone argues the fact on how synergy is met and played with.

I will take an old book as my example:

Ender's Game, is a fantastic little book that delves into strategy briefly but gets your brain running on how things can be done, should be done, and what is most optimally done. For instance Ender found that while some commanders believed that formations were the way to go and careful planning led to victory, he pushed that boundry of thinking and come up with the famous line "The enemies base is Down" leading to a change in how the overall game was played. Later after getting his own command he trained in a style that no one else thought of, 5 8-man platoons instead of the normal 4 10-man platoons, thus creating more strategic advantages. This is exlemplified by the fact that he never uses a formation except for one single time and that was to throw off the enemies train of thought.

If you look at this and then take the context that 40k is limited on how you take squads you can also create your own evolving work of art in the form of how you deploy, move, and assess your threats.

I would be all "thread necromancy lol" but it is a good post... I got down to the force multiplication bit and was like "I swear I've read this...it's awfully familiar...

My only problem with this is that i dont think you counted for the possibility of the Big Mek, or whatever Enhancement Character, getting killed turn one or two. The enhancement is well worth it as long as you can keep it alive.

This is a bit of a necro, but there seems to be some discussion here still, so we'll run with it for now then chaps.

And chappesses.

Keeping the enhancement character is usually quite easy (exceptions apply such as the tervigon) due to the simple fact that they are normally independent characters so all you have to do is move the enhancement over to a new squad if possible. it makes the life of that enahncement that much longer.

The problem with that is that ICs can be specifically targeted and, in subsequent rounds, must move into contact with the enemy.

and if the squad is destroyed then the IC is all alone. if they get swept, he gets swept too.


If he does survive, he can run into another squad, but in a game with only 5-7 rounds he will rarely get to do much in the 2nd squad.



for me, the best characters are ones which buff units in a radius around them, not the squad they have joined.

the KFF bigmek does have a radius and is good.


but these ICs can still be attacked directly and if caught, on anything but your own terms, you can assume they are gone.