@Rhyleth
Hampers performance? From everything I've heard, Eldar remained a top tier army throughout my hiatus (from early 5th to 8th). It sounds as though during 7th they almost approached the absurdity of 2nd Ed.
Specialisation is absolutely a huge advantage the way 40k rules have always worked, which is probably why Eldar have been so consistently strong throughout the game's history.
Disagree with both statements. But first let me emphasise one important thing: I'm looking at the game and army composition from the point of view of building so-called
"all-comers" lists, because that's how you have to play in tournaments, and that's how most players I know of tend to build their collections. Tailoring a list for each specific opponent is not really an option for me or anyone I know - even if we disregard tournaments, still each time a person goes to a club for a few games, they can't really carry all of their units with them to create any list on the fly.
With that out of the way - firstly, specialisation is not an advantage at all for an all-comers list, for the reasons I'll explain below. And secondly, what you heard is partially wrong: Eldar have been totally weak throughout almost all of the 5th edition, down to the point of being practically unplayable in the end of 5th and in the beginning of 6th (before the 6th ed codex arrived).
But what's most important here for the topic in question is that at all times when Eldar were indeed performing really well, they owed their success almost exclusively to certain units/weapons that were both really strong (sometimes OP) AND
absolutely not specialised, or at least about as far from being "specialised" as it ever gets. Namely:
3rd edition: Starcannons, Wraithlords, Seer Councils.
4th edition: Falcons and Harlequins.
5th edition: Seer Council (the only thing that made Eldar semi-playable on competitive level)
6th edition: Wave Serpents (due to OP rules for serpent shield), Wraithknights
7th edition: Scatter-bikes, Wraithknights
As you can see, all weapons and units in the list above have one thing in common: none of them was "specialised" because they all could handle an outstandingly wide variety of targets.
A point system inherently favours units that are most efficient for their points, and these are invariably the ones that do one specific thing very well. Other units pay for things they may not even use against certain targets - especially with 3rd Ed. onwards targeting rules that prevented units from splitting fire. You have entire squads paying for useless boltguns and the like.
This is a very abstract statement that doesn't take into account one important practical consideration:
threat-management.
To put it simply, the role of a specialised unit and the kind of threat it poses is glaringly obvious to your opponent, making it super-easy for him to prioritise and decisively take out those elements of your force that are particularly threatening to him.
For example, an army of versatile units would be 5 SM Tactical squads with krak grenades and a meltagun in each one. The same thing but in "specialised" form would be an Eldar army of 4 squads of DAs (specialised anti-personnel) and 1 squad of 5 Fire Dragons (specialised anti-tank). The number of anti-tank guns in both forces is the same. Now tell me, against which of the two forces it would be easier to take out the AT section so that your vehicles would have pretty much free reign over the battlefield? I think the answer is obvious. But that's not all. Even if the Dragons do not get singled out and decisively destroyed in the first 1-2 turns, I'd argue that the SM force would still have comparatively easier time dealing with the enemy force that includes several vehicles, for that very reason: every SM squad has some AT capability, while Dragons are just one unit and they can't be in several places simultaneously, nor can they threaten more than 1 vehicle per turn.
Or look at Land Raiders, a unit that in its most basic form pays through the nose to be an armoured transport and not only has an anemic armament for its cost, it's armed with a heavy bolter and twin lascannon
From my perspective of a long-time tournament player, the only real problem of LR has always been the fact that LRs were way too easy to destroy for their huge point cost. E.g., by the end of 5th edition, when durability stopped being an issue for some time, there were several quite successful competitive SM builds featuring 2-3 LRs.
More generalised Eldar units have frequently been the weakest in the army and the ones without a role.
Not sure what specific units you're talking about. As I detailed above, the most decisively game-making Eldar units were always the most versatile ones.
It certainly hasn't hurt that 40k is at heart a tactically very simple game without very many unit roles - there really aren't many bases to cover.
As for bases to cover, they are not too numerous, but there still are a few:
- Anti-horde
- Anti-heavy infantry
- Anti-tank
- Anti-air (although this one has largely mingled with anti-tank in 8th)
- Objective control
Any experienced tournament player would tell you that the most valuable units are invariably those that can double-up in two or more different roles.
The army was designed in a context where units weren't routinely wiped out on turn 1. It doesn't matter how efficient the units or how strong their weapons if they only realistically get to use them if they go first.
Imho, the problem of an army taking some crippling damage on turn 1 just because it lost the first turn to the enemy has always been there. 8th edition mechanic has greatly emphasised it though.
Admittedly, fragility actually has a lot to do with the problem of specialisation. The fact that most Eldar units are fragile for their points makes it yet much easier for our opponents to destroy the key threats early on, rendering the rest of the army all but helpless. Yet I would insist that the root of the problem lies in the specialisation itself, not in the fragility. 40k is (and has always been) a game of crazy high damage output, and if your opponent really wants to destroy any one specific unit in your force, the unit will be destroyed. The only thing that helps counter this effect is target saturation - and that can only be achieved if all capabilities are spread out through your units as evenly as possible.
@Irisado
My arguments about the threat-management and target saturation above go to you as well