I think it makes sense to assume Unique Hero as the default (and thus not bother with a separate post for UH synergies). I have to assume like 90% of our units are Unique Heroes.
Yeah, it's about 90%. Pretty sure that's the rationale for why the synergy archive ended up the way it is now (decision made before my time!), but I've started to question whether the other way wouldn't be way more useful as a reference.
Like 'what are my generalist synergies for this Unique Hero?' is gonna be a question you want answered way more often than 'what can I not do with this Event Hero?', is my feeling.
From a maintenance perspective, the "assume everyone is a medium Unique Hero and only explain the differences" results in a lot more duplication of data across the Archive - under the current model, if we put out a new card that has some synergy power that works with any Unique Hero, instead of noting that as a synergy in one place, I have to note that it's a non-synergy in three places.
Plus, the 'ineligibilities' stuff is just kind of counter-intuitive to track/link. If a tag comes with an ineligibility but no actual benefits (like, say being an Event Hero does), do I still link that as Event Hero Synergies?
And in general, I just question whether that "we only need to explain the differences from baseline" approach makes sense when the project's grown as large as it has.
Bothering with a separate UH Synergies post means a lot of Books will need an update, but between Secret Identity and Marvel becoming synergy tags, and the shift in the IBW format, the majority of Books need an update anyway. To me, the benefit of the trade-off (less replication of data, more intuitive contents of synergy archive posts) are pretty well worth it.
I'll allow that I think about this way more than anyone else does, though, and other people might not mind the current model so much.