Soul Trap - built for the Agoniser, not the Husk Blade

I don't recall saying that xD

But yeah, I agree - the succubus is a solid choice in her own right now in the new codex regardless of what happened with the archon. Although the archon is probably still the superior warlord choice as he is much harder to kill and isnt forced to do one specific thing (like the succubus is pretty much forced to get into combat to earn her points).

But then at the same time, if its just resilience we're looking for in our warlord then a haemonculus from the covens supplement with their wargear choices is a superior option.

So I think the archon fits a nice middle ground between the succubus and haemonculus in killyness and resiliency. I guess I'm not as sad about the huskblade nerf just because I love the new agoniser - odd though that the succubus is better suited to challenges and 1 on 1 combat now (which does fit the fluff though) with her ap 2 and crazy high initiative and weapon skill, yet the archon gets some of the toys meant for challenges such as the soul trap.

Either way I think both have their place but I dont think the Archon is getting replaced any time soon.

Although that was all a bit off-topic >.>

Slightly on and off topic, the issue i have with the archon after the update is he has no role to fill hes kind of a jack-of-all-trades but he offers you nothing the other HQ's cant except a free FoC slot for the court, i only see him as viable for the court option in larger games. Succubus does melee very well, haemonculus does his buff thingy and can bring some wierd goodys, and then there is the archon, his offensive options cap him at ap3, ap3 with ID, ap3 with 2 attacks, (his best option but still can fail and harm him) and ap3 that wounds on 4+. He has no way to get stronger unless your opponent doesnt know what soultrap is and is worse than a group of blasterborn in a venom, The real miss here is he shouldve been the shooty HQ with his gun options he isnt that one, High BS doesnt make up for the fact he doesnt have any options your not already throwing on your troops/elites.

Assuming your using an agonizer you have to put two unsaved wounds on an enemy in a challenge to get shred vs. T4, if your throwing him into combat to try to force soultrap to be useful the enemy (assuming he knows anything about your codex) will deny letting you build a super archon.

The largest issue with this is you have to dedicate a part of your force to make this happen instead of spending the points elsewhere or taking a pretty reliable melee HQ (the succubus). Id like to see soultrap on Lelith (doesnt fit her fluff but her existence is to make the enemy say NOPE NOPE NOPE to a challenge in her current state)

The archon is the only one who can get the 2++ shadowfield save. So in a high toughness unit, he can play a support role in providing them with a reliable 2+ save.

But yeah, aside from that...

He is also the shooty HQ, due to the Blaster.

Archon roles:

The only shooty HQ (re-roll for misses, access to blaster)
The cheapest WWP delivery mechanism
The best way to access the court
Access to another venom
Only shadowfield bearer
Best leadership HQ (unmodified leadership prevent 3 failure results vs Succubus and Haemonculus)

The only way to take a court is with an archon. BRB P121 'Army list entries that do not use FOC slots'

Timatron wrote:

The only way to take a court is with an archon. BRB P121 'Army list entries that do not use FOC slots'

Do note, however, that the court only does not use a FOC slot if you take an archon

Anterzhul wrote:

Timatron wrote:

The only way to take a court is with an archon. BRB P121 'Army list entries that do not use FOC slots'

Do note, however, that the court only does not use a FOC slot if you take an archon

Indeed, it's an hq choice, but if an archon is included it doesn't take up a slot - it's therefore different to command squads etc, which require you to have the captain first.

Timatron wrote:

The only way to take a court is with an archon. BRB P121 'Army list entries that do not use FOC slots'

Sorry but the section that you refer to really doesn't address this issue.

Yeah........sure.......OK then.
By which I mean I can't be bothered to argue about this any more.

I think the issue, Timatron, is that you guys are arguing different things. I think most people here would agree with you that it was like 95% likely that the intention was to only have the Court available if you took an archon. The problem is, that's not what it says. The way it's set up, without "guessing" or "speculating" on their intent, no matter how logical or likely that intent is to be accurate, is still speculating or guessing. Here is the defining difference:

If they were to FAQ this issue, and wanted to make it to where you HAD to take an archon in order to take the court, they'd only need to add a period. You're right. Not a lot. But they'd still have to alter the way it's written in the book in order to meet your definition of what it's saying.

BUT, if they were to FAQ it to mean what other people are saying now, which is that you can take a court without an archon, but it takes up a slot, they would have to amend NOTHING. It already allows that without ANY adjustments to the text of the book.

And THAT is the problem. As written, it allows it, even if we all are 95% sure it wasn't intended that way.

I simply can't agree. Firstly, the initial three words of the Retainers rule are a clear stipulation of requirement which doesn't go away based on anything else in that sentence. Secondly, after the first comma, we are introduced to the Court itself, a single court which we get for each Archon. Thirdly we are further instructed that this Court does not take up a FOC slot; "that does not". This entire sentence is talking about a single Court all the way through.

Fourthly, P121 tells us what the Retainers rule is. The rule tells us that
"if the army list entry states that it can be included in an army that includes another specified unit..." Does the Retainers rule tell us this? Yes, yes it does, absolutely categorically.
"......and that it doesn't take up a force organisation slot....."
Does the Retainers rule tell us this? Again, inarguably yes.
So, I think we've established the fact that Retainers is an example of a rule governing a unit which comes under the heading on P121 'Army list entries that do not use FOC slots', although the heading was quite a big clue; always good to be sure. How does the sentence I'm quoting finish?
"....., it must join the same detachment as that specified unit."
MUST JOIN THE SAME DETACHMENT.
Specified unit in this case is an Archon. Do you have an Archon? No? Can't have a Court then.

Problem is that the datasheet entry does not state that "it can be included in an army that includes another specified unit".

Datasheet states that court is a HQ (top right corner). Additional "rule of retainers" allows this HQ to be taken outside the FOC slots (thus changing its battlefield role) IF you include an Archon.

TBH I am on the boat that thinks this is intentional. Otherwise they would not give the Court the "HQ" status. And they would have used a different formulation if they wanted the court to be "Archon exclusive" like they do it with other similar units. It usually says "For every XXX in your army you can include 1 unit of XXX that does not take up a FOC slot".

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

Archon roles:

The only shooty HQ (re-roll for misses, access to blaster)
The cheapest WWP delivery mechanism
The best way to access the court
Access to another venom
Only shadowfield bearer
Best leadership HQ (unmodified leadership prevent 3 failure results vs Succubus and Haemonculus)

I understand what your saying and you are right it just doesnt feel like he has a role in the army though

Hes the only shooty hq..... with no weapon choices blaster or blast pistol pick your poison.
no arguement about cheapest wwp delivery 100% agree ... but for 10 more points you can move them down the pfp line
Venom spam, the lhamean does it cheaper (obviously i think you can take it as an hq slot assuming your in the camp who thinks you cant then yeah hes another venom)
only shadowfield bearer makes him more expensive and still not useful unless you add meat shield to an archons resume.

I just wish he had more gun options.... or could take a jetbike, the fact you cant tool him up with blasterborns anymore kinda hurt his role

Timatron wrote:

I simply can't agree. Firstly, the initial three words of the Retainers rule are a clear stipulation of requirement which doesn't go away based on anything else in that sentence. Secondly, after the first comma, we are introduced to the Court itself, a single court which we get for each Archon. Thirdly we are further instructed that this Court does not take up a FOC slot; "that does not". This entire sentence is talking about a single Court all the way through.

Fourthly, P121 tells us what the Retainers rule is. The rule tells us that
"if the army list entry states that it can be included in an army that includes another specified unit..." Does the Retainers rule tell us this? Yes, yes it does, absolutely categorically.
"......and that it doesn't take up a force organisation slot....."
Does the Retainers rule tell us this? Again, inarguably yes.
So, I think we've established the fact that Retainers is an example of a rule governing a unit which comes under the heading on P121 'Army list entries that do not use FOC slots', although the heading was quite a big clue; always good to be sure. How does the sentence I'm quoting finish?
"....., it must join the same detachment as that specified unit."
MUST JOIN THE SAME DETACHMENT.
Specified unit in this case is an Archon. Do you have an Archon? No? Can't have a Court then.

Agree with everything other than the last paragraph. All that pg 121 tells us is that the Court must join the same detachment as the Archon if it does not take up a FOC slot. It has precisely zero bearing on a Court that is taken as an HQ choice in its own right that does take up a FOC slot.

Your argument is circular. It only applies if what you are arguing is accepted as being correct in the first place.

Unless you can provide a rule that says that the Court datasheet is not a datasheet then the rules for datasheets will continue to apply and they very clearly allow the Court to be taken as an HQ choice.

I don't plan on using a court by itself, but I think comparing the wording to the crisis bodyguard suit makes it appear they are allowing its individual use.

"For each commander in your army, you may include one xv8 crisis bodyguard team. This unit does not take up a force organization slot"."

This wording clearly specifies in a different line that you have to have a commander to take a bodyguard team while the court only has the part about them not taking a force organization slot.

It's the same thing! Exactly the same thing! Just seperated into two sentences! I actually can't believe how obtuse some people are being about this! It is entirely irrelevant as this will not fly in any GT's or other major events, and I don't think it's something that the majority or friendly players will be happy about so all this discussion really means nothing. In all practicality: No Archon,No Court, as it should be.

Timatron wrote:

It's the same thing! Just seperated into two sentences. I actually can't believe how obtuse some pwople are being about this!

Except it's not the same thing because it has a different meaning. And you really should be asking yourself why, if they had a perfectly good and unambiguous version of this rule in both our 5e codex and several other current codexes, is this one not written exactly the same and has in fact been specifically altered to read differently? Why did they go to the effort of changing it when they could just copy/paste, as they do with so many other elements of their rules and codexes? Perhaps they changed it because they actually wanted to change its meaning? If so, they have succeeded, because, no matter how often you claim otherwise, what it now says is not what you think it says.

Quote :

Retainers: For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot on the Force Organisation Chart

Nowhere in that sentence does it require you to take an Archon. It simply states that if you have an Archon, you can take a slot-free Court.

By definition on its data sheet, the Court is an HQ choice. The above sentence only changes that if an Archon is present (in fact, it doesn't even preclude you from taking a Court as an HQ choice if there is an Archon present, it just says that you can if you wish)

look gents, this is getting off topic since this thread is supposed to be about the soultrap's function w/ the Aggy vs the Husk Blade.

That being said... I'm about to wade in here: Due to the "unbound" feature of 7th's rules, ALL choices have a "battlefield role" - this is why in the Space Wolves 7th ed codex you can buy an empty drop pod as a fast attack choice; this is why you can now buy a raider or venom as a fast attack choice. ALL units have a "battlefield role" and can be purchased to fill that FoC slot. The only way this wouldn't also be true for the court of the archon would be if the rule read "Courts may only be taken if an archon is included in your detachment...." - it doesn't say that, ergo it is possible to buy a 10pt lahmian as your HQ.

Back on topic:
I don't believe the Archon has a place in challenges. Dark Eldar are the bad guys, they don't fight with honour, thus epic challenges aren't our thing. The Archon exists to massacre the chaff. He wades into the horde of guardsmen and slaughters them left & right. When the heroic commissar calls him out, the archon looks upon him with disdain and calls his kabilites to shred the fool with splinter fire. To that end, I would suggest that the soul trap, like so many pieces of DE wargear is an option, to be added at the end of list construction, if & when you find yourself with points left over. Based on this role, I would always be selecting the Aggy as my weapon of choice. Fishing for that first 6 to wound is just bad news when you find yourself against a tyranid MC. I would rather wound 3x as often, than risk not rolling that 6.

Timatron wrote:

It's the same thing! Exactly the same thing! Just seperated into two sentences! I actually can't believe how obtuse some people are being about this! It is entirely irrelevant as this will not fly in any GT's or other major events, and I don't think it's something that the majority or friendly players will be happy about so all this discussion really means nothing. In all practicality: No Archon,No Court, as it should be.

First off, it's pretty insulting to say people are being obtuse.

Second off, didn't you just find out this week that you read the rules wrong for Father of Pain and Master of Pain stacking and for taking both upgrades on the Cronos? I know if I misread two things back to back like that, I would first question what else I might be misreading before accusing others of doing so or insulting them.

Thirdly, there's a big difference between having and not having punctuation between two statements. It's why the point is often made to distinguish between "Let's eat Grandpa!" and "Let's eat, Grandpa!" Think of it like an "if p, then q" statement. The "q" conclusion in this case is a single statement that a court can be included which does not take up a slot of the foc. To have two different conclusions, you would need to explicitly separate them with a conjunction by saying "you can include a court, and the court does not take up a slot on the foc". (if p, then q and r)

I have no idea what their intent was for allowing or disallowing courts in isolation, but I do feel comfortable saying that what they wrote allows for it.

Yes, I mis-read those two things, doesn't mean I mis-read the rule on P121 though. What they wrote in the codex may allow it, I admit the wording is ambiguous. P121 however makes it very clear. 'Retainers' is an example of what P121 is describing. If it's not, then, tell me, what is this rule on P121 in aid of?

Maybe obtuse is rude, maybe it's not. All I know is it is perfectly apt.

You have not mis-read the rule on page 121, it's just not relevant to a Court that is not taken as a FOC-free choice.

I also took a few moments to look at some other examples I could think of where you have a character that unlocks a FOC-free choice. Guess what? Every single one of them is worded differently to the Dark Eldar version and they are all clear and unambiguous. Ours says something different and, as it was deliberately changed from the 5e version to the current version, I have to assume that there was also intent to change the meaning.

Blood Angels

Quote :

You can take one unit of Honour Guard for every HQ unit you have included in your army, not counting Honour Guard units. Units of Honour Guard do not themselves take up an HQ choice.

Dark Angels

Quote :

For each HQ choice in your army (not including Techmarines or other Command Squads of any type) you may include a Command Squad. These selections do not use up a Force Organisation slot.

Necrons

Quote :

For each Necron Overlord in your army...the army can also include a Royal Court. This unit does not take up an HQ choice.

Orks

Quote :

For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet. These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots.

Space Marines

Quote :

You may take one Honour Guard unit for each Chapter Master in your army...This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

Space Wolves

Quote :

If Servitors are included in a Detachment that includes at least one Iron Priest, the Servitors do not use up a Force Organisation slot.

Quote :

You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

Tau

Quote :

For each Commander in your army (including Commander Farsight and Commander Shadowsun) , you may include one XVS Crisis Bodyguard Team. This unit does not take up a Force Organisation slot.

Tyranids

Quote :

You may include one Tyrant Guard Brood for each Hive Tyrant (including the Swarmlord) in your army. These broods do not use up a Force Organisation slot.

And there there's Dark Eldar

Quote :

For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot on the Force Organisation chart.

Different wording. Different meaning.

Different edition, different wording, different rules governing these units and other units unlocking them.

Honestly, reading P121 makes it abundently clear.
There is no allowance given there for units being either/or, it always categorically refers to a ".....specified unit, *and* that it does not take up a F.O. slot......".
Nowhere is any mention made of a unit possibly being both a standard datasheet and a F.O.C. free choice. The word 'or' is never used. It is 100% categorical.
Consider, also the fact that 6th edition didn't include any specific rules governing this. 7th edition does, hence GW felt confident making a more 'flowing' sentence; they have addressed any ambiguity on P121.

I don't really think the soultrap is worth it on a T3 model with an AP3 weapon. By the time the archon has built up strength to have made it worth taking the game would likely be over, or a S6 weapon would have insta-killed him. Would have been better back in the day as a deterrent for challenges, but now that wounds spill over no one is going to accept a challenge unless they're pretty sure they'll win. Edit: Or they're a champion of Chaos. Ha!