The Djin Blade (I know....)

The Shredder wrote:

Isn't that exactly the point I just made?  

I read your comment more as disappointment that you wanted her to be a cheap hq choice but considered that she wasn't.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

Here's the thing - you're trying to argue fluff, yet you're also proposing that a) Archons - the most powerful and influential DE - somehow cannot afford good weapons. Because, it's not about their melee prowess, it's about what weapons they have access to.

Not that they can't afford them, but that they wouldn't consider they need them since they either take a blaster/blast pistol or get someone else to fight the dangerous stuff. It's not just a fluff argument though, it's also trying to understand why the rules are written as they are for the game - GW clearly wanted to differentiate between the three HQ's in terms of their role and this is one way they went about it.

The Shredder wrote:

I'm confused as to how you can argue fluff with one hand, and then suggest a use for an Archon that is diametrically opposed to his actual fluff. Are you seriously telling me that an Archon would risk his own life to shield others?

Simple really, one part is trying to understand why the rules are written as they are, the other is exploiting how the rules are written to make the most effective use of them in a game. I'm not suggesting that in the fluff the Archon would accompany a unit of scourges onto the battlefield and then stand in the way of incoming fire for them, in fact earlier on I wrote this

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

It seems to me that GW did a reasonable job of pushing you into following the fluff with the wargear choices for our hq's - I've just got one issue.

The webway portal. Great piece of kit and I can totally understand why they gave the Archon access to it, BUT.

the Archon's basic cost plus the webway portal means you don't really want to spend any more points on that model if he's not your warlord, and therefore the archon who isn't a warlord becomes a disposable asset used solely for delivering a unit onto the battlefield. That would be fine if the portal then allowed him to escape back to the safety of his own lines, sadly it doesn't.

Pretty much makes it clear that I think this in an unfluffy use of the Archon, but that's not going to stop me doing it in a game if it means my scourges (and probably my archon too) survive for another turn. In fact, last time i used it it kept two scourges alive, who went on to detsroy a basilisk, which blew up and caused a couple of casualties on the guard command squad, who then ran off the field stopping the guard army from using orders.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

I read your comment more as disappointment that you wanted her to be a cheap hq choice but considered that she wasn't.

What I meant was that she is already different from the Archon in being a cheap HQ choice. Hence, removing the Archon's AP2 weapons to differentiate them was unnecessary.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

Not that they can't afford them, but that they wouldn't consider they need them since they either take a blaster/blast pistol or get someone else to fight the dangerous stuff. It's not just a fluff argument though, it's also trying to understand why the rules are written as they are for the game - GW clearly wanted to differentiate between the three HQ's in terms of their role and this is one way they went about it.

Sorry, but to me it sounds more like you making excuses for GW's poor design.

I mean, in an edition that bleats constantly about forging the narrative, I am rather annoyed that I am not allowed to select an AP2 weapon for my Archon. Is a narrative about an Archon with a worthwhile weapon not allowed? Am I only allowed the narrative of "The Archon who chose a really crap weapon that utterly failed to kill anything."?

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

Simple really, one part is trying to understand why the rules are written as they are, the other is exploiting how the rules are written to make the most effective use of them in a game. I'm not suggesting that in the fluff the Archon would accompany a unit of scourges onto the battlefield and then stand in the way of incoming fire for them, in fact earlier on I wrote this

Pretty much makes it clear that I think this in an unfluffy use of the Archon, but that's not going to stop me doing it in a game if it means my scourges (and probably my archon too) survive for another turn. In fact, last time i used it it kept two scourges alive, who went on to detsroy a basilisk, which blew up and caused a couple of casualties on the guard command squad, who then ran off the field stopping the guard army from using orders.

But that's entirely the point. You can't both defend the rules as being fluffy and then accept that the best use of an Archon - the one the rules push you towards - is completely counter to his fluff.

That should signify that the designers are not designing rules with fluff in mind, but are instead simply incompetent. Otherwise, the best use of an Archon would be one which runs parallel to his fluff. I mean, you said earlier that an Archon clashes with Incubi in terms of weapons. Do you not see the problem with that? Archons are supposed to be with their Incubi warriors. If running them together is counter-intuitive gameplay wise, then that is awful game design.

The Shredder wrote:

What I meant was that she is already different from the Archon in being a cheap HQ choice. Hence, removing the Archon's AP2 weapons to differentiate them was unnecessary.

But she's only cheaper than the Archon if you choose to equip them both that way. I can quite reasonably equip an Archon for a role that just involves taking a blaster, they don't have to cost 130pts, and in that respect she's not a cheap hq. She is, however, very different in role to the Archon.

So yes, she can be a cheap hq, or an expensive one, but in contrast to the Archon what she always is is a combat hq.

The Shredder wrote:

Sorry, but to me it sounds more like you making excuses for GW's poor design.

I did say right at the start that 'if i were trying to explain it' that's how I would do so.

The Shredder wrote:

I mean, in an edition that bleats constantly about forging the narrative, I am rather annoyed that I am not allowed to select an AP2 weapon for my Archon. Is a narrative about an Archon with a worthwhile weapon not allowed? Am I only allowed the narrative of "The Archon who chose a really crap weapon that utterly failed to kill anything."?

How fluffy is it to write a narrative about a selfish, cruel and cunning creature who valiantly steps up to fight the toughest enemy troops instead of pointing at the lackey and telling them to go kill them while he turns round and walks off nonchalantly?

The Shredder wrote:

But that's entirely the point. You can't both defend the rules as being fluffy and then accept that the best use of an Archon - the one the rules push you towards - is completely counter to his fluff.

Why not?

a) understanding the fluff behind the writing of a rule does not preclude a competitive attitude once my gaming head is on - the fluffy way of playing it would be to place my Archon in the middle of the deployed squad, which is not unfluffy in terms of the way the rule is written, whereas the most advantageous way of playing it is to put the Archon in the line of fire because he has the best save.

b) all I'm actually saying is that they got the rules design a minor tweak off - I'd have said that the webway portal allows the Archon to choose a unit to deploy without scattering, instead of him having to deploy with that unit. He then arrives on the following turn wherever he wants in his own deployment zone also without scattering.

The Shredder wrote:

That should signify that the designers are not designing rules with fluff in mind, but are instead simply incompetent. Otherwise, the best use of an Archon would be one which runs parallel to his fluff. I mean, you said earlier that an Archon clashes with Incubi in terms of weapons. Do you not see the problem with that? Archons are supposed to be with their Incubi warriors. If running them together is counter-intuitive gameplay wise, then that is awful game design.

Not at all - let's consider a unit of Incubi accompanying an Archon. The Incubi in fluff terms will be there as a hired bodyguard. If you wanted to play that unit in a game then both the fluffy, and probably the most sensible if the Archon is your warlord, way to play it is for the Archon to point at the 2+ armoured unit, push the Incubi at them and run the other way, preferably getting back on the Venom/Raider and vacating the area.

Random thought - getting into the selfish, devious and cunning mindset of the archon is actually a pretty good way of playing competitively in my opinion - any unit is expendable if it achieves the desired outcome. Sacrificing a unit of Incubi to save your Warlord will stop your opponent from getting that Victory point. I played three games last night and two of them were decided by a single point. Charging the Warlord in with them may quite possibly allow him to be killed, particularly if the Incubi are outmatched.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

How fluffy is it to write a narrative about a selfish, cruel and cunning creature who valiantly steps up to fight the toughest enemy troops instead of pointing at the lackey and telling them to go kill them while he turns round and walks off nonchalantly?

Why does having a good weapon mean he *has* to be fighting the toughest troops? Why am I not allowed to equip him with an all-purpose weapon, and then pick and choose my fights anyway? Why am I forcibly disallowed from taking out anything with a 2+ save? Is that Techpriest too threatening for him? If so, why is this guy leading anything? Surely he'll be too busy cowering in a space-toilet because there's a spider on the seat?  

Though, to turn this around, why is it that an Archon won't engage with 2+ save units and yet is happy to charge a Wraithknight? I know which one seems more suicidal.

Furthermore, I'd point you at artefacts like the Soul Trap - which are based entirely on the Archon challenging and defeating enemy characters. Perhaps my Archon is looking for particularly strong souls? Perhaps he's bored and just wants more of a challenge? Whatever the case, there is no good reason why he should be excluded an AP2 weapon.

Though, it seems we're going to have to agree to disagree on this point.

I'm liking this discussion! I can see why they removed ap2, as a way to separate the battlefield roles. It's obvious that the Archon is a much better shot than anything else in the book, also has access to some cool gear.
I was, however, really annoyed that the Archon, the leader of the whole kabalites can't get high on drugs.

Thing that pisses me off is like you said the archon is the best shot soooooo lets only give him a blaster, No one could want to put any other gun on him or a special gun only he can take right?
If you want to compare to best shooting in our army dont look at the archon look at lelith, put her on an instillation's gun and  let her wreck things

I didnt really get one thing - why the hell did he lost combat drugs. That is just stupid.

Grimcrimm wrote:

Thing that pisses me off is like you said the archon is the best shot soooooo lets only give him a blaster, No one could want to put any other gun on him or a special gun only he can take right?
If you want to compare to best shooting in our army dont look at the archon look at lelith, put her on an instillation's gun and  let her wreck things

A unique archon only gun would have been very cool....