How much you can jam into Purge Cotorie?

Count Adhemar wrote:

I think you're being somewhat selective. The quote you provided is preceded by the sentence "A Fire Point is a hatch or gun slit from which one or more passengers inside the vehicle can fire shooting weapons (or use witchfire psychic powers)". The paragraph is discussing the procedure for doing so and I don't think you can really argue that it can be extended to a general rule for LOS.

It's selective interpretation either way, and I don't think there can be a clear RAW answer without a third sentence to act as a tiebreaker.

From a practical standpoint, if it comes up in a game, the only solution is bringing in a dispassionate third party to rule on it; and I suspect the overwhelming majority would say you can draw LOS for this purpose.

Massaen, can you find the rule for that? I'd like to see the specific phrasing.

From GW BRB FAQ...

Q: Do non-psychic powers with an area of effect (‘aura’ powers like the Tau Ethereal’s Invocation of the Elements, or the effects of many Warlord Traits) extend from the hull of a Transport that the model with the power is embarked within?

A: No, non-psychic powers such as those described cannot be used by models embarked upon a Transport unless specifically noted otherwise.

It's not an "aura" power, it's a power that depends solely on LOS.
But there was another FAQ i think for some SM faction. That stated a unit/character embarked on a transport counts as not being on the board for all purposes unless stated otherwise.
Or somesuch, but i can't remember which FAQ.
Maybe Space Wolves? Anyway i hope this gets cleared up for open transports.
As i think for example Hammy's fear aura should work from open transports too.

I would argue the area of affect is the target within range and LoS for the purge rules - the reference to aura is part of the example - not the question itself.

Massaen wrote:

From GW BRB FAQ...

Q: Do non-psychic powers with an area of effect (‘aura’ powers like the Tau Ethereal’s Invocation of the Elements, or the effects of many Warlord Traits) extend from the hull of a Transport that the model with the power is embarked within?

A: No, non-psychic powers such as those described cannot be used by models embarked upon a Transport unless specifically noted otherwise.

Wow. I am absolutely hating that ruling, but there it is in black and white. It's reasonable to extend that to apply to this rule as well.

That's extraordinarily lame. I suppose it's a little more incentive to get the Archon disembarked and stuck in ASAP.

That ruling very explicitly applies to AOE effects and not directed effects.

However, the basic rules for fire points and open topped transports do make it clear that RAW you can only draw LOS from a vehicle for the purpose of firing weapons (or witchfires). Unless you want to make a houserule, or unless an FAQ is forthcoming, the Archon can't give people the finger until he gets out of his ride.

I've played it both ways with the Archon. Surprisingly it didn't make a huge difference since the Reavers and Raider filled with Trueborn are the priority targets either way.

An Archon hidden in the backfield with a Shadowfield and a Blaster incase someone gets too close works out really nicely since all he needs is LOS, there's no range limit.

Again, I know LGS Managers aren't rules gods, but mine is adamant you can draw LOS from the Open Topped Transport & the Archon can then point while embarked.

Since an Open-Topped Transport provides 360* LOS.

It may just be his RAI argument, BUT, in practical terms, since every single gamer I know also accepts this viewpoint it makes no odds

Does anyone actually have a local Meta that refuses to let you play the rule this way?

It is just a Start Collecting formation after all & personally, I don't think it's ever worth taking once you have enough points for a single CAD instead.

Archons are just a tax IMO.

I lean towards the intent of the rules being that a character inside a transport is not on the table. Which is just silly. Do they still generate warp charges?

But I also can't see anyone saying, "your archon can shoot me, but he can't point at me". That's just daft.

Also I hurt every time I see a list with lhamean hq, or hear "archons are tax". I won't say it's wrong, but it hurts me so to hear it.

The Red King wrote:

Also I hurt every time I see a list with lhamean hq, or hear "archons are tax". I won't say it's wrong, but it hurts me so to hear it.

Hehe, I sympathise entirely!

Ever time I try to Battlescribe a list with an Archon, he simply always gets dropped for something else.

I have also started taking a Sslyth instead of a Lhamaen, but it's mostly a fluff thing.

TDC should have a 'Best list with an Archon' competition or something, to try & get some love going....

Agree. I'm confident I could win that lol. I use an Archon in every list.

What points level do you play at?

He just seems too expensive at the lower points levels, especially with the upgrades I want to give him to keep him alive!

1850 almost always. He runs me 150-185 depending if he brings the wwp or not. I have generally good results with him even if I do chafe to have to avoid 2+ armor.

If you stick him in a seer council (or just have eldar with runes of battle) though "protect/jinx" can ensure that your target no longer has 2+ armor.

If you were running a pure DE/covens list though, would the Archon still get a look in?

I can't ever bring myself to bring the single court as an HQ. It's just too far for me. I have been convinced, however, that the Archon isn't our best bet. It's a Succubus for me, most of the time.

(If I'm in an escalation league that starts at less than 750 I will take the Archon, but otherwise it's the lady for me.)

I often run pure dark eldar and yes he still goes in. Just have to avoid that ap2.

I used the succubus a lot in the early days of our new codex. Love her, but the survivability is just too low for me.

The Archon needs LoS at the beginning of the turn, if he attempted to fire a weapon at a target turn 1 (he might be out of range but he tried!) and the unit fired on is still in LoS the following turn surely he has LoS for the PE to work? He hasn't lost LoS and there's no distinction between LoS (shooting) and LoS (general). It's not a differently worded status for the Archon to have. By firing on a unit he gained LoS. Unless that unit hides in its next turn he can't then lose LoS.

It's such a grey area and the rules can be interpreted both ways because it, the BRB and the FAQs are poorly written and don't mesh together at all. In such a quagmire the only sane interpretation is rules as intended or common sense. It's hardly an exploit like using auras from within vehicles and it makes no sense to force the archon to footslog it. If you're playing somebody who's that much of an arsenal to call you out on that, as a DE player of all things then you shouldn't play that person because they're an idiot. Throw the dark kin a bone damnit!

The archon is a pale shadow of his 5th edition self. I tend to run a succubus with archite glaive nowadays. I can't find a place for the archon anymore. The shadow field is far too expensive, and you really need this to make him worthwhile and survivable (plus a decent cc weapon). The corsair prince is what an archon should be. Mean in CC, awesome buffs to the force, and relatively cheap and good wargear

spellcheck2001 wrote:

The archon is a pale shadow of his 5th edition self.

Yup. I have fond memories of running a dracon with Shadow Field, Combat Drugs, a Tormentor Helm, and a Punisher. Before being inevitably swarmed, that model killed double its point cost in almost every game I played.

Haridar wrote:

Hello Dark City!

( ... )

My personal question is concerning about Archon from this formation. To be more precise - the Court of Archon. The wording of Retuine says:

Quote :

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

If I'm not mistaken, formations are still can be Detachments of their own. You can argue about that "there is no slots and FOC inside a formation" but still. Can we take in such a case the Court in Purge Cotorie? If so, does they recieve such bonus from this formation.

Hello.

In the Astra Militarum codex FAQ, I found this :

Quote :

Q: Can you add Ministorum Priests, Primaris Psykers and Enginseers to Formations?
A: No.

Normaly, every Astra Militarum detachement can include 0-3 Ministorum priest, 0-3 Primaris Psykers and 0-3 Engineseers, and they don't take any slots.
Except the condition of the presence of an Archon in the detachement, the language about the Court of the Archon is the same. I don't see how the answer could end up being different, (baring GW acting up)

My conclusion : No court of the Archon on the Coterie, unfortunatly.

It's already been discussed elsewhere on the forum but the conclusion seems to be that whilst the situations are similar an Astra Militarum FAQ answer does not apply to our codex so we're basically ignoring it until and unless GW makes it a blanket rule change (and that's what it is as the rules themselves very clearly do allow it).

Krokthefat wrote:

Hello.

In the Astra Militarum codex FAQ, I found this :

Quote :

Q: Can you add Ministorum Priests, Primaris Psykers and Enginseers to Formations?
A: No.

Normaly, every Astra Militarum detachement can include 0-3 Ministorum priest, 0-3 Primaris Psykers and 0-3 Engineseers, and they don't  take any slots.
Except the condition of the presence of an Archon in the detachement, the language about the Court of the Archon is the same. I don't see how the answer could end up being different, (baring GW acting up)  

My conclusion : No court of the Archon on the Coterie, unfortunatly.

That was from the FAQ on the Codex: Astra Militarium not a FAQ for Codex: Dark Eldar. So the ruling has no bearing on our codex only on the codex the FAQ is for.

It would be similar to me claiming that I can take a Court of the Archon without taking up a slot in all detachments because C:AM states that their detachement can include 0-3 Ministorum priest, 0-3 Primaris Psykers and 0-3 Engineseers, while not taking up slots, thus C:AM sets up a precedent of this being proper for my codex.

Until a Dark Eldar FAQ specifically states that the rule under the Court of the Archon isn't meant to be used in a coterie I won't agree that a ruling on another codex has relevance to my Dark Eldar. Whether a group of people house rule things differently is something else entirely but specific to that group and how they play.