Why would you ever take an archon?

aurynn wrote:

They are not a garbage. They are a deterrent. Try not to think about it from your perspective, but your oponnent's perspective.

"Do I move my Dread into this position so I can fire at that unit and get charged by the Archon who has a good chance of tying it till the end of the game or not?"

OR

"There is that archon with Agoniser and Blast Pistol in Venom circling to my backfield to play with my precious shooty tank... I have no counterchargers there..."

Shadowfield is a tactical thing. Not a CC invulnerability.

Yeah I've never had that experience in the entire time I've played Dark Eldar. People just figure I'll shoot at that until the shadowfield pops. Then no more than 3 lasgun wounds later, he's wounded and defenseless.

I avoided shadow fields for all of 6th and 7th, because in the last tournament of 5th, Baron Sathonyx failed his Look out Sir, then his shadowfield, and was insta-killed on the first turn of two of my 5 games.

Shadowfields are absolute trash and I hate them. If I had a choice, I would take a 4++ over it every single time and not think twice.

Well considering the fact we have no otion to have a decent normal armor i dont see how a 2++ that can disapear could be worse than a 4++

And its a bit nostalgic but this item is a dark eldar signature since V3, i would be sad if it disapear

Easy, 4++ doesn't disappear.

I don't want SFs to go away, I just don't take them.

sekac wrote:

Easy, 4++ doesn't disappear.

I don't want SFs to go away, I just don't take them.

Ok but my point is you will die anyway if you fail a save cause archon is easy to kill, so 2++ is better.

But if you want a 4++ the succubus is here for you, and its better in cc

@Count Adhemar - Naaah. T2 he charges. He does not need 2nd line of defence.

@The Strange Dark One - but he is not subpar in combat generally. Combat prowess is relative to the target. He is strong enough vs things I want him to be strong enough against. For those points? He is more than strong enough.

@sekac - SF are not trash. I get that you hate them, even understand why. But they are not trash. Only trash FOR YOU. If you let your SF archon on foot into the range of volume lasgunshots, its your fault, not SFs. There is no ID anymore either.

Quauchtemoc is right. SF is LOADS better than 4++

aurynn wrote:

@Count Adhemar - Naaah. T2 he charges. He does not need 2nd line of defence.

I don't consider him a melee unit. Him and his Sslyth in their Venom at 18" range pump out 24 poison shots, a blaster and a PGL. When the Venom dies, the models continue to be effective at range and are a moderate threat in melee plus they're amazingly annoying to get rid of.

Count Adhemar wrote:

aurynn wrote:

@Count Adhemar - Naaah. T2 he charges. He does not need 2nd line of defence.

I don't consider him a melee unit. Him and his Sslyth in their Venom at 18" range pump out 24 poison shots, a blaster and a PGL. When the Venom dies, the models continue to be effective at range and are a moderate threat in melee plus they're amazingly annoying to get rid of.

I consider everything with PFP a melee unit. I consider everything against any shooty army a melee unit. I want this 80pt model to annoy people enough so they cannot ignore and have to dedicate the power to hunt him down while the real power in my army goes on a spree. I don't care for buffs. I want people to ask "what is that little bugger up to going around the field". Sometimes I use him and his venom to steal objective from a tank or a monster or IK.

I always use Archon with Sslyth bodyguard. I tend to use them as shooting and cc threat and they have allways performed well; especially under 8th edition.

The only issue is when their transport blows up early.

They are great vs non-dedicated & semi-dedicated cc units, and also vs light and medium vehicles.
Also with the boost to transport movement they can choose their fights (most of the time).

aurynn wrote:

@sekac - SF are not trash. I get that you hate them, even understand why. But they are not trash. Only trash FOR YOU. If you let your SF archon on foot into the range of volume lasgunshots, its your fault, not SFs. There is no ID anymore either.

Quauchtemoc is right. SF is LOADS better than 4++

The one game I used him in in 8th, it was 3 overwatching lasguns. I guess it's my fault for charging, but I'm not sure what else to do with him. If he can't handle a squad of guardsmen, hiding behind LoS blocking terrain is the only real option.

The difference between 2++ until it pops, or 4++ is mostly that of expectations. With a 4++ I'll tell myself "I'll probably make some of these". With a 2++ I'll tell myself "I should pass this one save."

Because a 2++ is better than a 4++ I have higher expectations, and thus, greater potential for disappointment. And that disappointment is consistently realized. If you fail a 4++ early, you may live or you may die, but you'll still have that 4++. If the SF fails you early (as it always does with me) the chances of you during at some point in that battle increase dramatically.

I always value consistency over dice reliance.

You are absolutely correct, we have vehicles to eat overwatch now. Our infantry is not supposed to. And if that was your only course of action and the dice bit you in the ass like this, its just bad luck. So not SF fault anyway.

You value consistency, yet prefer 50% chance to save over 83%? SF is consistent. Its there and then  its gone. 50% always is inconsistent pure luck.

EDIT: In retrospect I guess it sounded bit harsh. I didn't mean to.

I'd like to see a mathhammer on that. With several wounds and without the possibility of Instant Death, I'm not so sure that the Shadowfield IS the overall better option anymore. Especially against mass small arms fire.

A single boltgun shot has a ~7% chance of hitting, wounding and penetrating the Shadowfield. You could therefore argue that it takes 13-14 shots to 'guarantee' taking it down. After that, another ~14 shots to take off the remaining wounds, so let's assume 28 bolter shots to kill an Archon.

With a straight 4++, it's ~23 shots to take off all 5 wounds.

I like the idea of a swat archon hidden behind regular troops shooting blasters and anoying the oponent. Dont know how much damage he can make this way.

Im thinking on a PGL/Blaster/Agonizer archon(76pts) shooting every turn sharing a raider with witches and assaulting vehicles tarpiting them.

aurynn wrote:

You are absolutely correct, we have vehicles to eat overwatch now. Our infantry is not supposed to. And if that was your only course of action and the dice bit you in the ass like this, its just bad luck. So not SF fault anyway.

You value consistency, yet prefer 50% chance to save over 83%? SF is consistent. Its there and then  its gone. 50% always is inconsistent pure luck.

EDIT: In retrospect I guess it sounded bit harsh. I didn't mean to.

No worries, I didn't take it harshly.

Maybe you and I just mean different things when it comes to consistency. Here's how I look at it:

If a Succubus gets wounded 6 times, I can expect to take 3 wounds. 50% all day every day until she's dead. I can rely on that to average out.

If an Archon gets wounded 6 times, I can expect to fail one of those, but when I fail those changes everything. There's a 17% chance I fail the first save, take 6 wounds and die immediately; a 17% chance I fail the second save, take 5 wounds and die immediately;... and a 17% chance I fail only the last save and take 1 wound.

There is a timing element to the SF that makes it inherently inconsistent the way I look at consistency.

Hehe good. I'd hate to sound mean.

However - apparently we do look at it from different angles. Anything similar to 50/50 chance averages out only due to the Law of Large Numbers (a real statistical law), which starts to resemble any consistency at around 600+ trials (rolls). Meaning that anything with 50% chance is very unreliable to produce average results in environment of tens of rolls. That is why moving DLs are statistically unreliable even though on paper they look good or good enough.

Speaking in relative numbers - any 2nd and subsequent roll of 4++ has only 50% chance to be consistent with the previous result (success or failure). With SF, you have 83% on the first roll to save and 83% on 2nd and any subsequent roll to be consistent with the first success. Therefore SF is in terms of statistics both average and relative are VASTLY more consistent than 4++. In fact it is even more consistent than 4++ rerollable.

However I have to admit that my dice sometimes roll as bad as Count's. But that does not mean we'd do better with 4++.

EDIT: That is the problem with all Mathhammering in this game. People tend to forget that any average result they count with is going to happen on only marginal number of occasions. That is the reason why the best players win on "mitigating dice flow" - trying to escape randomness. That is the same reason why I consider Ravager better than Reaper simply because it is far too random to produce anything resembling average results over the course of 1 battle.

I take one every Pure DE list i take, he is cheap and he works, just take an Agoniser and be done with it.

Yes there are cheaper HQ's but those HQ's dont compete with him in Melee, but he isnt costly like a Melee character is.

He is also good and cheap enough to deny Slay the Warlord, with his 2++ and can ride in raider with warriors/court, you can go a game without dying.

I take my Archon because he's cheap and looks badass with his skin-cape. He also manages to do something useful with his Blast Pistol every once in a while and doesn't die that often.

Also, a Kabal force should be led by an Archon.

I love you guys for the fluffy choices. More players like that!

aurynn wrote:

Hehe good. I'd hate to sound mean.

However - apparently we do look at it from different angles. Anything similar to 50/50 chance averages out only due to the Law of Large Numbers (a real statistical law), which starts to resemble any consistency at around 600+ trials (rolls). Meaning that anything with 50% chance is very unreliable to produce average results in environment of tens of rolls. That is why moving DLs are statistically unreliable even though on paper they look good or good enough.

Speaking in relative numbers - any 2nd and subsequent roll of 4++ has only 50% chance to be consistent with the previous result (success or failure). With SF, you have 83% on the first roll to save and 83% on 2nd and any subsequent roll to be consistent with the first success. Therefore SF is in terms of statistics both average and relative are VASTLY more consistent than 4++. In fact it is even more consistent than 4++ rerollable.

However I have to admit that my dice sometimes roll as bad as Count's. But that does not mean we'd do better with 4++.

EDIT: That is the problem with all Mathhammering in this game. People tend to forget that any average result they count with is going to happen on only marginal number of occasions. That is the reason why the best players win on "mitigating dice flow" - trying to escape randomness. That is the same reason why I consider Ravager better than Reaper simply because it is far too random to produce anything resembling average results over the course of 1 battle.

I see what you're saying, but you have no mathematical element for when you fail the 2++ save.

Again, using my example of 6 wounds above, there is a 33% chance of taking either 5 or 6 wounds and dying outright with the shadow field, while the chances of failing 5 or 6 4++ saves and dying outright are about 5%.


So if you're ever dealt 6 wounds at once, you're nearly 7 times as likely to die from it than if you just have a 4++. This sounds crazy until you factor in that if you ever fail the 2++, there are no subsequent rolls. It just stops, and everything else just pours through.

How many Ssylth are people running with their Archons?

Huskblade's str 3 isn't as bad as it seems this edition, in general the agoniser is better for killing tact squads but huskblade performs a bit better against characters and vehicles.

The Pan Eldar thing is definately taking some getting used to, having options to take a troop master or some craftworld scum as an HQ opens a lot of options. As for Drukhari HQ options the Sslyth + blaster is the main reason to use an archon for me.

@Seshiru, your signature sums up my stance on shadowfields perfectly, thank you

I've yet to try the husk blade, but I see where you're coming from with the str 3, I've noticed the same thing with wyches. Not as debilitating as it first seems.

sekac wrote:

I see what you're saying, but you have no mathematical element for when you fail the 2++ save.

Again, using my example of 6 wounds above, there is a 33% chance of taking either 5 or 6 wounds and dying outright with the shadow field, while the chances of failing 5 or 6 4++ saves and dying outright are about 5%.


So if you're ever dealt 6 wounds at once, you're nearly 7 times as likely to die from it than if you just have a 4++. This sounds crazy until you factor in that if you ever fail the 2++, there are no subsequent rolls. It just stops, and everything else just pours through.

I do account for the possibility of failure on 1st roll. SF consistency becomes ultimate at that point as it is simply gone.

But I wanted to point out that that averaging of yours 4++ is far less likely to happen, than a non-average 2++ saving of more than 6 wounds. SF is a trolling mechanism where the enemy knows that he can waste huge amounts of firepower to no effect, while with 4++ he can safely assume that he will get the desired result with far greater probability.

aurynn wrote:

But I wanted to point out that that averaging of yours 4++ is far less likely to happen, than a non-average 2++ saving of more than 6 wounds. SF is a trolling mechanism where the enemy knows that he can waste huge amounts of firepower to no effect, while with 4++ he can safely assume that he will get the desired result with far greater probability.

Here you say it yourself.
The SF might save a lot, so it is inconsitent, both for you and your opponent.
The 4+ he can assume he wil get a certain result with a certain probability.


Both have their advantages and disadvantages. And make that people need to take a different approach in how to kill him.

Shooting multiwound weapons at the archon, the SF will likely lead to more survivability.
Shooting small arms fire at the archon, the SF will be more likely to die early.

Main issue with SF is that if people shoot crap shots at it till it fails then some multiwound weapons they pop the archon reliably.
With a 4+ he might be more wounded a bit more initially, but after that I still have a chance to bounce those high wound weapons.

|Meavar wrote:

aurynn wrote:

But I wanted to point out that that averaging of yours 4++ is far less likely to happen, than a non-average 2++ saving of more than 6 wounds. SF is a trolling mechanism where the enemy knows that he can waste huge amounts of firepower to no effect, while with 4++ he can safely assume that he will get the desired result with far greater probability.

Here you say it yourself.
The SF might save a lot, so it is inconsitent, both for you and your opponent.
The 4+ he can assume he wil get a certain result with a certain probability.


Both have their advantages and disadvantages. And make that people need to take a different approach in how to kill him.

Shooting multiwound weapons at the archon, the SF will likely lead to more survivability.
Shooting small arms fire at the archon, the SF will be more likely to die early.

Main issue with SF is that if people shoot crap shots at it till it fails then some multiwound weapons they pop the archon reliably.
With a 4+ he might be more wounded a bit more initially, but after that I still have a chance to bounce those high wound weapons.

I am talking mathematical consistency. I understand why you think SF inconsistent, but from mathematical POV its not. Thats why I said we have different POV with sekac. I am even pretty sure that if you considered consistent output over the course of 100 battles with random enemies and players, you'd find SF perform much better even outside pure math and including variables like target preferrence and subjectivity of players.

And as you say - Vs high damage weapons - SF is better. Vs Volume fire - its about the same as you will probably face some overkill shooting anyway. So why again is 4++ better if it is better or the same in both categories?

EDIT: I will say it again - math IS a bad way to calculate "bestness" of stuff in a game where things like target preferrence and immediate threat and shifting objectives play a great role in decision making. Including what to shoot. But even in that regard, maybe especially in that regard I find SF much more preferrable.