Why would you ever take an archon?

The reason is because a smart opponent will use the right tool for the job.
Shooting a unit of lasguns (20 shots) means 5 wounds: 40% to have survived with a SF intactand no wounds, 17% chance to have died. Enemy now shoots heavy guns at it in case he still lives or more lasguns if he still has a SF.
With a 4++ it has just 3% chance to have died (also just 3% chance to have survived unscathed)
And any multiwound weapons now will need nearly twice as many shots (nearly since it is more likely that you suffered an extra wound).
So it depends. If you want your archon to live past some regular shooting/fighting the 4++ is better. Since there is less chance to have died from oppertunistic shooting.
If the enemy wants to kill your archon at all cost the 2+ is better since there is a larger chance to survive.

I do not understand how you can say that 4++ is less likely to die from opportunistic shooting. You are still using averages in very very low number of trials. It does not work like that in reality. Dice do not count averages. Its still only 50% chance to save each and every wound. All it takes is a slight positive irregularity in the enemy's rolls of those 20+ dice to hit and wound and the 4++ is for naught. SF is much better equipped to deal with that. See my point?

50% chance is LOW chance. Srsly it is. 66% is still unreliable. Thats why there are armies built around rerolls of 3+ hits. Because 66% is unreliable.

|Meavar wrote:

The reason is because a smart opponent will use the right tool for the job.
Shooting a unit of lasguns (20 shots) means 5 wounds: 40% to have survived with a SF intactand no wounds, 17% chance to have died. Enemy now shoots heavy guns at it in case he still lives or more lasguns if he still has a SF.
With a 4++ it has just 3% chance to have died (also just 3% chance to have survived unscathed)
And any multiwound weapons now will need nearly twice as many shots (nearly since it is more likely that you suffered an extra wound).
So it depends. If you want your archon to live past some regular shooting/fighting the 4++ is better. Since there is less chance to have died from oppertunistic shooting.
If the enemy wants to kill your archon at all cost the 2+ is better since there is a larger chance to survive.

Well if a opponent could shoot 10 lasgun and heavy weapon at your archon then you have a very bad positioning and its not the Sf the problem then

I am unsure how much things you still have at the table near the end game.
But in a close game it happens that by the end of turn 4/5 nearly everything is dead. Then a lone archon, or archon with bubblewrap than can be killed in 1 turn happens. Or replace the lasguns with about half that in sniper shots. Or about 10-12 melee attacks if you want him to do something you can bet that at the end you cannot keep him completely safe.
My experience is that the first 2 or 3 turns you are completely safe with characters. But after that i killed enough ork chars to know that there is no way they can keep them safe.

@Aurynn Yes a 67% is unreliable. The problem is I don't like my odds of having a 69% chance to survive 24 lasgun shots. Your opponent might not shoot at him because he will probably fail, but as soon as things go bad for them enemies are going to take bigger risks. and then that will cost me my archon 1 in 3 games instead of 1 in 8.

And then you come to the point, I am trying to make.
Will my opponent take a gamble and try to kill my archon (shadowfield is bad). He shoots a bunch of shots in the hope I fail my first or second save. Might be possible because I cannot protect my archon the whole game.

Or will my opponent focus on killing my archon (shadowfield is good). nearly only happens when I will be losing.

So yes you are right a 66% chance is unreliable: but this goes both for a 66% chance to survive as well as a 66% to kill something. The more chance of winning you have the less risk you want to take. Thus I prefer something I can estimate aproximately how much he can survive over something that might die to a few shots and might survive extreem punishment. For if it must survive extreem punishment I have already lost the game anyway.

Heh. Your experience varies greatly from mine.
Even opponents.

If I take Succubus, she dies every battle. If I take melee Archon, he dies maybe half the time.

To each his own then. Cheers.

aurynn wrote:

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?

It isn't about the same though. Like I said before, if you take 6 wounds at once, you are SEVEN times more likely to die from that with a SF than with a 4++.

There's nothing even remotely "about the same" there. Factoring in "probably some overkill" doesn't allow us to round 33% down to 5%.

I'm certainly not a slave to math in my decision making, and I take your point about target priority etc., but you can't use math to support aspects of your argument and dismiss it when it disagrees.

With regard to the Archon, I find him somewhat functional but completely lacking in flavour and worthless as a force-multiplier.

Given that the Archon's aura might as well not exist, I think I'd prefer to take an Autarch. He has access to a much better range of weapons and can outclass the Archon at both shooting and melee. What's more, with access to a Jetbike and Wings, he's not stuck riding in a transport and can instead travel with Scourges, Beasts or whatever.

Granted, he's a bit more expensive than the Archon (especially if you tool him up), but I'd much rather pay the extra and have a useful HQ than pick one for the bargain bucket and get exactly what I paid for.


With regard to the Shadowfield vs. 4++ debate, I'm leaning towards the 4++ side. Especially since the Shadowfield still has no way to recharge once lost (I wish it would replenish if you went an entire turn without taking further damage or something). I've never been fond of my HQ losing his save for the rest of the game - and with the removal of ID, this seems like the worst possible edition for that mechanic.

If nothing else though, I'd like to at least have the choice about whether to take a Shadowfield or 2++ on my Archon.

The Shredder wrote:

If nothing else though, I'd like to at least have the choice about whether to take a Shadowfield or 2++ on my Archon.

Well it was possible in V5, and nobody used it

Has anyone tried the Huskblade or is it agoniser all the way for the archon?

A lot of people used the Shadowfield.  I'd almost go so far as to say 'most.'

Some people definitely swore by the 4++ even then, but that didn't seem to be the majority view.  It certainly wasn't a unanimous (or near unanimous) opinion.

Jimsolo wrote:

A lot of people used the Shadowfield.  I'd almost go so far as to say 'most.'

Some people definitely swore by the 4++ even then, but that didn't seem to be the majority view.  It certainly wasn't a unanimous (or near unanimous) opinion.

Well my sentence was not clear, i was meaning people didn't use the 4++ in V5

Quauchtemoc wrote:

The Shredder wrote:

If nothing else though, I'd like to at least have the choice about whether to take a Shadowfield or 2++ on my Archon.

Well it was possible in V5, and nobody used it

I don't know what "V5" is. If you're referring to the 5th edition book, the 4++ was never an option. Instead, Clone Field only worked in combat and prevented 1d3 hits on the Archon (IIRC).

In 7th edition, I often used the 4++ because it was half the points of the Shadowfield and my Archon was generally relying on bodyguards for protection anyway.

Hell, I saw many people running him with neither - just using him to get an extra Venom on the board and hoping his didn't get shot down.

The Shredder wrote:

Quauchtemoc wrote:

The Shredder wrote:

If nothing else though, I'd like to at least have the choice about whether to take a Shadowfield or 2++ on my Archon.

Well it was possible in V5, and nobody used it

I don't know what "V5" is. If you're referring to the 5th edition book, the 4++ was never an option. Instead, Clone Field only worked in combat and prevented 1d3 hits on the Archon (IIRC).

In 7th edition, I often used the 4++ because it was half the points of the Shadowfield and my Archon was generally relying on bodyguards for protection anyway.

Hell, I saw many people running him with neither - just using him to get an extra Venom on the board and hoping his didn't get shot down.

My bad then i thougth the Clone Field was a 4++ in the 5th

Dread Serpent wrote:

Has anyone tried the Huskblade or is it agoniser all the way for the archon?

I've not had occasion to get my Archon into CC. From what I can tell, both have their merits, and will likely both have their supporters.

Quauchtemoc wrote:

The Shredder wrote:

Quauchtemoc wrote:

The Shredder wrote:

If nothing else though, I'd like to at least have the choice about whether to take a Shadowfield or 2++ on my Archon.

Well it was possible in V5, and nobody used it

I don't know what "V5" is. If you're referring to the 5th edition book, the 4++ was never an option. Instead, Clone Field only worked in combat and prevented 1d3 hits on the Archon (IIRC).

In 7th edition, I often used the 4++ because it was half the points of the Shadowfield and my Archon was generally relying on bodyguards for protection anyway.

Hell, I saw many people running him with neither - just using him to get an extra Venom on the board and hoping his didn't get shot down.

My bad then i thougth the Clone Field was a 4++ in the 5th

No worries. Honestly, if it could protect against shooting as well, I'd have probably taken the Clone Field over the Shadowfield in 5th. Especially since the Archon could also buy Ghostplate Armour for a 4+/6+ save.

Jimsolo wrote:

Dread Serpent wrote:

Has anyone tried the Huskblade or is it agoniser all the way for the archon?

I've not had occasion to get my Archon into CC.  From what I can tell, both have their merits, and will likely both have their supporters.

I think the Agoniser is better, if only on the merit that it's less than half the cost of the Huskblade.

I really want to like the Huskblade, but I swear GW does their best to make it worse every successive edition. And it wasn't even an outstanding weapon to begin with.

The Shredder wrote:

I think the Agoniser is better, if only on the merit that it's less than half the cost of the Huskblade.

I really want to like the Huskblade, but I swear GW does their best to make it worse every successive edition. And it wasn't even an outstanding weapon to begin with.

Yeah, a slightly worse power sword for 2.5 the cost isn't exactly bargain of the century! At the very least it needs the Witchblade rule of wounding anything on a 2+ to make it worthwhile.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Yeah, a slightly worse power sword for 2.5 the cost isn't exactly bargain of the century!

Well, worse AP (for no good reason whatsoever) but better damage. I mean, it's not quite as bad as the Corsair Voidblade - which is now literally a power sword that costs 2.5 times as much.

I think the real issue though is that it's still S3 and we lost the Soul Trap.

The Shredder wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

Yeah, a slightly worse power sword for 2.5 the cost isn't exactly bargain of the century!

Well, worse AP (for no good reason whatsoever) but better damage. I mean, it's not quite as bad as the Corsair Voidblade - which is now literally a power sword that costs 2.5 times as much.

I think the real issue though is that it's still S3 and we lost the Soul Trap.

Well i would prefer by far a D6 Damage Ap -4 dustblade at a big cost with the soul trap. The combo was not strong but when you suceeded it it was awesome

If GW gives us back the Soul Trap option to increase the Archon's strength then it might be worth taking but as it is you can get similar or better combat results by paying 6 points less than the Huskblade!

Perhaps instead of d6 damage it should do a straight 3, but just 1 to vehicles?

But yeah, a Huskblade along those lines would be nice.

My main issue with the huskblade is you cannot wound stuff.
Those it could be arguably better then the agonizer (needing a 5+ and dealing 2 wounds is slightly better then needing a 4+ and dealing 1 wound). Against regular stuff 1W it is worse (needing a 5+ or needing a 4+) and most things with multiple wounds also kill archons to fast to want to fight them.
But jeah for 2.5 times the cost it is a no brainer to go for the agonizer.
(only d3 not d6 wounds)

sekac wrote:

aurynn wrote:

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?

It isn't about the same though. Like I said before, if you take 6 wounds at once, you are SEVEN times more likely to die from that with a SF than with a 4++.

There's nothing even remotely "about the same" there. Factoring in "probably some overkill" doesn't allow us to round 33% down to 5%.

I'm certainly not a slave to math in my decision making, and I take your point about target priority etc., but you can't use math to support aspects of your argument and dismiss it when it disagrees.

Well we were debating probabilities. Thats why I resorted to math. I was trying to point out that in reality anything that has 50% of success in an environment of 5 maximum failures will be worse than SF mechanic even if averages say otherwise. Example... you fail a 4++ and take 1W. There is not a better chance for you to save another just because it "should average out". Next save you have again 50% chance of failure. If you fail the second one, again there is not a higher chance to save the next one. Still 50% chance of failure. My point was that 4++ is not more reliable even though average numbers say otherwise. 2++ even with its one-fail mechanic has better probability to save first and any subsequent wound. You are relating results of rolls to statistical averages, which do not happen.

As for the real toughness - 20 Conscripts with hot-shots will kill the archon quite reliably with SF or 4++. Thats why I was talking of overkill. The volume of fire sent agains the archon would in my experience kill him with both saves much more likely than not. The enemy won't just dedicate less. Why should he take the chance?

And arriving to that point in any mathhammering, I usually say to myself "meh, stop mathhammering and go get a game and some practical experience".

If I might put on my well-worn Hat of Pedantry for a moment, Conscripts can't take hot-shot anything.

The Shredder wrote:

If I might put on my well-worn Hat of Pedantry for a moment, Conscripts can't take hot-shot anything.

I didnt mean hotshots damn. Editing.

Count Adhemar wrote:

The Shredder wrote:

I think the Agoniser is better, if only on the merit that it's less than half the cost of the Huskblade.

I really want to like the Huskblade, but I swear GW does their best to make it worse every successive edition. And it wasn't even an outstanding weapon to begin with.

Yeah, a slightly worse power sword for 2.5 the cost isn't exactly bargain of the century! At the very least it needs the Witchblade rule of wounding anything on a 2+ to make it worthwhile.

I felt this way at first, but against multi-wound models the huskblade is slightly better than the power sword and agoniser.

The agoniser is a better deal (unless you are going power levels and all upgrades are free) and is better against MEQ squads so probably better in most scenarios but not all.

I do hope that when we get our codex there will be a nice relic weapon for our Archons to take but our Archons haven't been amazing in close combat for a very long time and I'm pretty sure they will never be anywhere near as good as they once were.