Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I don't play legion but just looking at the archangels stats it doesn't look like it deserves all the wailing generated on the PP boards after it came out, neither did the konquest. I mean, a speed 6 collosal with 3 melee attacks and between 2-4 aoe 3 shooting attacks, and that's bad? Legion does have awesome normal heavy beasts so I guess it may have seemed a little lack lustre. Konquest gets 1 aoe 4 and some nipple guns , seems ok in my book.

The archangel's failing is not in it's stats. The animus is simply awful and pulls down the model's utility greatly. It gets put down too often but the faction didn't need what it brought them. In time the archangel and mountain king will both find their places in their factions, but for now people will shun tools that solve problems they don't need to solve.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Grundz wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

What part of "I one rounded half of a Arcane Shielded Stormwall with shooting from the Archangel (and a little help from the BFS)" did you miss on my original post?

I don't plan to change your minds on the Archangel, internet opinion when it comes to WMH doesn't count for much, this game fortunately isn't like 40k where you grab a net list and start winning tournaments, and for my play style and for my meta the Archangel gets the job done. And what's better, it gets the job done while it is looking cool!

The part where you weren't playing against ehaley who arcane shielded, decelerated on the first turn, under feat you weren't able to use the BFS first since their kiss range is FAR under what her feat should be able to deliver, and then delivered the bonded, movement increased stormwall to mellee with his slowed ~16" or so threat range

So, your opponent was likely bad, your dice were on fire, or it was a situation that doesn't really happen in regular game play.
Hopping into a thread and saying "well this one time I rolled 30 6's in a row and killed a colossal with a squad of archers" isn't relevant to the conversation, which I'm assuming is the whole reason you're posting anyway. Saying you killed a stormwall with 1d3+1 pow 14 shots, then saying that 7 pow17's cant do the job, is moronic, go away.

So because I didn't do it against one specific caster then it doesn't count? Are you trolling? Your argument for if a Colossal is good or bad boils down to can it kill a SW under eHaley's feat?

3x boosted POW 19 shots vs ARM 19 = 30 boxes, Stormwall has 28 boxes on each side. Try some math some time, you might like it.

Deceleration doesn't matter just like Arcane Shield doesn't matter because the Naga takes care of it. Yes, I assume I'll have severe difficulties handling the Epic Haley + Stormwall matchup with this list on some scenarios, that doesn't make the Archangel good or bad, it just makes it a bad matchup.

Anyway, this is my last reply to you, feel free to continue to live in your little world where every Colossal that isn't SW with eHaley is bad and should never, under any circumstances, be used...

Seraph does about the same for 8 points while being more useful

I looked at the mountain king stats and said no. Its going to be hit by everything, only has slightly better armor than other trolls, and not much more hp. And its 20 flippin points!!!! Id rather bring Mulg backed by an Axer for his animus.
But the mntking is such a cool model...so sad

 Elemental wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
[
Bad matchups don't mean that the Archangel is bad. It provides Legion with a concentrated high-damage output package, both in mellee and at range that we don't have and is a legitimate choice under some of our Warlocks at least (pLylyth, 3lyth, pThags, Absylonia).

The awkward thing about the Archangel is that much of Legion's mobility relies on place effects or out of action movements, both of which the Archangel is immune to. It's decent with the handful of warlocks who can give it something else.

That, and the animus is competing with the Feral Warpwolf for worst in the game. Enemies who end their activations within 2" of you will catch fire....which will take another round before it actually has a 2/3 chance of dealing damage.

The AA's animus, and the fact that a lot of what the AA can do can be accomplished (albeit to a slightly, and I mean very slightly, lesser degree) with fewer points spread across 1-2 warbeasts (e.g. Carnivean and Seraph, for example) while having access to a wider pool of fury, far better animi, and the ability to spread out the beatings in the event that there is no hard target requiring a combined assault from two beasts are all reasons why I just can't bring myself to run the Archangel. I love the model itself, but I think that in all but a small handful of cases it is more of a liability than it is a benefit.

Although now that I'm thinking on it, I suppose that if you had your 'lock cast the animus as a defensive measure against lightly armored infantry spam, it may be of some limited use as a deterrent.

Would you rather have righteous flames on a warlock or spiny growth or tenacity?

 grayshadow87 wrote:

Although now that I'm thinking on it, I suppose that if you had your 'lock cast the animus as a defensive measure against lightly armored infantry spam, it may be of some limited use as a deterrent.

Well how would it really be that solid of a deterrent if the infantry are likely to kill you? I mean yeah it'll stop someone jamming a warlock with lightly armoured infantry but...how often does that happen to you? Because when infantry tends to reach my caster in any sort of numbers, then its usually game (that may be because they are often Banes though...), and that's what my opponent has been planning. Sure, it'll stop that one model which runs up to force your warlock to deal with it before moving and what not, but that's not really worth it

edit: wait no it won't even stop that, because they'd run in and annoy the warlock, get set on fire, then your warlock would still have to take a free strike/deal with the model/get another unit/beast to handle the model before getting to move on, THEN finally in their turn they'd see if the fire goes out, and if it doesn't then see if it kills them.

I've got to weigh in here, I just think spiny growth is superior in every conceivable way as a defensive animus. It can actually prevent your caster from taking damage if you have a situation where infantry have few damage boxes but multiple attacks (don't play that much so I have no idea how common that is).

With the whole 2 inch radius I can't even see the "you are on fire" animus being good for zone control, since I'm guessing there's much better ways in that faction to say "you are not going in this ~3" circle"

Spiny Growth only damages Warjacks and Warbeasts when they attack though I believe, not Infantry. Still a lot better than that fire Animus though.

You know, I really should do stuff like "play games" and "know the rules" before I start giving tactics advice...it might help.

 dementedwombat wrote:
You know, I really should do stuff like "play games" and "know the rules" before I start giving tactics advice...it might help.

Eh. Knowledge is overrated.

I blame the fact I am lodged in China for 6 weeks. It will look good in a resume when I graduate, but it sure is putting a serious cramp in my gaming/hobby schedule!

 malfred wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:
You know, I really should do stuff like "play games" and "know the rules" before I start giving tactics advice...it might help.

Eh. Knowledge is overrated.

I never let my own ignorace stop me from posting

The Kraken and Galleon are tied in coolness points imo, I would use either one.

Whoa now folks, nobody said anything about Righteous Flames actually being an effective deterrent (hence my use of the phrase "limited"). The only way I can see it ever being effective is if you are playing an opponent who can't grasp that sometimes losses are necessary to win the game.

If we're going to talk effective animi for defense then of course I'm going to be reaching for shredders, Carniveans, and their ilk.

I doubt that anyone could argue that Draconic Aura is even remotely useful.

If it had a 6" RNG and was model / unit then maybe it could see some use being cast on a tarpit unit, but as it stands I can't see any reason to cast it over Tenacity or Spiny Growth.

I'd have to say that colossals have a distinct advantage over their gargantuan counterparts. Fury wants multiple beasts as redundant sources for leaching. Focus needs to get the biggest bang for it's buck on a jack. As such, a gargantuan is taking up at least 2 heavies worth of points for half of the fury, but a colossal is often taking the role of two heavies with the focus requirement of half of that. Some factions can lessen the impact of this with lesser warbeasts for cheap alternative fury, but many factions can run multitudes of their beasts with amazing support and fury manipulation abilities surpassing the benefit of a gargantuan. Colossals just alleviate focus management problems and reduce support requirements.

That all said, they're big targets in more than one way. They don't need too much to tear down if you're not careful. I nearly killed my first col/garg I fought against with one pissed off fully buffed crusader under pSevy. I had to use my revenger to finish it with another whack or two. I killed it with around half of it's points worth of models and some decent rolls. They present a very focused presence upon the board. I think if they were a point or two less in certain cases (not the freaking stormwall) they would be hard to not include, but their high price point in and out of game keeps them in a comfortable position.

 grayshadow87 wrote:
Whoa now folks, nobody said anything about Righteous Flames actually being an effective deterrent (hence my use of the phrase "limited"). The only way I can see it ever being effective is if you are playing an opponent who can't grasp that sometimes losses are necessary to win the game.

If we're going to talk effective animi for defense then of course I'm going to be reaching for shredders, Carniveans, and their ilk.

Yeah. Righteous Flames is cute on eFeora because of her feat, the fire is a resource during her turn if the enemy botches their attempt at killing her. On anyone else it will often literally do nothing, if they get their model within 2" of something subjective to that effect, they're probably going to be dead before their start of my opponents next turn.