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 have a love-hate relationship with the Archon's shadowfield, and I'm probably not the only one. With a non-rerollable 2+ invulnerable save that is lost in the event of failure, it's very all-or-nothing. I've seen Archons fail it on the first try and find themselves essentially naked, just as I've seen Archons weather insane amounts of damage without a scratch. It would be easy to just replace it with a more reliable 4+ invulnerable save, but I feel it would take away from the Archon's uniqueness, since just about every character and their mother-in-law has a 4++.

Here is what I propose in order to both increase reliability while preserving uniqueness:

This model has a 3+ invulnerable save. On an unmodified saving throw of 1, this model suffers a mortal wound in addition to any other damage.

In-story, the justification could be that the technology can overload and hurt its wearer. Or perhaps it's powered by captured souls that have the opportunity to lash back at their master.


.

I don't think it needs changing personally, yes it can fail on your first try, but what else has a constant 2++ save combined with Character protection?

I understand the issue with failing one at first and then it's a whole issue. Perhaps randumb to roll a D6 and on X value it starts up again. Even easier would be it stays offline for one turn after the failure and then it starts working again

I've considered several alternatives to the Archon's Shadowfield, so I'll just leave them here:

1) The Archon has a 5+ Invulnerable Save. In addition, subtract 1 from hit rolls that target this unit.

This is what similar effects do for both Mandrakes and Venoms, so it seems logical that they would do the same for the Archon.


2a) The Archon has a 2+ Invulnerable Save. The first time this save is failed, it becomes a 5+ Invulnerable Save for the remainder of the game.

(Same as what we have now, except that the Archon is left with a measure of protection when the Shadowfield fails.)


2b) The Archon has a 5+ Invulnerable Save. In addition, the Archon has a 2+ Invulnerable Save but if this save is ever failed it is lost for the remainder of the game.

(Another variant - this time the Archon has a 5++ from the start, so he can choose between the safe-but-weak 5++ or the strong-but-lost-if-failed 2++ rather than having to use the latter until it fails.)


2c) The Archon has a 2+ Invulnerable Save. If this save is ever failed, it is immediately lost for the remainder of the turn.

(Final variant - the Archon regains his save at the end of turn after losing it.)


4) The Archon has a 5+ Invulnerable Save. Once per game, after the Archon has been wounded but before any saves are rolled, he may overcharge his Shadowfield. The Archon's Invulnerable Save becomes 2+ until the end of turn. However, at the end of the turn in which this is used, the Archon loses his Invulnerable Save for the remainder of the game.

(This one is almost the opposite of the current Shadowfield - it starts off reliable but you can choose to supercharge it for a turn, though after that turn you're guaranteed to lose it entirely).


My favourites are #1 or #2a/b, but I thought I'd include the others for the sake of completeness.

 Valkyrie wrote:
I don't think it needs changing personally, yes it can fail on your first try, but what else has a constant 2++ save combined with Character protection?

How is it "constant" if it's lost entirely the first time it's failed?

 vipoid wrote:

2c) The Archon has a 2+ Invulnerable Save. If this save is ever failed, it is immediately lost for the remainder of the turn.
(Final variant - the Archon regains his save at the end of turn after losing it.)

That sounds ridiculously powerful

Yazima wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

2c) The Archon has a 2+ Invulnerable Save. If this save is ever failed, it is immediately lost for the remainder of the turn.
(Final variant - the Archon regains his save at the end of turn after losing it.)

That sounds ridiculously powerful

How you figure? A T3 model needs 6 hits on it to fail, and then it would be focus fired.

Well it used to be an option, you either took Shadowfield or with a armor upgrade.

For those that don't know the Clonefield was a armor upgrade that made you basic have holographic clones, the rule was you rolled a D3 in combat, and before any to wound rolls were made, you picked the D3 amount and ignore those wound roles (You took them out of the pool basically). So if they had a powerfist, hit 3 times, and you rolled a 3, well you ignored those 3 powerfist attacks. The Armor wasnt to good tho, 4+/6++.

It truly was a good option for those that didn't like shadowfields, and it came out to the same points.

Tho GW hated the idea that DE had flavor and removed 90% of it over 6th-8th edition.

It would certainly be nice to have more than one option for protection. Maybe a reliable option and a high risk/high-reward option. Or options for different possible uses of your Archons (for example, a 5++ that increases to 3++ after your melee-optimized Archon has taken a model out of action in melee; but if your Archon is just a buff provider or objective sitter, you get something else like a flat 4++ or the aforementioned -1 to hit and 5++).

I like the concept of the clonefield. Very flavorful. However, it strikes me as more of a Haemonculus thing than an Archon thing.

.

-Guardsman- wrote:
It would certainly be nice to have more than one option for protection. Maybe a reliable option and a high risk/high-reward option. Or options for different possible uses of your Archons (for example, a 5++ that increases to 3++ after your melee-optimized Archon has taken a model out of action in melee; but if your Archon is just a buff provider or objective sitter, you get something else like a flat 4++ or the aforementioned -1 to hit and 5++).

I like the concept of the clonefield. Very flavorful. However, it strikes me as more of a Haemonculus thing than an Archon thing.

.

Nah it for sure is a Archon thing Coven buff themselves where Kabals use other means to mitigate the damage.

-Guardsman- wrote:
It would certainly be nice to have more than one option for protection. Maybe a reliable option and a high risk/high-reward option.

Yeah, I wouldn't mind the Shadowfield as much if it wasn't our only option.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Nah it for sure is a Archon thing Coven buff themselves where Kabals use other means to mitigate the damage.

Just a point but Urien Rakarth uses a Clone Field.

When I started playing Dark Eldar (in high school, before my 10-year hiatus from the hobby), the shadowfield was the then-equivalent of an artifact (optional, one per army). Now it has become standard, and there is a Kabal of the Flayed Skull artifact giving you a 4++ after you lose your shadowfield. Maybe the 4++ should be standard (or 5++ with -1 to hit as vipoid suggested) while the shadowfield goes back to being a one-per-army artifact.

At the very least, if they keep the 2++ that you lose if failed, Archons should get ghostplate armor just like Scourges: 4+ armor with 6++. Hardly great, but better than nothing. Did they used to have it? I can find at least a couple of sources mentioning that Archons sometimes wear it, even though their 8th Edition datasheet only has the puny, standard 5+ armor.

.

 vipoid wrote:

-Guardsman- wrote:
It would certainly be nice to have more than one option for protection. Maybe a reliable option and a high risk/high-reward option.

Yeah, I wouldn't mind the Shadowfield as much if it wasn't our only option.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Nah it for sure is a Archon thing Coven buff themselves where Kabals use other means to mitigate the damage.

Just a point but Urien Rakarth uses a Clone Field.

While true, it still was more of an Archon thing for sure, Vect, Baron, Duke, etc.. all had it too, and the Haemonculus couldn't get it.

Now i'm sad, i miss the Baron a lot


Automatically Appended Next Post:

-Guardsman- wrote:
When I started playing Dark Eldar (in high school, before my 10-year hiatus from the hobby), the shadowfield was the then-equivalent of an artifact (optional, one per army). Now it has become standard, and there is a Kabal of the Flayed Skull artifact giving you a 4++ after you lose your shadowfield. Maybe the 4++ should be standard (or 5++ with -1 to hit as vipoid suggested) while the shadowfield goes back to being a one-per-army artifact.

At the very least, if they keep the 2++ that you lose if failed, Archons should get ghostplate armor just like Scourges: 4+ armor with 6++. Hardly great, but better than nothing. Did they used to have it? I can find at least a couple of sources mentioning that Archons sometimes wear it, even though their 8th Edition datasheet only has the puny, standard 5+ armor.

.

Yes, most players did buy the 4+/6+++ armor for them back in the day along with either a Shadowfield or a Clonefield. Also some of the other named characters had a Shadowfield, or a clonefield along with the Ghostplate armor too.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yazima wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

2c) The Archon has a 2+ Invulnerable Save. If this save is ever failed, it is immediately lost for the remainder of the turn.
(Final variant - the Archon regains his save at the end of turn after losing it.)

That sounds ridiculously powerful

How you figure? A T3 model needs 6 hits on it to fail, and then it would be focus fired.

And how often is that "t3" model not bubble wrapped? Sniping a 2++ doesn't sound fun. You can't look at things in a vacuum when discussing balance

Who says Archons should be cheap throwaway units tho? They are suppose to be rare and powerful, at the same time very hard to kill. As many others are constantly trying for their heads. Why are they not super hard to kill?

I'd be happier with a 120pt 2++ always melee duelist.

Why does bubble wrapping have to matter? He would be like the Terminators of the older editions, lots of dice to kill them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS, If we had Darcon's, limited 1 Archon per army, that honestly would have been amazing.

Why did GW take out Darcon's? Seriously...

 Amishprn86 wrote:

While true, it still was more of an Archon thing for sure, Vect, Baron, Duke, etc.. all had it too, and the Haemonculus couldn't get it.

Oh absolutely. I just meant that the Coven clearly weren't above using such devices, even if they tended towards other defences.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

While true, it still was more of an Archon thing for sure, Vect, Baron, Duke, etc.. all had it too, and the Haemonculus couldn't get it.

Do you mean Shadowfields? If so, yeah, I don't think Coven units have ever had those.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Yes, most players did buy the 4+/6+++ armor for them back in the day along with either a Shadowfield or a Clonefield. Also some of the other named characters had a Shadowfield, or a clonefield along with the Ghostplate armor too.

Indeed. Ghostplate Armour meant you at least had some defence for when your Shadowfield failed. It's more than a little annoying that Archons can no longer take it at all.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Who says Archons should be cheap throwaway units tho? They are suppose to be rare and powerful, at the same time very hard to kill. As many others are constantly trying for their heads. Why are they not super hard to kill?

I'd be happier with a 120pt 2++ always melee duelist.

I agree that Archons should be expensive and formidable, rather than cheap and useless.

However, I'd still lean towards a mechanic other than the 2++. Maybe a 4++ with -1 to hit or a 5++ with -2 to hit? Not that a 2++ would necessarily be overpowered on an Archon, I just don't think it's a fun mechanic.


[quote=Amishprn86 786926 10759308 e72bdf2c79f8bc7ad8a6f3599a257cc7.jpg
PS, If we had Darcon's, limited 1 Archon per army, that honestly would have been amazing.

That is a very good idea, upgraded Archon as a stratagem.

Storm shields give a 3++ with no downsides, so I don't see why the archon would need one.


Another option is this:

When an archon rolls a 1 on their saves, they lose the save until the beginning of their next turn in which it regenerates at 1 pt lower than previously. So next turn 2++ becomes 3++ and so on.

That might be to much book keeping TBH.

I'm not sure we really need any special rules for the shadowfield this edition. A 3+ invul (especially one that allows CP rerolls) would leave the archon pretty durable and would be much less of a feelbad rule than a 2+ invul that either renders you untouchable all game or else fails you on the first save.

Other than tradition, is there a reason to give the shadowfield a rule beyond some sort of invul save? It sort of matched our "arrogant glass cannon" thing back when archons could be pumped up enough to be major melee threats. These days, a generic smash captain is quite a bit more lethal than we are, so the shadowfield doesn't really recapture the old glory. At least, not for me.

Just to throw out another suggestion, what if we basically just used the 7th edition rules? That is, make it a 2+ save that goes away *at the end of the phase* when you fail it? The removal of the IC rule means we can't use it to tank for squads any more, and not having to roll our saves one at a time would be nice. That was one of the few things the 7th edition codex got right.

Perhaps a burned out shadowfield could be restored at the start of a drukhari turn by spending CP. If you wanted to get fancy, add a clause saying that the shield only regenerates on a 4+, and that you only pay the CP cost if it regenerates.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
That is a very good idea, upgraded Archon as a stratagem.

I'm available for hire if GW would like me to write the next DE book.

Wyldhunt wrote:
I'm not sure we really need any special rules for the shadowfield this edition. A 3+ invul (especially one that allows CP rerolls) would leave the archon pretty durable and would be much less of a feelbad rule than a 2+ invul that either renders you untouchable all game or else fails you on the first save.

I'd agree. I think there are a few routes you could take for representing the Shadowfield but I don't think any of them really need the 'burn out' rule.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Other than tradition, is there a reason to give the shadowfield a rule beyond some sort of invul save?

No. It's just a relic of much older editions when 'normal' Invulnerable Saves were both weak and rare.

I also just don't think it's a fun mechanic. If the save is failed then it's no fun for the DE player because his Archon is now defenceless for the remainder of the game. If the save succeeds, then it's not fun for the opponent because they get to do naff-all.

I appreciate wanting to retain the flavour but I think there are better ways to do this (like having an Invulnerable save that also imposes a to-hit penalty against anything attacking the Archon). The current mechanic feels like something out of an entirely different edition. This is the age of rerolls, yet Shadowfield saves can never be rerolled by any means.

Yeah back in the day when a 4++ was really good, then you payed a lot for a character to get a 3++ was consider really good. Heck a basic 5++ was good.

Now 3++ is everywhere and a 5++ is on 90% the game at this point.

Oh, something else I wanted to mention - I think the current rules create a weird disconnect in defences between DE models.


The Archons are ostensibly the leaders of the DE and back in 5th they had access to the most reliable defences. They could purchase Ghostplate Armour for a 4+/6++ and for all its faults, the Shadowfield still provided a 2++ at all times (until failed).

Meanwhile, Succubi had 4++ saves... but only in combat. At all other times they were stuck with just a 6+ armour save. Haemonculi were T4 but they had only FNP to protect them (so against anything S8+ or anything with melee weapons that ignored armour saves, they'd get no save at all).

Now though, Succubi have a 4++ as standard (both in and out of combat), and Haemonculi are T5 with 5++ saves (which improve to 4++ in Prophets of Flesh).

Yet Archons now have no options for armour and still have a 2++ that's lost the first time its failed.

Point being, 8th seems to have flipped things such that the DE leader is actually the one with the least reliable defence. Not to mention the fact that the defences of other HQs have been improved, but the Archon's have actually gotten worse.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Other than tradition, is there a reason to give the shadowfield a rule beyond some sort of invul save?

*shrug* I like flavor. It doesn't need to be complicated, but I'd like a rule that's at least somewhat unique and reflects the Drukhari alienness and philosophy of war. We're currently in a weird, worst-of-both-worlds spot where USR's have been removed, yet rules are getting even more uniformized than when there were USR's. So what was even the point of doing away with USR's? If everything you need to know about a model's rules is supposed to be on its datasheet, might as well get fancy.

Perhaps a burned out shadowfield could be restored at the start of a drukhari turn by spending CP. If you wanted to get fancy, add a clause saying that the shield only regenerates on a 4+, and that you only pay the CP cost if it regenerates.

I like this idea, though I would make you pay the CP cost regardless of whether the invul save flickers back on. For one thing, it forces you to weigh more carefully the decision of triggering this stratagem, and for another, it's more consistent with other may-work-or-may-not stratagems like Concealed Boobytraps or Agents of Vect. I'm not aware of any current stratagems that refund your CP if they fail to work.

 vipoid wrote:
I appreciate wanting to retain the flavour but I think there are better ways to do this (like having an Invulnerable save that also imposes a to-hit penalty against anything attacking the Archon).

Or my first idea: 3++ and you take a mortal wound on a save roll of 1. Unlike a 2++ that you can lose, this requires no bookkeeping, and also allows you to roll all your saves at once.

Hit penalties are nice too, but it takes just one moment of inattention during a game (e.g. checking your codex while your opponent rolls dice) to have the all-too-familiar situation: "Wait! There was a -1 penalty to hit this Archon! Do you remember how many 3's you rolled on those 20 bolter shots? Because those would be misses."

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Yeah back in the day when a 4++ was really good, then you payed a lot for a character to get a 3++ was consider really good. Heck a basic 5++ was good.

Now 3++ is everywhere and a 5++ is on 90% the game at this point.

I will die on the hill that 3++ has become far, far too common.

4++ is still fine. That's what storm shields should be, IMO. But 3++ should be rare, and often have some kind of drawback or condition. Unconditional 3++ should be the province of relics and special characters.

.

GW completely stripped Archons and i have no idea why, its so odd to have a hero literally the purpose to be feared and able to buy anything he wants to have almost no options at all.

What it really comes down to is, GW took away more than 1/2 of DE special rules/gear over 3 books and gave us nothing in return.

Could just make it a 5++, give the Archon a Stratagem to increase it to 2++ (re-rolls allowed) at the start of a phase until the end of that phase for 2CP. It depends on whether you value the story-telling capacity of game rules to tell you how tricky Drukhari can be, I don't value it much, I'd like to see it go.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
GW completely stripped Archons and i have no idea why, its so odd to have a hero literally the purpose to be feared and able to buy anything he wants to have almost no options at all.

What it really comes down to is, GW took away more than 1/2 of DE special rules/gear over 3 books and gave us nothing in return.

As a drukhari player that started playing in 8th, it pisses me off so much to see how much we lost. So many things i complain about are things we used to have access to.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
GW completely stripped Archons and i have no idea why, its so odd to have a hero literally the purpose to be feared and able to buy anything he wants to have almost no options at all.

What it really comes down to is, GW took away more than 1/2 of DE special rules/gear over 3 books and gave us nothing in return.

As a drukhari player that started playing in 8th, it pisses me off so much to see how much we lost. So many things i complain about are things we used to have access to.

Welcome to DE! My Slaanesh never take you.

Honestly, at this point i only want 2 things for DE, let us mix and match our 3 subfactions again, and give us 1 HQ with wings/bike/skyboard option back. Thats it.

Little things like the Shadowfield not doing what it was meant to do, honestly is the result of 8th being the way it is.

Honestly you could probably just make it a 2+ invul against shooting and a 4+ invul in melee. It makes thematic sense that a shadow field is really useful against things like sniper weapons and less useful when you're actually up close.

Throw in a 1 CP stratagem to allow an archon to set up anywhere within 6” but not within 1” of an enemy model at the start of the movement phase. This does not count as a fallback move.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
GW completely stripped Archons and i have no idea why, its so odd to have a hero literally the purpose to be feared and able to buy anything he wants to have almost no options at all.

What it really comes down to is, GW took away more than 1/2 of DE special rules/gear over 3 books and gave us nothing in return.

That is a thing. In the 3rd edition book, the archon was the big scary beatstick. He had access to lots of fun toys that could make him feel unique, and the shadowfield reinforced his arrogance right up until the moment it flickered out and left him vulnerable to a proper villain death.

In the 5th edition book, he lost a lot of options, but he was the "guy with lots of cool gear options" compared to the pain token generating haemonculus support character and the extra-killy succubus. The shadowfield was just one of the many cool pieces of wargear that reinforced this niche.

In 7th, he was a webway taxi that could tank some of the enemy fire for those d-scythe wraithguard he was attached to.

Right now? He's killy enough to outshine the poor succubus, but not killy enough to compare very well against things like smash captains. He buffs like a captain, but he has to jog along outside of the transports he's buffing to do so, like some sort of sweaty, red-faced dork. My archons always perform pretty well in-game, but I struggle to define their niche outside of, "mandatory hq for kabal detachments," or, "technically the best stabby hq ignoring named characters." The shadowfield kind of feels like an artefact from a different age. And it kind of is.

tldr; I'm getting old, and I miss having wargear options.

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
Honestly you could probably just make it a 2+ invul against shooting and a 4+ invul in melee. It makes thematic sense that a shadow field is really useful against things like sniper weapons and less useful when you're actually up close.

Throw in a 1 CP stratagem to allow an archon to set up anywhere within 6” but not within 1” of an enemy model at the start of the movement phase. This does not count as a fallback move.

I like this idea.

Wyldhunt wrote:
He buffs like a captain...

Just a point but (even ignoring his anti-synergy with DE vehicles) he really doesn't buff like a Captain - for the simple reason that Captains can actually buff their entire army, not just a small portion of it.