So, after running numerous tests on the unit tester with the Archon. It pretty much dismantles anything in large quantities. The exception being the carrier, and broodlords. The topic is short, but I haven't seen a dedicated topic about the Archon so....why all the hatred towards this unit? What is it that makes the Archon so terrible?? I've used it in real game and it holds up just fine, so why is it that it's never used much at all?

Thanks.

theqat

United States2856 Posts

June 01 2010 20:45 GMT

to summarize: 100/300 for a unit with poor damage vs. non-bio that gets slowed by Marauders

oxxo

988 Posts

June 01 2010 20:46 GMT

Who knows, they might actually be good.

Same way tanks were 'bad' in the beginning, but are now 'OP'... when all that's changed is 10 hp (and slight splash change). For some reason there are people that think tanks didn't have splash in the first place.

Metagame is changing.

TheAngelofDeath

United States2033 Posts

June 01 2010 20:46 GMT

Alright, thanks man.

Whiplash

United States2928 Posts

June 01 2010 20:46 GMT

I remember someone said that archons should be considered massive. If this were the case along with the recent small buffs to archons I believe they would be a useful unit.

Denarius Jay

42 Posts

June 01 2010 20:47 GMT

Expensive, gets eaten alive to EMP, bad unit pathing, did I mention expensive?

Think of the Archon as the Zergs ultralisk, look great on paper or in small skirmishes, but generally just terrible all around...

pyr0ma5ta

United States458 Posts

June 01 2010 20:47 GMT

They cost a zillion gas, and get roflstomped by EMP?

Also, their range and size is hilaribad.

TheAngelofDeath

United States2033 Posts

June 01 2010 20:48 GMT

So wouldn't high templar castin feedback on the ghosts help solve the EMP issue?

Two_DoWn

United States13684 Posts

June 01 2010 20:49 GMT

Archons are no where near as powerful as they were in bw, so that was the initial reason people shied away from them. However, as tech builds have begun to spread away from the robo bay, more people have begun to use templar, and as their energy ran out, archons. I remember watching a stream the other night and being amazed at how well archons seemed to tank damage. For a unit made when another has passed all usefulness, it isnt as terrible as it is made out to be.

G3nXsiS

United States656 Posts

June 01 2010 20:50 GMT

#10

It attacks slow, has low HP for its cost and overall just not a very cost effective or powerful unit in terms of damage and HP. 1 EMP and its gone.

Elite00fm

United States548 Posts

June 01 2010 20:50 GMT

#11

It's not meant to be a powerful combat unit, but instead an option for when you have energy-less templars

tarsier

United Kingdom223 Posts

June 01 2010 20:50 GMT

#12

they get roflstomped by emp... because emping the same unit 4 times is made of win?

Esseim

34 Posts

June 01 2010 20:50 GMT

#13

Archons are a fairly good unit as is. Problems are: slowed by marauder so they can't get to the terran bio-ball to splash it, not good in mass combat due to large size/low range, (see ultras for further example) and the fact that 300 gas is just better spent on 1.5 collosus for AoE dmg in so many cases. Moving slower than any air unit with similar range also hurts the ability to shoot up.

GWash

United States153 Posts

June 01 2010 20:51 GMT

#14

Against Terran, it basically is invalid. Normal units can be EMP'd to about half their effective hp, but ghosts would become stupid effective against Archons if you massed them. basically an army with a few ghosts and even a single tank should not be phased even slightly by Archons. Spamming EMP to remove sheilds as you normally would results in Archons dieing to even a single bit of splash. Is the splash big enough to hit multiple hydras in a hydra ball? If so I could see minor use coming out of that.

Alou

United States3748 Posts

June 01 2010 20:51 GMT

#15

There are far better things to put gas towards than Archons. I have no incentive to ever get them.