Are shades worth it?

[pandaling]

They feel like one of thoes units that push your ♥♥♥♥ in when the AI gets them but never for you. On the same subject is it just me or are all dark elf units kind of ass?

[Gamefever]

Yes Shades are awesome.

Think about all those keeps you could just run your shades up a flank.....Scale the Wall....
Its pretty much easy win mode.

Shades have better range, damage....Do well in mellee too.

There will of course be people that will tell you to compose your army entirely out of DarkShats and DarkPoles....But thats boring isnt it, also those armies are basically early tier mass fodder approaches...It does work into mid and late game but basically you need loads of armies. Why not have a few armies where your trying out other units instead?

[Ruinae Retroque Rursus]

Shades are however twice as expensive as Darkshards and require an additional building. Furthermore, the best usage of DE missile is to shoot things; I'd much rather my Shades shoot a giant crab instead of poking it in melee (tie a crab up with infantry + shoot it = dead crab).

On that grounds, they're entirely useless. Pricier and they don't do a better job at what they want it to do.

Originally posted by pandaling:

On the same subject is it just me or are all dark elf units kind of♥♥♥♥♥

Not quite. Their killing power is in their Darkshards which really you should still have in your elite doomstack because they are absolutely ridiculous.
See this guide:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1152675932
There are very few things I disagree with in that guide; one is that I prefer Black Guard over Executioners in my lategame army, another is that reaper bolt throwers should never be used under any cirumstances, but nearly everything else is solid advice.



As for that opening line of the guide, I have run a stack which had 10 darkshards in it - and it was the most ridiculous thing I've ever used against Vampirate sea armies.

[pandaling]

I've skimmed that guide before. I love dark elves but it feels like imperial guard through the early game. Darkshards also sometimes do nothing and sometimes destroy units in seconds. Any Ideas why?

[Ruinae Retroque Rursus]

Originally posted by pandaling:

Darkshards also sometimes do nothing and sometimes destroy units in seconds. Any Ideas why?

One, shields. Two, obstruction, preventing them from firing, which comes about from all causes. Three, they are excellent against elite low HP units and truly terrible against meat shields. Fourthly, if an enemy monster is munching your front line your Darkshards can shoot it at point black - but if a monster is dueling another monster the Darkshards will complain they're obstructed. Fifthly, telling them to change targets whilst they're firing will sometimes waste the remainder of their volley and get them to reload all over again. Sixthly, you really need to outnumber the enemy or at least equal them in numbers (lightning strike is good for this).

[rlee87]

if you can support the unit upkeep for shades then yes, as it is an upgrade to darkshards. darkshards are amazing for their cost but get recked in melee by anything, (harpies, light calvary, clan rats, manticores and eagles gives them a good spanking). shades on the other hand can punish units that try to attack them, but of course that doesnt mean they can beat elite melee units. And as a last resort, if your frontline ends up routing or destroyed, you can have your shades to finish the job. Basically, having shades gives you more options in battle.

I also notice the ai seems more hesitent to attack shades compared to darkshards. I find the one with greatswords to be the best, especially when enemy heroes try to disrupt my shades. And another thing, for auto resolve shades are much better than darkshards, unless you like fighting 100% of your battles in a 250+ turn game.

However, for online battles darkshards always. never had a reason to bring shades.

[Ferreus the Umbral Arrow]

in multiplayer, Shades aren't worth the price. In campaign however, I prefer them. They have stalk and can do decent dmg in melee. So, against say Skaven who like to summon their rats on you. Shades make quick work. If enemy harrassing units like hounds or bats get on shades, they can hold their own.
What I don't understand however is why they have shades with dual weapons and shades with greatswords in the same tier when there is no reason to take the dual weapon variety. Dual weapon should be cheaper OR they should have different bonuses to make it a legit choice on what you want.

[Zane87]

Originally posted by Alith Anar (The Shadow King):

in multiplayer, Shades aren't worth the price. In campaign however, I prefer them. They have stalk and can do decent dmg in melee. So, against say Skaven who like to summon their rats on you. Shades make quick work. If enemy harrassing units like hounds or bats get on shades, they can hold their own.
What I don't understand however is why they have shades with dual weapons and shades with greatswords in the same tier when there is no reason to take the dual weapon variety. Dual weapon should be cheaper OR they should have different bonuses to make it a legit choice on what you want.

They do have different bonuses.

Great weapons are not specialised against infantry but have armour piercing.

Dual weapons lack the AP but get bonus against infantry.


Since both are not really suited fighting large foes (Great Weapons still have an edge their), you could see dual weapons as very good against low tier infantry and Great weapons good against high tier infantry.


Also @OP I too find Shades amazing.
They are imo much better then Darkshards (which, yes, are really good already).

The ability to not suck in melee and their stalk make them the perfect flankers/ambushers.

Got a strong army with artillery? Draw your army back and leave a shade at the front, stealth around the enemy and boom, artillery deleted. And since they can hold their own you are not even sacrificing them.


You can make shootout ambushes.
Main line is drawn back and all your shades are lined up on the flanks with hold fire. Once all shades can shoot, allow fire and they rekt everything in their range.


You can take over the enemy city in sieges with them easily, let them mount the wall, then line up inside and open fire on everything that tries to get close. Or take the city center immediately. Only other faction being able to do those stunts reliably are Skaven.


TL;Dr: If you use shades as Darkshards, as line archers, they are better, but not by much. Use the Darkshards for that.

But if you get creative with their stalk, you can pull off amazing stunts, reckting armies much stronger than yours.

[Darth Wadewilson]

Shades are useful in mid and late game. Early game dark shards pretty much melt everything and are cheap. But they rout pretty quickly while in melee compared to shades.

And more over there are some lord skills that makes them better than darkshards in terms of range and damage. (Shadow dart for eg)

But the best thing is sneaking up on the enemy and in all my gameplay they have routed very rarely while in melee. They are expensive. But they are well worth it.

And anyways by mid game if your slaves are not making enough money for you then you are playing the dark elf campaign wrong. They are the best faction to roll over in gold and create endless doomstacks.

I really like using them. So it differs from playstyle to play style.

Originally posted by Zane87:

TL;Dr: If you use shades as Darkshards, as line archers, they are better, but not by much. Use the Darkshards for that.

But if you get creative with their stalk, you can pull off amazing stunts, reckting armies much stronger than yours.

100%

[ChaosKhan]

Originally posted by aidenpons:

Shades are however twice as expensive as Darkshards and require an additional building. Furthermore, the best usage of DE missile is to shoot things; I'd much rather my Shades shoot a giant crab instead of poking it in melee (tie a crab up with infantry + shoot it = dead crab).

On that grounds, they're entirely useless. Pricier and they don't do a better job at what they want it to do.

It's hilarious that this thread criticizes the Shades beeing inferior but doesn't notice that they have actually quite the superior missile damage.

If you are poor as hell and can't afford Shades, feel free to use Darkshards instead. But if you got the cash, they are obviously an upgrade. 50 % more missile damage is nothing to scoff at and they can easily dispatch light and medium flankers in melee by themselves.

We can argue about Shades with Great Weapons, because they are more expensive and only have upgraded melee, but normal Shades are flatout the better Darkshards for all theoretical and practical purposes.

[Shirome Artiste]

Are shades good? Yes. (At least the stock ones are. Opinions on the GW variants differ)

Are they "a strict upgrade" over SHIELDED darkshards? Lolno.

Shades have a few bonuses and a few negatives over shielded darkshards.

Shade bonuses:
Don't absolutely suck in melee. Can actually do something if flanked/threatened/out of ammo.
Remain stealthed at long range. Great vs artillery heavy enemy armies, allowing your shades to avoid taking cannonballs to the face until the final moments.
Acceptable range(Beat darkshards in range) and good missile damage.
Can actually be used for sneaky flanking plays.
Somethingsomethingsiegeshenanigans (Versus AI)
Stalk can be leveraged hard against the AI because they won't scout worth a damn anyway.
More health per model
Vanguard deployment.


Shade weaknesses:
Die in droves when actually forced to go into an archery duel. Lack of shields hurt them here.
Like most dual-purpose infantry, they're not all that great against equal-tier actual melee infantry(But still outperform most other archers by miles in melee!)
If you're using them as line archers, they're pretty much glass-cannon versions of darkshards. Pricy, especially if used as an archer line.


Shielded Darkshard bonuses:
Easy to get, easy to afford, easy on the upkeep. (This might sound silly, but early on you're not rolling in heaps of shiny slave-earned gold like you'll be at turn 100)
Will give a great account of themselves when an archery duel takes place.
Slightly bigger unit size than shades.
Range and damage comparable to unupgraded shades.
AP damage makes them relevant until the closing turns of a campaign.

Shielded Darkshard weaknesses:
Absolute trash in melee. If they're out of ammo or you blundered against the AI and got them entangled into melee they're going to get massacred.
Outranged by upgraded shades
Very vulnerable to AoE artillery/magic effects due to poor armor and model health.



Lategame campaigns money generally isn't an issue. At that point, unless you find yourself consistently facing archer-heavy lineups that you ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, UNQUESTIONABLY HAVE TO BEAT ARCHER-TO-ARCHER then taking shades over darkshards generally is about par in terms of actual archery performance "on the line" with the added benefit of far better positioning, less vulnerability to artillery and actually being able to punish weak flankers heavily on their own.

On the other hand, if you're facing enemies light on long-range archers and/or artiller then there's no real reason to fire your darkshards from your roster. As long as you don't blunder against the AI they'll happily murderize any poor sods that come into range, armor or no armor.

[AVGAMER]

Shades are amazing in campagin, they can fight most tins in melee have terrifying damage potential and are versatile.

They also get loads of buffs the barbstorm name especialy.

I use them with my corsair and witch elf armies. Garrison wise darkshards are more cost effective

[ChaosKhan]

Originally posted by Shirome Artiste:

Are shades good? Yes. (At least the stock ones are. Opinions on the GW variants differ)

Are they "a strict upgrade" over SHIELDED darkshards? Lolno.

Shades have a few bonuses and a few negatives over shielded darkshards.

Shade bonuses:
Don't absolutely suck in melee. Can actually do something if flanked/threatened/out of ammo.
Remain stealthed at long range. Great vs artillery heavy enemy armies, allowing your shades to avoid taking cannonballs to the face until the final moments.
Acceptable range(Beat darkshards in range) and good missile damage.
Can actually be used for sneaky flanking plays.
Somethingsomethingsiegeshenanigans (Versus AI)
Stalk can be leveraged hard against the AI because they won't scout worth a damn anyway.
More health per model
Vanguard deployment.


Shade weaknesses:
Die in droves when actually forced to go into an archery duel. Lack of shields hurt them here.
Like most dual-purpose infantry, they're not all that great against equal-tier actual melee infantry(But still outperform most other archers by miles in melee!)
If you're using them as line archers, they're pretty much glass-cannon versions of darkshards. Pricy, especially if used as an archer line.


Shielded Darkshard bonuses:
Easy to get, easy to afford, easy on the upkeep. (This might sound silly, but early on you're not rolling in heaps of shiny slave-earned gold like you'll be at turn 100)
Will give a great account of themselves when an archery duel takes place.
Slightly bigger unit size than shades.
Range and damage comparable to unupgraded shades.
AP damage makes them relevant until the closing turns of a campaign.

Shielded Darkshard weaknesses:
Absolute trash in melee. If they're out of ammo or you blundered against the AI and got them entangled into melee they're going to get massacred.
Outranged by upgraded shades
Very vulnerable to AoE artillery/magic effects due to poor armor and model health.



Lategame campaigns money generally isn't an issue. At that point, unless you find yourself consistently facing archer-heavy lineups that you ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, UNQUESTIONABLY HAVE TO BEAT ARCHER-TO-ARCHER then taking shades over darkshards generally is about par in terms of actual archery performance "on the line" with the added benefit of far better positioning, less vulnerability to artillery and actually being able to punish weak flankers heavily on their own.

On the other hand, if you're facing enemies light on long-range archers and/or artiller then there's no real reason to fire your darkshards from your roster. As long as you don't blunder against the AI they'll happily murderize any poor sods that come into range, armor or no armor.

Wrong, Shades are better at "duels" because of Stalk. It mostly ends up with them coming into range and outright alpha kill the opponents troops before they get noticed and have to tank return fire.
Wrong, the Darkshard troop has more bodies, but nearly 1000 less health altogether. Shades are therefore tougher against magic, artillery and melee.
Wrong, you win the archery duels by having your infantry or cavalry shot at, while you shoot the archers. Since when are archers supposed to tank arrows? Lmao
Wrong, the damage is not compareable at all, it's straight up 30-40 % higher between Shades and shielded Darkshards. Only the alpha is compareable.

Oh boy, so much is wrong... Can you please check out the unit stats before you start to argue? Thank you.

When I play them Shades perform so well at archery duels, that I would never even consider fielding Darkshards unless I am forced by circumstances as soon as Shades come online. Only exception is Malekiths stack because he reduces upkeep, but in mid and late game I would disband even gold rank Shards to get Shades instead. They are just this much better at about everything they do.

[hammerinn]

I loved shades. As someone else said if you group your forces on one side of a siege and the shades on the other the enemy doesn't know they are there until they are shooting units on the capture point and have opened the door for your cav.

[kekkuli]

Nah, darkshards ftw. Cheaper and do the same job.

[Darth Wadewilson]

Originally posted by kekkuli:

Nah, darkshards ftw. Cheaper and do the same job.

Shades are much more versatile and do more damage. Stalk is very useful. Can more than hold upon their own in melee.

The only thing dark shards do other than firing arrows is melting in melee.

Cheaper is not important for dark elves