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.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I personally miss 3rd edition SC rules in some way, in the sense they required the opponents specific permission to use. You ended up just playing and building a narrative story with your regular commanders, my UM with powerfist force commander took down a wraith lord with another players emperors champion (not an easy feat in third edition, it was absolutely a hail mary, after it and a seer council ran amok amongst our forces) at a crucial moment whilst battling for an underground bunker underneath armageddon during the third war that arguably lead to victory on the main table as we could break out into the enemy lines on that table.

That just would not have been as fun if it was marneus doing it instead.

Anyway, big centre-piece models should be for capped at games of 2001pts plus, you don't need to see them in regular games.

I can understand keeping LOWS and SCs out of smaller games below 2000 points, as they can skew low point games, but what problems do you see them causing at 2000 points? If it's simply not liking playing with/against them, then you can simply refuse to play with/against them instead of making a hard cap.

2001+ was an arbitrary number, and rather than SC's in general, it was more the LOW characters etc.

I wouldn't have a fit if was 1999+ pt games but personally, I don't like to see huge unique characters in smallish games from a spectacle pov (all my own opinion that others would disagree with). I think if Ghaz is on the field, he should be leading 2500 or 3000 points etc to make him look like he is leading a huge force, same with the silent king and others etc. As I said, my opinion, not saying I am right.

I can understand that, a primarch leading a patrol seems....odd. I think 2000+ would be a good limit for anything qualifying as a LOW. It's the people who ask for their removal or for them to be "Sent to Apocalypse" that irk me.

Of course that's just my opinion too.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
There’ll be those who like the model all the same

Nah, not the biovore

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I personally miss 3rd edition SC rules in some way, in the sense they required the opponents specific permission to use. You ended up just playing and building a narrative story with your regular commanders, my UM with powerfist force commander took down a wraith lord with another players emperors champion (not an easy feat in third edition, it was absolutely a hail mary, after it and a seer council ran amok amongst our forces) at a crucial moment whilst battling for an underground bunker underneath armageddon during the third war that arguably lead to victory on the main table as we could break out into the enemy lines on that table.

That just would not have been as fun if it was marneus doing it instead.

Anyway, big centre-piece models should be for capped at games of 2001pts plus, you don't need to see them in regular games.

I can understand keeping LOWS and SCs out of smaller games below 2000 points, as they can skew low point games, but what problems do you see them causing at 2000 points? If it's simply not liking playing with/against them, then you can simply refuse to play with/against them instead of making a hard cap.

2001+ was an arbitrary number, and rather than SC's in general, it was more the LOW characters etc.

I wouldn't have a fit if was 1999+ pt games but personally, I don't like to see huge unique characters in smallish games from a spectacle pov (all my own opinion that others would disagree with). I think if Ghaz is on the field, he should be leading 2500 or 3000 points etc to make him look like he is leading a huge force, same with the silent king and others etc. As I said, my opinion, not saying I am right.

I can understand that, a primarch leading a patrol seems....odd. I think 2000+ would be a good limit for anything qualifying as a LOW. It's the people who ask for their removal or for them to be "Sent to Apocalypse" that irk me.

Of course that's just my opinion too.

Oh no, there is absolutely a place for them in 40k and the game would lose a lot of character without them also, I just think their inclusion should be appropriate when playing with them.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Tycho wrote:

For me the problem isn't about other people buying, painting, and playing the big centerpiece named character, the problem is that GW is using named characters as an excuse to take things away from generic characters.

I can see where you are coming from with that. What examples are you thinking of?

Coteaz is the most obvious (literally everything he does was something Inquisitorial Retinues did in the 3e book that got taken away in the 5e book).

I don't think it's gotten as bad as it could yet, but I'm scared that they'll end up using named characters to warp 40k Codexes into the Sigmar army books, where the whole thing is built around a small pool of named characters whose support is necessary to make the army function. The first SM book in 8e 40k was very much broken by that design theory (everything was priced around having Guilliman's aura on all the time, which made it a narrow one-dimensional book that only functioned in gunline castles where everyone was packed around a Captain/Lieutenant in one building). The more they give named characters stuff generic characters can't imitate the more they push the game towards becoming Warmachine where there are no generic HQs and whether your army works is entirely dependent on how well everything interacts with your named character of choice.

For a time it was My fear as well, but GW has come back from such « aura » stuff it seems, for now at least.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...and anyone that's run a Land Raider at any game size but then says they don't like centerpieces are already hypocrites...

6-10,000pt classic Apocalypse? A LR squadron is barely enough to count as a centerpiece there.

Should've been regular game size, my mistake. My point still stands regardless.

I quit 40K during 6th when superheavies became common in small pick up games. They should have stayed in Apoc where they belonged.


Thankfully most of the players around me now also dislike them so not much of a problem.

I like the center piece models. However they should not overwhelm the game. I had a friend during 2nd or 3rd edition. He had a blood angel army just so he could include Maphiston. Maphiston would wipe out three quarters of the opposition.

Ghaz pales in comparison to Mortarion.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Centerpiece is entriely dependent on game size and table size. I can easily argue a Predator to be a centerpiece in any game below 1000 points, and anyone that's run a Land Raider at any game size but then says they don't like centerpieces are already hypocrites.

Centerpiece is probably a concept that involves size, points cost and quality of the unit. Not just size. Especially now when everything is big.

I've played a LR Crusader in most of my 8th edition games but I also had 3 Razorbacks, Bjorn, a Stormfang Gunship and a 5 man squad of TWC so I've never considered the LR as a centerpiece model. Maybe in 3rd or 5th edition it was. In 3rd I had single ork dreads as centerpiece models.

Now you can have 3 LRs without even investing half the list's budget. Units that cost 450+ points and/or are named characters can't be spammed and they'll likely be extremely powerful, to the point that the controlling player will probably base his strategy around them. You can't say the same about a LR, and mind that I'm one of the few players that still consider a LR at least viable, if not good.

One of the main reasons why I strongly dislike centerpiece models is that I hate relying on a unit/character that does all the job alone, in fact I never liked Deathstars as well. I like the concept of all the units in my lists being useful but expendable. Real centerpiece models don't fit that concept.

a_typical_hero wrote:
A question aimed at people who dislike the prevalence of unique characters showing up:

Let's say I want to use the rules from a special character regularely, but I proxy the model with my own kitbashed conversion and give it a custom name on top.

How do you feel about that?

I'd prefer it if all special characters were specific builds of generic ones. Ie: Yarrick is a Commissar with X, Y, and Z wargear and abilities from the list of abilities all Commissars could take, or if Marneus Calgar or Shrike were Chapter Masters with X, Y, and Z wargear and abilities from the list all Captains/Chapter Masters could take.

I can see a few edge cases where that wouldn't make complete sense to do (primarchs/faction leaders), but outside of that, opening up more abilities to mix and match with generic characters sounds like a fun way to go.

 kurhanik wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
A question aimed at people who dislike the prevalence of unique characters showing up:

Let's say I want to use the rules from a special character regularely, but I proxy the model with my own kitbashed conversion and give it a custom name on top.

How do you feel about that?

I'd prefer it if all special characters were specific builds of generic ones. Ie: Yarrick is a Commissar with X, Y, and Z wargear and abilities from the list of abilities all Commissars could take, or if Marneus Calgar or Shrike were Chapter Masters with X, Y, and Z wargear and abilities from the list all Captains/Chapter Masters could take.

I can see a few edge cases where that wouldn't make complete sense to do (primarchs/faction leaders), but outside of that, opening up more abilities to mix and match with generic characters sounds like a fun way to go.

This is why universal special rules was actually nice. Chapter masters would be able to choose from a pool of wargear and 2x USP. A named character like Calgar would be the same, however he would have 1 additional USP. Still makes them special and unique but not so wild that they are necessarily an auto take due to some amazing unique rule. Again, people won't agree with this for 1 reason or another and it is just my opinion on the matter, there are cons to this also.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Main one I can think of is Ghaz, as there’s currently no option for a generic Warboss in Mega Armour.

Technically, there was no (non-legends) option to field a generic warboss in mega-armour even bevor Ghaz became a centerpiece model. In addition, the book that introduced Ghaz allowed you to upgrade a MA big mek into to a mekboss, making most converted models legal for play again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

I wouldn't have a fit if was 1999+ pt games but personally, I don't like to see huge unique characters in smallish games from a spectacle pov (all my own opinion that others would disagree with). I think if Ghaz is on the field, he should be leading 2500 or 3000 points etc to make him look like he is leading a huge force, same with the silent king and others etc. As I said, my opinion, not saying I am right.

I can understand that, a primarch leading a patrol seems....odd. I think 2000+ would be a good limit for anything qualifying as a LOW. It's the people who ask for their removal or for them to be "Sent to Apocalypse" that irk me.

Of course that's just my opinion too.

Actually, none of the primarchs (or any LoW) can be fielded at 500 points, as you are limited to one detachment and that detachment must be a combat patrol. At 1000 points you can field them, but it's usually unwise to do so. In my experience bringing a morkanaut at 1000 is much more of dick move than bringing Mortarion.

That said, a Primarch hitting some vital point backed up by nothing but some terminators, a squad of assault marines or an honor guard of some sort seems to be happening all the time in the novels.

If someone doesn't want to face Mortarion, I can understand that, and I usually ask/bring a backup list for that case. As someone wrote earlier, he does warp the game, and it's perfectly fine for someone to want a more regular game.
If someone is complaining about named characters in general, I just decline the game, as it's guaranteed to be an unfun experience with the opponent spending more time ranting about how GW ruined the game than on having a good time playing.

Just been building the first of two new Monolith kits, and it’s a lovely beast to work on. Kinda wish I hadn’t glued the first side on, but we live and learn.

Given its a 24 wound LoW, and can kick out some pretty impressive anti-tank firepower (Death Rays being D3+3 damage is good for reliability), would folk consider Monoliths to be, hmmm. Trying to pick a neutral word so as not to come across as deliberately provocative, but all I’m coming up with is taboo. It’s not right but it’ll have to do for now.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just been building the first of two new Monolith kits, and it’s a lovely beast to work on. Kinda wish I hadn’t glued the first side on, but we live and learn.

Given its a 24 wound LoW, and can kick out some pretty impressive anti-tank firepower (Death Rays being D3+3 damage is good for reliability), would folk consider Monoliths to be, hmmm. Trying to pick a neutral word so as not to come across as deliberately provocative, but all I’m coming up with is taboo. It’s not right but it’ll have to do for now.

Similar to my thoughts above, it is a big model, but not also unique, so I wouldn't like to see one at 1000pts one below, and ideally, not until at 1501pts and above (again, because of the imagery, spectacle of it, not because of the rules so much) but it isn't as weird as seeing magnus etc in such small games also.

Someone bought up land raiders earlier, they use to be the biggest plastic kit/tank you could buy outside of forge world, let alone the biggest model marines could field. In some ways, they were a large uber centre piece model back then and I suppose people thought the same of it as I do now with the large unique LOW's, but now they are not. I suppose with model size creep, it is fluid and opinions change through the years. The same feelings I have about the land raider use to apply to a monolith as well, they just seem average now (which is weird as they are massive)

Jidmah wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

I wouldn't have a fit if was 1999+ pt games but personally, I don't like to see huge unique characters in smallish games from a spectacle pov (all my own opinion that others would disagree with). I think if Ghaz is on the field, he should be leading 2500 or 3000 points etc to make him look like he is leading a huge force, same with the silent king and others etc. As I said, my opinion, not saying I am right.

I can understand that, a primarch leading a patrol seems....odd. I think 2000+ would be a good limit for anything qualifying as a LOW. It's the people who ask for their removal or for them to be "Sent to Apocalypse" that irk me.

Of course that's just my opinion too.

Actually, none of the primarchs (or any LoW) can be fielded at 500 points, as you are limited to one detachment and that detachment must be a combat patrol. At 1000 points you can field them, but it's usually unwise to do so. In my experience bringing a morkanaut at 1000 is much more of dick move than bringing Mortarion.

That said, a Primarch hitting some vital point backed up by nothing but some terminators, a squad of assault marines or an honor guard of some sort seems to be happening all the time in the novels.

If someone doesn't want to face Mortarion, I can understand that, and I usually ask/bring a backup list for that case. As someone wrote earlier, he does warp the game, and it's perfectly fine for someone to want a more regular game.
If someone is complaining about named characters in general, I just decline the game, as it's guaranteed to be an unfun experience with the opponent spending more time ranting about how GW ruined the game than on having a good time playing.

That's what I do as well if I want to bring any of my LoWs: I bring other units that I can swap out for them if my opponent doesn't think they are fun to play against. I see no point in a game that isn't fun for both parties. Glad to see I'm not the only one who does this.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Just been building the first of two new Monolith kits, and it’s a lovely beast to work on. Kinda wish I hadn’t glued the first side on, but we live and learn.

Given its a 24 wound LoW, and can kick out some pretty impressive anti-tank firepower (Death Rays being D3+3 damage is good for reliability), would folk consider Monoliths to be, hmmm. Trying to pick a neutral word so as not to come across as deliberately provocative, but all I’m coming up with is taboo. It’s not right but it’ll have to do for now.

I definitely don't consider LoWs "taboo", I love mine, but I won't play them below 2000 points. Even at 1500 points units like that become the game for both sides. If you and your opponent are fine with that, some kind of "boss fight" situation, go for it. But it's something you should probably agree on beforehand. At 2000+ I see no problem with typical LoWs. Again, that's just my opinion. YMMV, to each their own, and all that.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just been building the first of two new Monolith kits, and it’s a lovely beast to work on. Kinda wish I hadn’t glued the first side on, but we live and learn.

Given its a 24 wound LoW, and can kick out some pretty impressive anti-tank firepower (Death Rays being D3+3 damage is good for reliability), would folk consider Monoliths to be, hmmm. Trying to pick a neutral word so as not to come across as deliberately provocative, but all I’m coming up with is taboo. It’s not right but it’ll have to do for now.

Eh - far as the Monolith goes, the general consensus is that it's a little odd they made it a LoW. With the loss of "fly", and the fact that hiding it is impossible, a lot of folks seem to think it's under-powered, so as long as you aren't doing something cheeky like taking it in a 1000pt game, you'd probably be safe to use it.

I know when we were playing with the new 'dex, the Monoliths weren't performing like you would expect from "Lords of War" so I don't think they're much of an issue.

I actually enjoy the occasional LoW in my opponent's list anyway.

Well, that and the frankly baffling lack of an Invulnerable Save

Wasn't it wierd that the adds for them told how much bigger they are, and when placed next to the old monos it doesn't seem to be the case?

I wouldn't give the mono an inv. But I would give them a -2D, aka D3=D1, rule and an outright immunity to str 4 weapons. multiple cubic meters of super alloy should not be damged by a bolter or heavy stubber.

Karol wrote:
Wasn't it wierd that the adds for them told how much bigger they are, and when placed next to the old monos it doesn't seem to be the case?

I wouldn't give the mono an inv. But I would give them a -2D, aka D3=D1, rule and an outright immunity to str 4 weapons. multiple cubic meters of super alloy should not be damged by a bolter or heavy stubber.

immunity to bolters would change nothing. In-game it effectively requires such ridiculous firerate for bolters to damage it that it doesnt really matter.
"-X" damage are one of the strongest abilties you can have in the game and dreadnoughts + DG being the only ones with access to it is more than enough.
Giving it an invuln or at the very least quantum shields would help the model a lot.

that and make a heavy support again.

Size wise it’s about the same, but I’d say it’s an infinitely superior kit.

Whilst I’m regretting gluing one of the sides in place, the design make sub-assemblies for painting a piece of cake.

Well, that and the frankly baffling lack of an Invulnerable Save

The lack of Quantum Shielding is baffling.

Tycho wrote:

Well, that and the frankly baffling lack of an Invulnerable Save

The lack of Quantum Shielding is baffling.

24W T8 2+ is a pretty durable statline. What I think when I look at a Monolith is "lack of firepower". It doesn't have much gun compared to other similar LoWs. Even with the four Death Rays. My Achilles can outshoot it, and it isn't even a LoW.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Tycho wrote:

Well, that and the frankly baffling lack of an Invulnerable Save

The lack of Quantum Shielding is baffling.

24W T8 2+ is a pretty durable statline. What I think when I look at a Monolith is "lack of firepower". It doesn't have much gun compared to other similar LoWs. Even with the four Death Rays. My Achilles can outshoot it, and it isn't even a LoW.

Fair point on the durability (although I still find the lack of QS odd), I guess my bigger point is more what you're pointing out. If you're going to slap "LoW" on something, in my mind, it needs to be as close to the "OP" line as you can get without going over, and I just don't see that with the Monolith.

Tycho wrote:
...Fair point on the durability (although I still find the lack of QS odd), I guess my bigger point is more what you're pointing out. If you're going to slap "LoW" on something, in my mind, it needs to be as close to the "OP" line as you can get without going over, and I just don't see that with the Monolith.

I don't know if that's true at all. The "LoW" label means "more than 20 Wounds" as much as it does "very powerful characters"; Forge World is stuffed full of super-heavies that are unplayable overpriced/squishy/underarmed, and even when you go back to plastic the Baneblade/variants, the Stompa, and the Wraithknight have been no better than mediocre for most of their existence (barring the Wraithknight's brief edition in the sun in 7th that means GW will never make it good again for fear of igniting the same outrage).

Tycho wrote:

Fair point on the durability (although I still find the lack of QS odd), I guess my bigger point is more what you're pointing out. If you're going to slap "LoW" on something, in my mind, it needs to be as close to the "OP" line as you can get without going over, and I just don't see that with the Monolith.

It has the ability to stuff someone in the face with a billion models without blinking, but that doesn't work well at this size game. It is a huge model and it can't fly - if it moved faster and had fly it might be more threatening. Stick a couple in 3K/4K game and it'd be a monster.

Also, don't forget that its melee auto-hits.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Tycho wrote:

Well, that and the frankly baffling lack of an Invulnerable Save

The lack of Quantum Shielding is baffling.

24W T8 2+ is a pretty durable statline. What I think when I look at a Monolith is "lack of firepower". It doesn't have much gun compared to other similar LoWs. Even with the four Death Rays. My Achilles can outshoot it, and it isn't even a LoW.

Whilst not being up on the modern game, I’d definitely trade number of shots for the reliability of damage.

I mean, if my 4 Deathrays all do unsaved damage, it’s a minimum of 16 (which I understand would take out most non-superheavies). Particle whip only adds to the party. Plus it’s surprisingly handy in HTH (not that I’d ever factor charging with it into a plan. Though it might be good for a giggle. 6 S8, -3, D3 auto-hit attacks can do some serious damage to the unsuspecting. And I would be screaming “get in the back of the van” whilst doing so. Because.)

Not sure what the Achilles’ minimum is I’m afraid, but there remains the chance of a bunch of ones ruining an otherwise stellar shooting phase.

The reliability is also seen across the Necron army, with relatively few doing entirely variable damage (as in just D3 or just D6). In the later stages of the game, I could be dropping in a Death Ray Monolith to mop up multiple things which I’ve battered with the rest of my army.

In summary? I’ll freely admit I don’t really know what I’m talking about, and welcome any and all critique (reckon I’ll do a separate thread though) , it seems to me the strength of the Monolith lies beyond its straight forward snootiness?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Size wise it’s about the same, but I’d say it’s an infinitely superior kit.

Whilst I’m regretting gluing one of the sides in place, the design make sub-assemblies for painting a piece of cake.

Yeah, I did both of those myself.
I've now replaced 2/3 of my old Monoliths.

The first new one? I glued 2/4 sides on before deciding that was a very un-wise move.... I finished building it & gave it a base coat. I'll deal with the difficulties of painting it down the road. For now it's the one that sees play.
The second one? This one I'm painting sub-assemblies as I assemble. When I'm done I'll swap it for the first one & tackle my increased painting challenge.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Tycho wrote:

Well, that and the frankly baffling lack of an Invulnerable Save

The lack of Quantum Shielding is baffling.

24W T8 2+ is a pretty durable statline. What I think when I look at a Monolith is "lack of firepower". It doesn't have much gun compared to other similar LoWs. Even with the four Death Rays. My Achilles can outshoot it, and it isn't even a LoW.

Whilst not being up on the modern game, I’d definitely trade number of shots for the reliability of damage.

I mean, if my 4 Deathrays all do unsaved damage, it’s a minimum of 16 (which I understand would take out most non-superheavies). Particle whip only adds to the party. Plus it’s surprisingly handy in HTH (not that I’d ever factor charging with it into a plan. Though it might be good for a giggle. 6 S8, -3, D3 auto-hit attacks can do some serious damage to the unsuspecting. And I would be screaming “get in the back of the van” whilst doing so. Because.)

Not sure what the Achilles’ minimum is I’m afraid, but there remains the chance of a bunch of ones ruining an otherwise stellar shooting phase.

The reliability is also seen across the Necron army, with relatively few doing entirely variable damage (as in just D3 or just D6). In the later stages of the game, I could be dropping in a Death Ray Monolith to mop up multiple things which I’ve battered with the rest of my army.

In summary? I’ll freely admit I don’t really know what I’m talking about, and welcome any and all critique (reckon I’ll do a separate thread though) , it seems to me the strength of the Monolith lies beyond its straight forward snootiness?

As AnomanderRake pointed out, it basically gets stuck in the LoW slot because it has 20+ wounds, which seems to be gw's definition of LoW for anything that isn't a character (if there's any non-chararacter LoW in the game with less than 20W, please correct me).

With its ability to deep strike and "transport" role (yes, I know it works different, but it's similar), the LoW I'd most closely compare it to is the Karybdis Assault Claw. Similar shooting, melee capability, but it's transport and deep strike capabilities is what you're paying for.

So yes, as Daed pointed out, its strength isn't about straight shootiness, but about pumping all those great Necron troops out. I'd definitely take it out for a spin. Sounds like fun.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Tycho wrote:

Well, that and the frankly baffling lack of an Invulnerable Save

The lack of Quantum Shielding is baffling.

24W T8 2+ is a pretty durable statline. What I think when I look at a Monolith is "lack of firepower". It doesn't have much gun compared to other similar LoWs. Even with the four Death Rays. My Achilles can outshoot it, and it isn't even a LoW.

Whilst not being up on the modern game, I’d definitely trade number of shots for the reliability of damage.

I mean, if my 4 Deathrays all do unsaved damage, it’s a minimum of 16 (which I understand would take out most non-superheavies). Particle whip only adds to the party. Plus it’s surprisingly handy in HTH (not that I’d ever factor charging with it into a plan. Though it might be good for a giggle. 6 S8, -3, D3 auto-hit attacks can do some serious damage to the unsuspecting. And I would be screaming “get in the back of the van” whilst doing so. Because.)

Not sure what the Achilles’ minimum is I’m afraid, but there remains the chance of a bunch of ones ruining an otherwise stellar shooting phase.

The reliability is also seen across the Necron army, with relatively few doing entirely variable damage (as in just D3 or just D6). In the later stages of the game, I could be dropping in a Death Ray Monolith to mop up multiple things which I’ve battered with the rest of my army.

In summary? I’ll freely admit I don’t really know what I’m talking about, and welcome any and all critique (reckon I’ll do a separate thread though) , it seems to me the strength of the Monolith lies beyond its straight forward snootiness?

As AnomanderRake pointed out, it basically gets stuck in the LoW slot because it has 20+ wounds, which seems to be gw's definition of LoW for anything that isn't a character (if there's any non-chararacter LoW in the game with less than 20W, please correct me).

With its ability to deep strike and "transport" role (yes, I know it works different, but it's similar), the LoW I'd most closely compare it to is the Karybdis Assault Claw. Similar shooting, melee capability, but it's transport and deep strike capabilities is what you're paying for.

So yes, as Daed pointed out, its strength isn't about straight shootiness, but about pumping all those great Necron troops out. I'd definitely take it out for a spin. Sounds like fun.

Started a new thread RE: Monoliths: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795687.page

Trying to avoid a derail of this one.

Good idea.