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.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It friggen sucks they are a LOW. The real issue is the Stupid Aux detachment not getting army traits. If they just changed that you'd see a lot more monos. I only have 2 so I have run in a SK+2 mono super heavy detachment and they do pretty friggen well.

I wrote up a list with a monolith and I'm going to try and play it this weekend on TTS ( if the wife lets me ).

'honey can i borrow the monolith?'

'Craig you know I'm using it. The lawn wont aerate itself.'

That's what tyranids are for.

[Kinda not kidding, we're due a couple billion cicadas next month.]

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
...On this I'll agree with you, the LoW needing its own detachment is dumb. It's equally dumb when standard units get placed into LoW for no apparent reason, rules buffs aside. GW needs to figure out if it wants people to run LoW or not honestly. Then either make the units good for what all hassle it is to bring them or just say " Hey, they are for fun but we don't think you should bring them. " It's a lot of money for most of those units to spend for a subpar unit if that is the case, not even accounting for the point cost for some of them which is intense while still costing you CP and leaving them without army traits...

It reads to me like a catastrophically misinformed balance decision, like they're thinking to themselves "Lords of War are really good, they should require a handicap to use!" instead of taking a realistic look at what Lords of War actually are and do. It reads to me a lot like the D&D 3.5 design team picking around allowing arcane casters with armor and writing really terrible armored caster classes with huge handicaps as a result.

I'd say it's a case of them thinking of one particular group of LoWs (you know, the ones with an entire codex full of strategems, warlord traits, etc), writing rules to handicap anyone taking one of those, and hitting all of the other LoWs without that kind of support as collateral damage.

The solution is simple: if the LoW is from the same faction as your warlord you get the 3CP tax back and it gets the same faction trait as your warlord. Done.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
...On this I'll agree with you, the LoW needing its own detachment is dumb. It's equally dumb when standard units get placed into LoW for no apparent reason, rules buffs aside. GW needs to figure out if it wants people to run LoW or not honestly. Then either make the units good for what all hassle it is to bring them or just say " Hey, they are for fun but we don't think you should bring them. " It's a lot of money for most of those units to spend for a subpar unit if that is the case, not even accounting for the point cost for some of them which is intense while still costing you CP and leaving them without army traits...

It reads to me like a catastrophically misinformed balance decision, like they're thinking to themselves "Lords of War are really good, they should require a handicap to use!" instead of taking a realistic look at what Lords of War actually are and do. It reads to me a lot like the D&D 3.5 design team picking around allowing arcane casters with armor and writing really terrible armored caster classes with huge handicaps as a result.

I don't know it almost feels like they got afraid of their own classification for them.." WOW Lords of war !! That sounds gakking powerful ! We better be sure people can stop them ! Quick, lets make them cost a bunch and use their own organizations, yeah ! and and and..they'll cost you CP to field them, heck yeah, because they are Lords of WAR !! Oh and if they had abilities like the rest of the army that would be broken, so no way Jose ! Jobs looking good, lets go to print lads, drinks on me ! " ( Based on a true story )


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
...On this I'll agree with you, the LoW needing its own detachment is dumb. It's equally dumb when standard units get placed into LoW for no apparent reason, rules buffs aside. GW needs to figure out if it wants people to run LoW or not honestly. Then either make the units good for what all hassle it is to bring them or just say " Hey, they are for fun but we don't think you should bring them. " It's a lot of money for most of those units to spend for a subpar unit if that is the case, not even accounting for the point cost for some of them which is intense while still costing you CP and leaving them without army traits...

It reads to me like a catastrophically misinformed balance decision, like they're thinking to themselves "Lords of War are really good, they should require a handicap to use!" instead of taking a realistic look at what Lords of War actually are and do. It reads to me a lot like the D&D 3.5 design team picking around allowing arcane casters with armor and writing really terrible armored caster classes with huge handicaps as a result.

I'd say it's a case of them thinking of one particular group of LoWs (you know, the ones with an entire codex full of strategems, warlord traits, etc), writing rules to handicap anyone taking one of those, and hitting all of the other LoWs without that kind of support as collateral damage.

The solution is simple: if the LoW is from the same faction as your warlord you get the 3CP tax back and it gets the same faction trait as your warlord. Done.

If that is the case they needed to not be so lazy and actually do that from the beginning. If knight armies are a problem with how they are set up and taken as defacto imperial really really big men maybe they should have noticed that by now and realized not all lords of war are created equal. How hard would that have been ? I mean GW loves their huge model kits, we know they do, they only keep Super sizing up each new kit they can why not at least make the old big fatties useful. Otherwise they are ageist, sizeist, sleeboks and they should be booed with all the force we have in us.

 the_scotsman wrote:


'honey can i borrow the monolith?'

'Craig you know I'm using it. The lawn wont aerate itself.'

Sound about right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Details, details! What's the plan? Great to see someone else trotting out their "completely uncompetitive" LoWs.

Mephrit, SH Aux -3CP
Monolith, 4x Death Ray

Mephrit, Patrol 0CP
CCB, WL, Gauss, Orb, Void Reaper, Enduring
Warden, Conduit ( -1CP ), Pride ( -1CP )
18 Warriors
Reanimator
Spyder, Fabricator

Mephrit, Patrol -2CP
Lord, Weave ( -1CP ), Tyrant ( -1CP ), Scythe
Psychomancher
Technomancer, Ablator
6 Immortals
5 Lychguard, Sword & Board, Reserves ( -1CP )
Transcendant, Cosmic Tyrant, Meteor, Arrow
3 Tomb Blades, Beamers
Ghost Ark

WWSWF, Linebreaker, Repair Teleport Homer

Starting CP : 4

- Monolith, Spyder, and Lychguard work in tandem. The Spyder literally just hides behind it and repairs most of the time. When someone gets too close the Lychguard are coming out of the Monolith to tie them up while it walks away ( if it needs to ).
- Immortals, Ark, Blades, and Lord are a team. They work on Linebreaker and Homer.
- C'tan offers another distraction and does as much hurt as possible.
- The rest basically puts up as durable a block of Warriors that I can manage - fight last from the PM, cover save and rez from the techno, Reanimator boosting rolls, Warden ignoring attrition and providing free fallback, and orb at the ready.

I played Custodes last night. I made a ton of mistakes, because the TTS interface is massively updated since last I played. I basically didn't spend my CP fast enough. Forget I was Mephrit until turn 4. Forgot about my protocols almost entirely. I also wasn't strict on rules ( it was late ) - charged with Lord from behind containers where he wasn't visible, but let him O/W anyway ( and he died ). Came out with a 60 to 83 loss, but I'm certain I could have done far better with some more practice to keep everything top of mind.

Monolith was admirable. Took punishment and died ( he had tons of Destructors and tons of rerolls ). Took a few models with it. I should have put the C'tan more forward ( he thought it was untargetable for a bit -- I corrected him ) to take shots.

Ark and pals were unfettered as they ran up the side to do secondaries and take the back field objective. WWSWF might seem like a terrible idea, but I want them focused on those units so much that the ark isn't even a passing thought.

Lots to learn and fix. Definitely not dropping the list and I'll try and give it another go tomorrow. Maybe I'll record it so you can watch me in all my bungling glory.

Sounds solid Daed. Hope you do better next time. Remember those rules! Expect the Monolith to die, because a unit like that will always have a huge bullseye on it. The trick is making sure it makes a difference before it does.

Yeah the low restrictions are just el classic gw over balancing. The problematic lows are the ones that they made sure could still play with full cp (knights) and all the oyhers got massive punishment.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah the low restrictions are just el classic gw over balancing. The problematic lows are the ones that they made sure could still play with full cp (knights) and all the oyhers got massive punishment.

Which is honestly fascinating because most BESIDES Knights are just trash, with most of the complaints coming from people that don't care about rules but about scale.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah the low restrictions are just el classic gw over balancing. The problematic lows are the ones that they made sure could still play with full cp (knights) and all the oyhers got massive punishment.

I'm not really convinced that LoW users should have their cake and eat it, too.

I would wager that knights won't get a CP refund with soup.

Multiple LoW, plentiful CP, flexible list construction - pick two.

Many common LoW don't have their codex redone. Orks will be the chance to see if they can make a stompa useful without being overbearing.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
...I'm not really convinced that LoW users should have their cake and eat it, too...

I'm bringing a Fellblade. What cake do I get to have or eat?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah the low restrictions are just el classic gw over balancing. The problematic lows are the ones that they made sure could still play with full cp (knights) and all the oyhers got massive punishment.

I'm not really convinced that LoW users should have their cake and eat it, too.

I would wager that knights won't get a CP refund with soup.

Multiple LoW, plentiful CP, flexible list construction - pick two.

Many common LoW don't have their codex redone. Orks will be the chance to see if they can make a stompa useful without being overbearing.

Which is the problem. Taking one LoW from your own faction eats 3CP (for some of us 4CP). Without faction traits for the LoW. Under the current rules there's no such choice.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah the low restrictions are just el classic gw over balancing. The problematic lows are the ones that they made sure could still play with full cp (knights) and all the oyhers got massive punishment.

I'm not really convinced that LoW users should have their cake and eat it, too.

Why do you care if someone brings a Typhon? It's an expensive unit and only has a 2D6 blast weapon. What's game breaking here?

Taking a LoW is actually like not getting your cake, and not getting to eat it. Because LoWs mostly suck to begin with, and then on top of that, they're made to suck even more.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah the low restrictions are just el classic gw over balancing. The problematic lows are the ones that they made sure could still play with full cp (knights) and all the oyhers got massive punishment.

I'm not really convinced that LoW users should have their cake and eat it, too.

I would wager that knights won't get a CP refund with soup.

Multiple LoW, plentiful CP, flexible list construction - pick two.

Many common LoW don't have their codex redone. Orks will be the chance to see if they can make a stompa useful without being overbearing.

What I don't understand is why not just do the absolute obvious and put a soft restriction on LOWs in game size by building them in to detachments.

-If you have a Battalion with your warlord in it, you may take a Superheavy Auxiliary with the same subfaction for free (no traits etc)
-Add a LOW slot to a Brigade.

^now superheavies can actually appear in game sizes where they're warranted (2k etc) but limit them in 1k. right now, they're absolutely useless in 2k+ as well.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Why do you care if someone brings a Typhon? It's an expensive unit and only has a 2D6 blast weapon. What's game breaking here?

Nothing, really. I'm not attempting to make an absolute. Not all LoWs are created equal. The Typhon is a lot of points for a whole lotta nothin'.

But on the other end of it you can't make it remarkably easy to drag LoWs in, because some won't be so lacklustre. So, 4CP for a Typhon is absurd. 3CP for a Monolith? Perhaps less absurd.

I don't really have a universal solution though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the_scotsman wrote:
What I don't understand is why not just do the absolute obvious and put a soft restriction on LOWs in game size by building them in to detachments.

-If you have a Battalion with your warlord in it, you may take a Superheavy Auxiliary with the same subfaction for free (no traits etc)
-Add a LOW slot to a Brigade.

^now superheavies can actually appear in game sizes where they're warranted (2k etc) but limit them in 1k. right now, they're absolutely useless in 2k+ as well.

Those do seem fine on the surface - though the second one might be a little friendly to some armies than others. I just can't envision that changing any time soon so my perspective is entirely focused on the present. That said I don't want to promote people going out to buy LoWs. I have money ready to burn a hole in my pocket for a Monolith, but I need to put in another 10 or 15 games before I'd be comfortable thinking it has a solid place.

I remember back when the Lord of War slot was introduced, most made sense, like Baneblades and Knights.

But then Chapter Masters were put in that slot... WTF? The Daemon Primarchs and Guilliman, I understand, but Logan Grimnar, even if he does come with a sleigh?

Then the classic tank of Necrons was put in there...

I think some of the placement was just used as a way to justify the slot's existence, and little else.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
...I'm not really convinced that LoW users should have their cake and eat it, too...

I'm bringing a Fellblade. What cake do I get to have or eat?

Sorry - I shouldn't use such firm wording, because the situation is certainly more nuanced.

Though the Fellblade is a bit scary even without T9. Perhaps a wee bit expensive as well, but it can bring a Monolith to it's knees even if it doesn't go first ( which is part of the LoW cost problem ).

The Monolith shouldn't be a LoW.

It's not the Necron Baneblade or Knight. It's the Necron Land Raider.

Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Why do you care if someone brings a Typhon? It's an expensive unit and only has a 2D6 blast weapon. What's game breaking here?

Nothing, really. I'm not attempting to make an absolute. Not all LoWs are created equal. The Typhon is a lot of points for a whole lotta nothin'.

But on the other end of it you can't make it remarkably easy to drag LoWs in, because some won't be so lacklustre. So, 4CP for a Typhon is absurd. 3CP for a Monolith? Perhaps less absurd.

I don't really have a universal solution though.

3CP for a Monolith is absolutely absurd. As H.B.M.C says, it's a Necron Land Raider. Tougher, and with a bit more firepower, but it pays for both in points. And that's the question: Can LoWs be balanced in points? Or do they need the additional CP tax, which isn't an equal price depending on faction. CP is far more important for some than others.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
...I'm not really convinced that LoW users should have their cake and eat it, too...

I'm bringing a Fellblade. What cake do I get to have or eat?

Sorry - I shouldn't use such firm wording, because the situation is certainly more nuanced.

Though the Fellblade is a bit scary even without T9. Perhaps a wee bit expensive as well, but it can bring a Monolith to it's knees even if it doesn't go first ( which is part of the LoW cost problem ).

Oh, a Fellblade is quite scary without T9, mostly because gw gave it access to a stratagem that makes up for that loss. And it can wreck a Monolith in a single round of shooting (If it gets both AE shells through. Not always easy), but is a 600 PPM unit wrecking a 380 PPM unit (if you're springing for the Death Rays) wrong? That's a 63% ROI, is that too good? Especially considering it's not going to do that against every target?

12 Heavy Melta-Rifle Eradicators will do the same thing more reliably for the same amount of points, and you're always telling everyone that we're overreacting to those. We can do the math if you want. Each unit has its own advantages and disadvantages. Each has counters. If Heavy Melta-Rifle Eradicators are fine, and you and others keep telling us that they are, then I don't see how a 600 PPM Fellblade without the 3CP tax from the SHAD and the 1CP tax from Martial Legacy is a problem.

12 HMRs will have a way harder time all getting in range - especially without penalty.

The landraider comparison is useful. Four lascannons, THB, and MM is 310. A death ray monolith is 380.

Compare four lascannons to four death rays. Compare MM to Particle Whip. According to Unit Crunch ( assuming I did it right ) a LR has a less than 0.5% chance to kill a Monolith ( slightly higher in Heavy ) whereas the Monolith has a 12% chance.

Consider that the Monolith has +8W, 6 auto-hit melee attacks at AP3 D3 compared to 6 WS6 S8 attacks on the LR, it can deepstrike, it can bring models in more easily than the Landraider, and it heals.

Surely all of this is worth more than 70 points, isn't it? That's why it is LoW and 3CP.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
12 HMRs will have a way harder time all getting in range - especially without penalty.

The landraider comparison is useful. Four lascannons, THB, and MM is 310. A death ray monolith is 380.

Compare four lascannons to four death rays. Compare MM to Particle Whip. According to Unit Crunch ( assuming I did it right ) a LR has a less than 0.5% chance to kill a Monolith ( slightly higher in Heavy ) whereas the Monolith has a 12% chance.

Consider that the Monolith has +8W, 6 auto-hit melee attacks at AP3 D3 compared to 6 WS6 S8 attacks on the LR, it can deepstrike, it can bring models in more easily than the Landraider, and it heals.

Surely all of this is worth more than 70 points, isn't it? That's why it is LoW and 3CP.

I was factoring in the penalty for moving for the Eradicators. 24 shots, 12 hits, 6 wounds, Monolith saves 1, 5.5 average damage per unsaved wound = 27.5 damage. Dead Monolith. They can also move through breachable terrain and through smaller gaps, a Fellblade is a huge model, it has to go around terrain. And it needs to get within 24 to use its Demolisher Cannon. And it won't kill the Monolith on average, remember, we're giving the AE shells an auto-pass. Put both units in your Unit Crunch, it won't work for me (won't let me add AP).

Gw is NOT factoring the 3CP tax into LoW prices. Otherwise Knights would cost more in non mono-knights armies. Hell, look at the Custodes Ares. LoW durability and firepower, LoW price in points, but no CP tax, because they bizarrely stuck it into the FLYER FOC slot.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
12 HMRs will have a way harder time all getting in range - especially without penalty.

The landraider comparison is useful. Four lascannons, THB, and MM is 310. A death ray monolith is 380.

Compare four lascannons to four death rays. Compare MM to Particle Whip. According to Unit Crunch ( assuming I did it right ) a LR has a less than 0.5% chance to kill a Monolith ( slightly higher in Heavy ) whereas the Monolith has a 12% chance.

Consider that the Monolith has +8W, 6 auto-hit melee attacks at AP3 D3 compared to 6 WS6 S8 attacks on the LR, it can deepstrike, it can bring models in more easily than the Landraider, and it heals.

Surely all of this is worth more than 70 points, isn't it? That's why it is LoW and 3CP.

This assumes a Land Raider is well-pointed. Mileage may vary on that.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:


Gw is NOT factoring the 3CP tax into LoW prices. Otherwise Knights would cost more in non mono-knights armies. Hell, look at the Custodes Ares. LoW durability and firepower, LoW price in points, but no CP tax, because they bizarrely stuck it into the FLYER FOC slot.

Knights and to an extent Custodes are different beasts. They're also in old books.

I will wager you'll see mono Knights pick up a restriction.

Custodes would have a really hard time making a functional list around more than one Ares. You also have to consider it will never participate in scoring.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
This assumes a Land Raider is well-pointed. Mileage may vary on that.

That's a fair point, but then consider their average damage is pretty close ( 8ish to 9ish ) and just the durability it extended on the Monolith. The Landraider can trade into more conditional durability for a CP, which more than doubles its survival rate in that scenario.

One problem with LRs is that they should have some sort of assault ramp strat or ability to make their transport for useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

I was factoring in the penalty for moving for the Eradicators. 24 shots, 12 hits, 6 wounds, Monolith saves 1, 5.5 average damage per unsaved wound = 27.5 damage. Dead Monolith. They can also move through breachable terrain and through smaller gaps, a Fellblade is a huge model, it has to go around terrain. And it needs to get within 24 to use its Demolisher Cannon. And it won't kill the Monolith on average, remember, we're giving the AE shells an auto-pass. Put both units in your Unit Crunch, it won't work for me (won't let me add AP).

To circle back on this -- if I saw that list I'd probably deepstrike it or deploy it on the edge. If this dude is just barely in after deploying on the line and moving 5" lots of his buddies won't be. Not to mention deploying like that with units of that size is asking for trouble. Optimally you could get four to six in range. The Fellblade is unfortunately way bigger and harder to stash and move around so I feel that pain.

At 24 wounds the Monolth is a LoW. There is no arguing that point.

I could see it being brought back to an heavy support, but not with those stats.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:


Gw is NOT factoring the 3CP tax into LoW prices. Otherwise Knights would cost more in non mono-knights armies. Hell, look at the Custodes Ares. LoW durability and firepower, LoW price in points, but no CP tax, because they bizarrely stuck it into the FLYER FOC slot.

Knights and to an extent Custodes are different beasts. They're also in old books.

I will wager you'll see mono Knights pick up a restriction.

Custodes would have a really hard time making a functional list around more than one Ares. You also have to consider it will never participate in scoring.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
This assumes a Land Raider is well-pointed. Mileage may vary on that.

That's a fair point, but then consider their average damage is pretty close ( 8ish to 9ish ) and just the durability it extended on the Monolith. The Landraider can trade into more conditional durability for a CP, which more than doubles its survival rate in that scenario.

One problem with LRs is that they should have some sort of assault ramp strat or ability to make their transport for useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

I was factoring in the penalty for moving for the Eradicators. 24 shots, 12 hits, 6 wounds, Monolith saves 1, 5.5 average damage per unsaved wound = 27.5 damage. Dead Monolith. They can also move through breachable terrain and through smaller gaps, a Fellblade is a huge model, it has to go around terrain. And it needs to get within 24 to use its Demolisher Cannon. And it won't kill the Monolith on average, remember, we're giving the AE shells an auto-pass. Put both units in your Unit Crunch, it won't work for me (won't let me add AP).

To circle back on this -- if I saw that list I'd probably deepstrike it or deploy it on the edge. If this dude is just barely in after deploying on the line and moving 5" lots of his buddies won't be. Not to mention deploying like that with units of that size is asking for trouble. Optimally you could get four to six in range.

Yes, Knights will probably pick up a restriction, but a single Knight will probably still be the same price in a non-knight army. Could you make a functional list with more than one Fellblade or Scorpion?

As far as comparing s Monolith to a Land Raider, I think an Achilles compared to a Monolith with Gauss is a better example. Both are exactly the same price (in points, not CP). The Monolith is about 33% more durable, but the Achilles far outstrips it in firepower. Monolith against T8 3+: 5.665 average damage outside of 15, 7.443 within. Achilles against T8 3+: 12 outside of 12, 17.334 within. If we're talking Land Raiders, let's talk about the good one.

Yes, that's a good plan. Now let me ask you this: with that board layout, how are you getting a Fellblade around all of that terrain? It's about 8 1/2 × 6 1/2. You'll have a hard time getting into Demolisher Cannon range turn 1 (which means it's a good board setup).

Spoletta wrote:
At 24 wounds the Monolth is a LoW. There is no arguing that point.

I could see it being brought back to an heavy support, but not with those stats.

Only if you believe 24 wounds are enough for vehicles with the weapon stats we have now.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yes, Knights will probably pick up a restriction, but a single Knight will probably still be the same price in a non-knight army. Could you make a functional list with more than one Fellblade or Scorpion?

No certainly not, but that doesn't necessarily mean there shouldn't be an additional cost to those models.

As far as comparing s Monolith to a Land Raider, I think an Achilles compared to a Monolith with Gauss is a better example. Both are exactly the same price (in points, not CP). The Monolith is about 33% more durable, but the Achilles far outstrips it in firepower. Monolith against T8 3+: 5.665 average damage outside of 15, 7.443 within. Achilles against T8 3+: 12 outside of 12, 17.334 within. If we're talking Land Raiders, let's talk about the good one.

Well, you've stepped into FW territory. It comes with 1CP tax, trades down on transport, and picks up a fairly inconsequential invuln. At that point you have to start considering the deepstrike, transport capability, melee presence, and the free fallback more heavily.

Yes, that's a good plan. Now let me ask you this: with that board layout, how are you getting a Fellblade around all of that terrain? It's about 8 1/2 × 6 1/2. You'll have a hard time getting into Demolisher Cannon range turn 1 (which means it's a good board setup).

Well, I just threw that on without consideration to DZ. I think that map would actually be corners. A good terrain and DZ layout will heavily impact viability ( which is why consistency is nice ).

 Daedalus81 wrote:
No certainly not, but that doesn't necessarily mean there shouldn't be an additional cost to those models.

But why just these units? And is the additional price too high? Or too low?

Well, you've stepped into FW territory. It comes with 1CP tax, trades down on transport, and picks up a fairly inconsequential invuln. At that point you have to start considering the deepstrike, transport capability, melee presence, and the free fallback more heavily.

Well we're already talking about Fellblades and Typhons, and fw is our only current source for LOWs with 9th edition rules, so I think it's relevant. Land Raider Achilles don't have Martial Legacy, so no 1CP tax. The invul isn't inconsequential considering all of the AP-4 currently floating around, especially when we're comparing durability vs melta weapons.

Well, I just threw that on without consideration to DZ. I think that map would actually be corners. A good terrain and DZ layout will heavily impact viability ( which is why consistency is nice ).

The point is that neither the Fellblade nor Eradicators are going to get all of their guns in range turn 1, which is good. But if they do the Eradicators have a far higher chance of killing the Monolith in one shot. Again, each has its advantages and disadvantages. The Fellblade has more movement and loses effectiveness slower, the Eradicators can move more freely and benefit more from cover. But only one pays a 4CP tax.

Edit: As further proof that gw doesn't consider CP taxes in the price of units consider Contemptors: A Relic or Chaos Contemptor with multi-melta and cc weapon is exactly the same price as a codex Contemptor +1CP, with no additional rules.

You know GW has messed something up when it comes to LoWs when even I think they've gone too far in penalizing them.

The 3CP for the aux LoW detachment should obviously be refunded if you have a warlord in a pat/bat/brigade of the same faction, similar to how supreme commander works, but in reverse.

There probably shouldn't be any refunds anywhere (or no costs anywhere). WL or not. Single Battalion or not. Certainly not for Supreme Command, Dark Angel Vanguard, Drukhari Patrols, whatever.

The entire idea of building it from a starting budget goes out of the window if there're quickly again more exceptions than armies that actually have to stick with the rules.

Meh, if you want to rewrite the rules of the game go for it, but that isn't the game GW has created. GW seems enamored of this system that has ridiculous base costs for detachments and then gets around it by offering you refunds. Is that the best system? Probably not. But within that system, a refund for the aux LoW is a no-brainer.