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.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I honestly have to ask, why do you even come to these posts considering all you do is hate on apocalypse each chance you get?

So the only acceptable "discussion" is agreeing with what everyone wants to hear? Praise GW or STFU?

You don't add anything constructive at all to a conversation and all you're doing is generally insulting anyone who actually likes apocalypse.

Disagreeing with is not the same thing as insulting. If you have to take it personally when someone criticizes a game you like maybe you shouldn't participate in discussion forums?

 Peregrine wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I honestly have to ask, why do you even come to these posts considering all you do is hate on apocalypse each chance you get?

So the only acceptable "discussion" is agreeing with what everyone wants to hear? Praise GW or STFU?

You don't add anything constructive at all to a conversation and all you're doing is generally insulting anyone who actually likes apocalypse.

Disagreeing with is not the same thing as insulting. If you have to take it personally when someone criticizes a game you like maybe you shouldn't participate in discussion forums?

No. You have contributed NOTHING to this discussion. This discussion is about the C'tan. You have been dismissing apocalypse, which is not the topic at hand.

Wow I came on this thread to see what the Transcendent C'tan, was all about.. Instead I find a completely different topic (and the thread completely derailed) on whether people like Apoc or not...

...Wow I really thought I was going to learn a bit on the Space Jockey C'tan... I guess not then...

Disagreeing is not inherently objectionable. Derailing threads to vent negative opinions about a given game or sub-game can be off-topic, spammy, or trolling, depending on how its done and the content and context of the posts. Please try to give the conversation cordial and on-topic, folks.

My biggest dislike on the C'tan is that I need to pay 125 Euro to field such a small model.

Ooh yeah, I get a free Suckalisk with it.
I really like how the fluff tells us it's a near indestructible object when on the same page it shows it has AV12, Skimmer and 6HP.
"Yeah, it's indestructible unless your opponent looks really hard at it. That is its only weakness!"

And now back on the C'tan:
One of my fears is that this model gets illegally recasted for 30 dollar each.
Can you imagine entering an Apocalypse game with 10 of those models on the board?

 Mannahnin wrote:
Disagreeing is not inherently objectionable. Derailing threads to vent negative opinions about a given game or sub-game can be off-topic, spammy, or trolling, depending on how its done and the content and context of the posts. Please try to give the conversation cordial and on-topic, folks.

Thank you, that was exactly my point.
I don't want to censorize anyone, I just think they should open a separate thread for it.

One is the voltron'd together fragments of solar system destroying gods.

One is an extra from a godzilla flick.

Fair enough, havent read the Ctans background fluff yet.
I think Im trying to say though, in Apoc, races are supposed to bring (and have available) the biggest and nastiest units possibly. Are there Nid formations that could wreck him?
If the Necron "big guy" significantly outlasses the Nid one, what did the Nids get as extra?
How do other races "big guys" compare to the Ctan (IG titans aside as discussed).

Having fielded a Warhound with two double-barrelled turbo-laser destroyers for 750 points.... no, the C'tan is not OP in an apocalypse context.

 Peregrine wrote:

gutsmaka wrote:
I don't know if you realize this, Peregrine, but a lot of Apoc games are not played competitively.

That's really low standards. Why should you be content for GW to publish a broken expansion that can only be "enjoyed" if you get drunk and don't care about it too much? Why shouldn't you expect that they produce a game that also works well when played competitively?

 Ratius wrote:
I'll reiterate the points made above, if you're selecting armies to outright win Apoc or have some tactical nuances, you're doing it wrong.

IOW, don't play the game, just put models on the table, make some gun noises, and take the models off the table. If you aren't supposed to make any decisions about tactics or army construction then how is this even a game?

In the same way that D&D is a game. Something doesn't need to be finely tuned and competitive to make it fun to play. What it needs to do is create an enjoyable atmosphere which, from the games I've had, it does well. Do you think Roulette isn't a game, even though it's mostly luck? How about Whist? Monopoly? Here's the thing - you DO make tough choices in Apoc and you DO need to think about tactics - the side that doesn't will lose almost every single time because they'll be facing organised, coherent opposition. Had you played it, you'd almost certainly know this.

I have no issue with people disliking Apoc. It's fine. You can tell yourselves it's a waste of money too - also fine. That doesn't mean it isn't fun for a lot of people who enjoy playing it. Money won't win you an Apocalypse game - if you take 9 Warhounds with turbo laser destructors, you will almost certainly lose to almost anyone who's reasonably prepared (or, you know, brings a single Stormraven/Vendetta/Thunderhawk/Manta/Harridan etc). Let's not pretend there's some mythical win button - there never has been. Hell, the most powerful thing for the points in old Apoc was the Doomsday device which you HAD to scratchbuild and the rules were free online. The biggest Titans? Also scratchbuilt. No, Apoc is a showcase. It's either a way to show off your whole army or it's an intense ending to a campaign. That's why it was designed. If you think bringing formation XY will win on its own, you've clearly never played. Most games are won by tiny groups of soldiers because nothing else remains. I find it fantastic and you have no authority over what I enjoy just because you don't based off irrational hatred/perceived money grabbing. There's really nothing else that can be said with regards to it - if you dislike it and think it's a cynical ploy to get your money... don't spend your money on it. Do not tell people they're having fun wrong just because you're annoyed. I'm very sorry that you don't see the enjoyment in hanging around with friends for an entire day playing a game.


Back on topic:

As for the C'tan, it's nowhere near unbalanced. It's just barely tougher than a Wraithknight but it costs 3 times as much. It's a gargantuan creature that outputs the most shooting for the points of any other creature. Heck, Sky of Falling Stars is a better version of a Reaver's Apocalypse missile launcher with less range. Personally I'd give it Seismic Shockwave, Wave of Withering and Antimatter Meteor at a cost of 750 points.

Let me just justify those choices.
For abilities, Transliminal Stride sounds fun (and if you call an all out attack it's a 54" line of hilarity) but not being able to charge afterwards really limits how long you'll live. Storm of Heavenly Fire is garbage IMO - you can't be closer than 1" to your enemy in movement, so at best it'll hit maybe 3 enemies and at worst you'll nuke your own guys. No, the reason I'd take Seismic Shockwave is because the chance in combat to put down a large blast of "remove from play" is amazing and even normally, on the charge that's hammer of wrath+9 S9 AP2 attacks+d3 large blasts.

Here's my opinions on the shooting options:

I think not taking AMM is a waste of potential - hits are resolved like a barrage, it has the surface area of 9 large blasts and with BS6, it's most likely hitting whatever you want with that S10 AP1 middle (against a 25mm based enemy, your chance to miss with the middle is 1/9 - against anything bigger than a Rhino chassis you literally cannot miss). There's nothing it won't hurt and it's the only real good long range AT option.

Wave of Withering is also awesome - being able to seriously harm vehicles/MCs out of combat lets you do other more valuable charges and, you know, it's the only D weapon available outside of Transliminal Stride ability.

Cosmic fire, I hope we can agree, is fine but the other options are so much better that I don't really see the need for it if you can't use it for overwatch.

Sky of Falling Stars is worth serious consideration IMO but it's a bit pants vs most super heavy vehicles. S7 ordinance barrage will still do a number to enemies though, so consider if you face a lot of MEQ. Plus, it's the only one you can fire without LOS. I just don't know what I'd replace to take it - probably Wave of Withering I guess, even though that neuters super heavy killing a little. Definitely over WoW on a Tesseract Vault, you do NOT want to be close with a super heavy in 6e.

Transdimensional Maelstrom is a bit of a risk - it's on average better than most weapons but it will grant cover. Sure, wiping out guys with a 10" blast sounds great but think about the size of your guy - not tall enough to reliably kill enemies. I'd stick with things resolved like barrages, which is why I say AMM instead.

Seismic Assault... not for the points. That's a lot of reliable shooting (averages 21 BS6 shots) but again, they grant cover and worse, it's not useful vs small units. Assuming you could get to the side armour of a Warhound, 5 of those kill the void shields and then you do ~8 hullpoints and probably one explodes so you may kill it. Maybe. So, if you want to maybe kill a Warhound and can get at its sides without cover, go for it. Otherwise, I really don't think it's worth the points you pay, especially when the S7 AP3 barrages are so much cheaper.

Of course, the decked out version for when points don't matter is obviously Transliminal Stride, Wave of Withering and Seismic Assault. That will let you dash into range, doing lots of damage on the way, then unleash hell at short range (which everything is at large points due to model density). That does come to 860 points and you really have to wonder if the damage is much more than SS+WoW+AMM but it is what it is. As a gargantuan, I think you should always, always rush into combat and the C'tan is pretty much the only exception. What you really want to do is get it deep into enemy territory and then tempt them to kill it, resulting it a 4d6" (average 14") S10 AP2 explosion around your now dead C'tan. Don't expect it to live long but my word, they'll put out a lot of damage in the interim. If you want dakka, go Tesseract Vault - a bit hardier VS shooting and SoFS+AMM will kill almost any ground troops from a safe distance. It also only costs you 580 points then which is insane. That said, in larger games you may WANT to suicide the Vault as it always has a Titanic Explosion, so take Trandimensional Maelstrom and Wave of Withering for 555 points and rush them. Do bear in mind losing either a super heavy or a gargantuan gives the opponent 1 VP (net 2 if you revive it).

Fair enough, havent read the Ctans background fluff yet.
I think Im trying to say though, in Apoc, races are supposed to bring (and have available) the biggest and nastiest units possibly. Are there Nid formations that could wreck him?
If the Necron "big guy" significantly outlasses the Nid one, what did the Nids get as extra?
How do other races "big guys" compare to the Ctan (IG titans aside as discussed).

The nid one is not significantly outclassed but even so, it has the advantage of not exploding upon death. It also wins in 1v1 combat (especially prolonged ones where it keeps regaining health) and can kill tanks far more effectively. Heck, Seismic Assault will do almost nothing to a Biotitan - even if you roll the maximum 36 shots, you're still barely averaging a single wound. Without Wave of Withering, the C'tan has nothing on the Biotitan who will kill it first with either shooting or assault - which is fair, because it costs more points. As for formations, endless swarm is funny against it as it means you regularly can't actually shoot at them with any attack the C'tan has except the Seismic Assault (which is still IMO not worth it and even then averages 3.5 hits). The Harridan is in a similar situation but if grounded it's not going to last long as it's far worse in combat. It's comparable to the Barbed Hierodule but does beat one (which again, seems reasonable as the C'tan always costs over 100 points more even with minimum upgrades). In terms of what it does and doesn't beat, it's pretty fair. Actually, that's true of most of this apoc edition in general with the exception of Titans. The ones I'd worry about are Eldar.

 Peregrine wrote:

So the only acceptable "discussion" is agreeing with what everyone wants to hear? Praise GW or STFU?

Stop being a cry baby and stay on topic or STFU, really. If this was a thread asking, 'So, that new Apocalypse, what's it like?' you'd have a purpose here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratius wrote:

I think Im trying to say though, in Apoc, races are supposed to bring (and have available) the biggest and nastiest units possibly.

That's definitely an option, but of course it's not how you HAVE to play. Now I'm wondering just how it'd play out if a Hierophant threw down with a Transcendant C'tan. It could be an interesting centerpiece fight, depending on what else was buffing each side.

I have his rules and when rolling on Biomancy the Swarmlord killed him in CC, otherwise attack him with a hierophant or scythed Hierodule


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A heirophant would simply CRUSH a Ctan Bookwrack

Well yeah, the Swarmlord is a dedicated assault unit that inflicts ID (aka d3 wounds). The C'tan shouldn't even need to get into assault and being able to move 12" helps that greatly. Even then I'm not sure I would do it - the C'tan stomps can remove you from play, it hits like a truck and if you do manage to kill it, you'll nuke half your own forces within 4d6" who will take an S10 AP2 hit each. To put that death into perspective, that's about a 1' radius (actually 28"+1" for the base) blast that hits everything at S10 AP2. For sheer size comparison, that's a circle of radius 660.5 inches squared. The mega-blast covers 176.7 inches squared. The large blast covers 19.63 inches squared. You're roughly triggering 33 and a half large blasts resolved at S10 AP2, or 4 mega-blasts. That's colossal and you do NOT want it anywhere near your lines. I imagine it'll be funny as heck though, makes me super tempted to do the 54" line trick just to make him explode deep in enemy lines. It's a very expensive suicide bomb but think of all that damage. Hmm.

EDIT: Yeah, the Hierophant doesn't win instantly but it strikes first, hits harder and is tougher. The C'tan does more wounds in a turn IIRC but then the Hierophant regenerates a ton and has toxic miasma. Which is fair really, the C'tan has better shooting and costs fewer points. It'd be a little silly if the most expensive gargantuan in the game wasn't the best in combat.

Hey now im just replying to bookwracks question on a Ctan vs Heirophant. and ya i doubt the Ctan would ever get into combat with The Swarmlord but its possible. And in the case of a Ctan nuking the board, being a tyranid player you would never want to fight it in CC because in doing so you would get every single one of you troops killed so you'd shoot him with a barbed heirodules 12 ST10 AP3 and the heirophants ST10 AP3's as well, which in doing so will get all your gargantuans killed as Pylons rain down 3 Destroyer shots each that potentially one hit the Heirophant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Ctan is pretty OP

Yes, does this bother you?

And identically posed? Why given that I often make silly or odd or otherwise different models for the fun of it, I'd say you don't really know me.

Like one of my projects to try and make a reaver titan do the Gangnam style dance (yes I know I'm nearly a year late, sue me).

As you can tell, I don't take the game particularly seriously.

Not when I have a Hive Tyrant swinging around an Eldar guardian instead of a bonesword with another eldar guardian posed to look terrified.

Of course I've been unanimously voted "bugnut crazy" by everyone I've ever met ever.

Dammit that sounds awesome. Can we have a link to some pics please.

To be fair, if it dies, it's most likely taking out most of the Necron force. It's a similar issue to the Vortex Missile Aquilla Strongpoint - sounds super good until you realise you will absolutely rue the day it dies - a potential 7 vortexes smashing around your deployment is not something you want. Tyranid MCs still live the hit handily. It's not OP, just powerful in the same way that the Hierophant seems broken until you see its weakness to D weapons.

Well now with the new Destroyer rules all super heavies and gargantuans have a weakness. I wish they would release a hydraphant for like a warlord/ phantom counter

ThePrimordial wrote:

bodazoka wrote:
You are using a (max 900 point) FW model in a 3500 point standard 40K game?

Yes. Yes I am. Nobody has made such a big deal out of it that they refuse to play against it. Besides that means I'll let them use their Reaver or Reaver equivalent. Whenever you have multiples of these things running around the board then it starts to be a problem.

That's fine I don't care if you are using it and I congratulate your group for allowing it.

But surely no one can complain that a (generally speaking) FW model is OP?

Im sure there would be some hard counter to it out there...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 happygolucky wrote:
Wow I came on this thread to see what the Transcendent C'tan, was all about.. Instead I find a completely different topic (and the thread completely derailed) on whether people like Apoc or not...

...Wow I really thought I was going to learn a bit on the Space Jockey C'tan... I guess not then...

On topic

I believe its S and T 9 with 6 wounds and a 3+ and FNP and is a gargantuan creature?

Has a couple of deadly shooting attacks which I think are around 24" all in all the model ranges from roughly 600 - 900 points.

The Trancedent Shard is not only good because of It's statline, but because it's so small and easy to Hide LOS.

It is a monster though, using the 18' Move D weapon, and Withering, you can pump out two D hits, with no problem. Then you can lay down the meteor on top of that!

I wouldn't throw it in CC with a Heirophant though. Pylons are a much better choice for taking out Titans.

 D6Damager wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Some people enjoy being rich idiots with more money than sense to buy on models/monuments to our egos. This is probably why my wife controls the family budget

Maybe some of us are educated and therefore have decent jobs in which we can afford our toys without taking away from our families. Don't knock people who play the game because you can't afford it or manage your own finances.

IMO large scale Apocalypse games are really fun (even if a bit time consuming) and there's no other game out there like it in scale and scope.

Back on topic: Apoc is deceptive in that its touted as a "bring everything and play" type system, however lists are still important so that you have the proper OP counters to your opponent's OP stuff. 3,500 points seems a bit low in order to have all your bases covered. I think Apoc works best starting at 5,000+ points a side.

A), that was incredibly rude and insulting.
B) he was being sarcastic and self-deprecating
C) he is still correct in his statements about the reduction in the strategy of the new version of Apoc.

ElSmacko wrote:
A), that was incredibly rude and insulting.
B) he was being sarcastic and self-deprecating
C) he is still correct in his statements about the reduction in the strategy of the new version of Apoc.

A) So was he.
B) Only the second part, the first part has been made clear by other posts.
C) No, he's not correct.
The current model with breaks, Strategic Objectives giving points throughout the game and all those Assets require more strategy than the old way of "Orbital Bombardment and keep shooting for 12 hours long".

The Trancedent Shard is not only good because of It's statline, but because it's so small and easy to Hide LOS.

Yeah, this should really be mentioned actually. As with the normal C'tan, you can hide it behind almost anything. I suspect this is the reason it has a 4++ - most of the time it will have the same in cover anyway.

he is still correct in his statements about the reduction in the strategy of the new version of Apoc.

No, he isn't. Old Apoc was dead easy in terms of "tactics". I'll give you a how to:
1) If not going first, reserve super heavies for an alpha strike on T1
2) Max out gargantuan creatures when possible as they take little damage from D Weapons
3) Thunderhawks, Titans and Vortex Grenade go into your list as much as possible
4) Spread everything out to cover maximum surface area.

That's it. No, really, that was it. Half the asserts had to be banned because they were so broken (coughflankmarchcough) and the points were all over the place - Stompas, Reavers and Hierophants ruled the game because they were so undercosted. People limited D weapons but really, that was to stop Titan/Thunderhawk spam more than anything else. It was decent for narrative campaigns but you really needed to house rule it to hell and back before it was playable at a big event.

At least new Apocalypse has some semblance of obvious playtesting. It's still not competitive but that's more due to the UGOIGO system than awful rules. I can easily see people playing it without house rules. I still imagine there'll be a restriction on D weapons for many but it's not really needed if you take it all into consideration. For example on a Titan, the 2 S D templates are good but the Plasma Blastgun covers twice the area. All non-Titan D weapons have substantial drawbacks. Essentially by taking the 2 large blasts, you are saying "instead of killing about 30 enemies, I want to kill 15". They're good, but not as good as people are making out and primarily useful for killing other Titans/super heavies. That said, there's still no reason I can see to ever take the Inferno Cannon. Seriously though, this version is a big step up in terms of rules, even if it doesn't appear like they've changed much - they have.

Can it be used in normal w40k games?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
Some people actually enjoy Apocalypse games...

I don't really see how, especially now that GW has done even more to replace what little strategy there was in the old version with more "buy this $100000000000 one-click bundle and remove your opponent's whole army from the table" balance disasters and random event tables full of different ways of removing lots of models without the players ever interacting or making decisions. The only way to make Apocalypse enjoyable is to house rule it so heavily that it barely resembles the game GW created.

And I say this as someone who has spent thousands of dollars on superheavies and more tanks/flyers than I can use in a single non-Apocalypse game.

People must REALLY not like you where you game if you are having this kind of issue with Apocalypse. I have played in more Apoc games than I can count as I prefer them over regular 40k games(no money in the world can make certain armies playable in 40k against certain lists in a tournament if no FW is allowed). Apoc is a much better environment I have found.

I guess I could see where others could have bad situations, but for you to be this bitter and unrealistic about it is a little bewildering.

Perhaps Apoc isn't the problem...


On topic. No, the Transcendant isn't that bad. Distort weapons will tear him a new one let alone Destroyer weapons.

Edit: Forgot my topic point! Ugh!

Makumba wrote:
Can it be used in normal w40k games?

You can do anything in normal 40K games if your opponent agrees to it.

Which is a long way of saying, 'good lord, no, it's not intended for that.'

Makumba wrote:
Can it be used in normal w40k games?

No, it's a gargantuan creature.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Makumba wrote:
Can it be used in normal w40k games?

No, it's a gargantuan creature.

And it has no spot in the force org

Eyjio wrote:
As with the normal C'tan, you can hide it behind almost anything. I suspect this is the reason it has a 4++ - most of the time it will have the same in cover anyway.

And it still doesn't matter because D-weapons don't care about that.

For example on a Titan, the 2 S D templates are good but the Plasma Blastgun covers twice the area.

The problem is saves. The plasma blastgun covers more area, but loses a lot of its firepower to cover/invulnerable saves and ends up with only a small advantage against infantry (or even a disadvantage against infantry with good invulnerable/cover saves). Meanwhile the turbolaser kills hordes of infantry almost as well, but is much more powerful against vehicles. In virtually every game the D-weapon is the correct choice.

All non-Titan D weapons have substantial drawbacks.

So what? Why does it matter that there's some "weak" D-weapon when you have 750 point turbolaser Warhounds? This is like saying that Vendettas are ok because ratlings exist.

Essentially by taking the 2 large blasts, you are saying "instead of killing about 30 enemies, I want to kill 15".

More like "instead of killing about 17 enemies I want to kill 15 and also be far better at killing vehicles/MCs/GCs".

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Makumba wrote:
Can it be used in normal w40k games?

No, it's a gargantuan creature.

No problem then . It could be 10 in every stat slot with an str10 ap 1 assault 1bilion gun.

 Peregrine wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
As with the normal C'tan, you can hide it behind almost anything. I suspect this is the reason it has a 4++ - most of the time it will have the same in cover anyway.

And it still doesn't matter because D-weapons don't care about that.

Well... yeah. D weapons were made so that Gargantuans and Super Heavies have a counter. I mean, what do you want me to say? It'd be pretty bad if the things specifically designed to counter enemies such as the C'tan did not in fact kill the C'tan. You take neither cover nor inv saves, so this entire point seems rather redundant. If you ever played Apoc with a 2+/3++ Hierophant, you'll understand why D weapons now ignore invs and do so many wounds (actually it's like, 3.7 wounds per hit but that's still a good amount).

For example on a Titan, the 2 S D templates are good but the Plasma Blastgun covers twice the area.

The problem is saves. The plasma blastgun covers more area, but loses a lot of its firepower to cover/invulnerable saves and ends up with only a small advantage against infantry (or even a disadvantage against infantry with good invulnerable/cover saves). Meanwhile the turbolaser kills hordes of infantry almost as well, but is much more powerful against vehicles. In virtually every game the D-weapon is the correct choice.

Hordes getting cover? Against a gun hovering a foot in the sky that moves 12" per turn? What precisely can shield that much? Inv saves do hamper it but most inv saves are 5++ so you end up killing 20 compared to 15. It's not exactly like S10 AP1 is bad vs vehicles either and you'll hit more. D weapons have their place for sure, but they are not as efficient at infantry killing as the plasma. In reality, you take the plasma for things like MEQ hordes, green tide, foot guard, etc. D weapons kill those things well but not nearly fast enough. 2 large blasts rarely do the same amount of damage as 1 10" in my experience, even with saves allowed. It's not obvious though, I wouldn't have said this without experience of it happening because it seems so counter intuitive but it's true. Well, I guess there could be one guy who brings like, 30 assault terminators but such things die exceptionally fast due to the amount of small arms in Apoc anyway. If you're facing any horde army (guard, orks, daemons, most marines with battle company formations, even Necrons now, etc) you'll really want to be taking at least one thing that kills them quickly. A plasma blastgun is as good as anything for that job.

All non-Titan D weapons have substantial drawbacks.

So what? Why does it matter that there's some "weak" D-weapon when you have 750 point turbolaser Warhounds? This is like saying that Vendettas are ok because ratlings exist.

It's not really. D weapons on Titans obey the rules of multiple blast weapons, so if you want them to do their job of killing other super heavies/gargantuans, you centre them over the enemy and hope the scatter is kind. It's more like saying " why would I take razorbacks when I have long fangs". Different tools for different jobs - just because one seems immediately better because of the amount of shots it puts out doesn't actually make it better. I hope you noted how awful the Imperium Titans are in assault - they can't keep away forever and if you're taking 2 turbo laser destructors, a rush to assault it will make it before you can kill them all. I won't call the 2 TLD Titan bad because it isn't. It is, however, far less versatile than you are claiming. II'd compare it to facing 2 Manticores - yes, at first glance they seem broken with so many high strength blasts for so few points but there are huge issues that you only really see in play. BS4 large blasts are not accurate against small targets. If you switch from a blastgun, you lose twice the area but then ignore all saves. That trade is barely ever worth it - it requires the enemy to have at least a 4++. There are good reasons you see non-2 TLD Titans and it isn't just because the model looks cool. The reason I even specified Titans is for the same reason I'd specify a Pylon (which does far more damage for the points) - the issues aren't access or short range like other D weapons, but instead intangible - limited targeting of multiple targets, accuracy concerns, etc. All shots are fired at the same time, so most people will fire all the blasts at one super heavy - it may seem like overkill but if you need something dead you cannot risk it not dying on a bad roll.Again, not things you really see without actually playing, so it's hard to show you.

Essentially by taking the 2 large blasts, you are saying "instead of killing about 30 enemies, I want to kill 15".

More like "instead of killing about 17 enemies I want to kill 15 and also be far better at killing vehicles/MCs/GCs".

What I see as having a lot of potential is flanking the enemy with a monolith and bringing the trans C'tan through the portal. Sure, it can't assault, but if placed right could deal a huge hit of damage down the enemy line, particularly with wave of withering. Plus, with a next turn transliminal slide (or even without), and explosion will be in their forces and not yours. This'd be especially good in smaller apoc games with less potential for monolith-killing interceptors.

There is nothing in this world that scares me more than the thought of Deep Striking Monoliths