PDA

View Full Version : Which is better: Monolith or Falcon



MALICIOUS LOGIC
21-03-2008, 05:29
People seem to be split on the idea. So I was curious what the Warseer community thought.

Which vehicle is better for their respective forces, the Eldar Falcon or the Necron Monolith? Or put another way, which is more threatening to play against?

They are both very different. And they perform different functions within their armies. So itís not an easy comparison. So what are your opinions?

~Logic

AngryAngel
21-03-2008, 05:31
Better for their army, I'd say the necrons on a whole get more out of a well used monolith for their units.

However better vehicle would have to be the falcon, just as vehicles go.

Drakon
21-03-2008, 07:13
falcon looks cooler while the monolith looks lame

AmBlam
21-03-2008, 08:55
Falcon easy. It can move very far, transport troops and is very difficult to kill.

Vaktathi
21-03-2008, 08:58
The Monolith, utilized correctly, is probably of more benefit to a Necron army than a single Falcon due to its array of abilities, but a Falcon will last longer and have more speed.

Kal Taron
21-03-2008, 11:20
The falcon looks better and is an Eldar vehicle whereas the Monolith belongs to walking toasters. Where's the competition?:evilgrin:

Draconian77
21-03-2008, 11:24
Er, it has a green crytsal, how cool is that :cool:

Sheesh man, get your priorities straight.

Lord Damocles
21-03-2008, 11:28
It's a bit like asking which is better - A piece of gorgonzola, or a lump of calcium carbonate?
Both vehicles fulfill totally different roles in armies which opperate in totally different ways.

That said, the falcon is the more survivable (usually), is faster, isn't the only vehicle in the army list, and can transport Harlies.

marv335
21-03-2008, 12:21
Falcon is harder to kill, has better firepower, can transport deadlier assault troops and has more mobility.

intellectawe
21-03-2008, 13:05
The monolith is better. A monolith supports the entire necron force, not by brute strength, but by using tactics.

The Falcon is a by product of horrid codex design and power gaming. The Falcon only serves the purpose of combat transport for the reason of it's broken wargear. The Falcon is a crutch, much like how the old Wraithlord was. The Falcon only serves the purpose of helping a single squad.

Straha
21-03-2008, 13:17
The Monolith does a lot for an entire Necron Army, but you pay for it in points.

That some whine about Monoliths (while fielding 6 count plas/lascannon Marines) makes it even better.

Johnnyfrej
21-03-2008, 15:24
I voted Monolith but then again I used to play Necrons and I think Eldar are a bunch of cowardly, manipulative pansies. But that is just my biased opinion :p.

-Private Jon

ReveredChaplainDrake
21-03-2008, 15:56
The monolith is better. A monolith supports the entire necron force, not by brute strength, but by using tactics.

Oh great, not that template again...

"The _____ is better. A _____ supports the _____, not by brute strength, but by using tactics."

By that logic...

The Falcon is better. A Falcon supports the Harlequins / Fire Dragons, not by brute strength, but by using tactics.

Every time somebody mentions using "tactics", a 6 is rolled on the Glancing Hit table against a Monolith. 40k is about larger-scale strategy. Fantasy is about micromanagement and "tactics".

Anyway, to the point, they are very similar in function to either army. Their danger isn't in their actual power, or even their defensive capabilities, but its based on how they help other untis. In fact, many OMGZORZ!!!1121 selections and rules are similar. (Lash of Submission, Synapse Creature, Markerlights, ATSKNF...)

The Eldar are so hyperspecialized as a race that they needed one specific unit in one specific place yesterday. A Falcon does this extremely well, usually with Harlequins or Fire Dragons. What screws people up about the Falcon is that it's not as easy to pop as Dreadnoughts. Boo-hoo. Perhaps maybe that's why they're twice as expensive for the exact same Armor Values and a lower BS.

Necrons are the other way around. As a race that thrives on mountains upon mountains upon mediocrity, they just need generic support. Not for anybody specific, like the Eldar, or in any specific way, but for anybody, anywhere, anytime. Furthermore, as there are so few ways that Necrons need support (escaping combat, mobility, and increasing survivability) the Monolith doesn't have to do all that much to make itself look nastier than it is. The easiest way to reduce the performance of a Monolith drastically is to overtax it. The Mono can either use the Particle Whip OR Teleport a single unit, at its maximum effectiveness.

Oh, and as for my vote, the only reason I voted the Mono is because I hate Monos way more than I hate Falcons. The fact that the Falcon is only BS3 with so few shots is why I'm not really bothered by Falcons. But Monos screw me up because it makes assaulting Necrons with anything worthless, unless you Lash stuff around.

Archangel_Ruined
21-03-2008, 19:52
I'll be damned, perfect 50/50 with my vote. I can see arguements either way.

Trickle
21-03-2008, 20:16
I voted Monolith. Because they scare the **** out of my army.

I am an Eldar player, and yes, I do have a single falcon. I'd rather face another Eldar player using Holo Falcon + Clowns rather than have my regular Necron opponent use a Monolith in place of one of his lords + a Destroyer (same points cost).

azimaith
21-03-2008, 20:47
Depends what you want. Monoliths could easily supercede the falcon in troop transport if necrons had something they could transport remotely resembling what eldar could. They don't, so thats kind of moot.

The falcon is definately harder to kill than the monolith for armies that don't rely entirely on lances, eg dark eldar (and even eldar don't have such a hard time with fire dragons, you'll penetrate on a 6). You can expect your monolith to die in a 1500-2000 point game and for it to impart a substantial point cost that can cause phase out which may tip close run games. Falcon on the other hand, can essentially ignore most firepower and deliver their payload with a laugh.

The monolith however, will be firing more than a falcon will in general as it won't spend all its time shaken.

linvus232
21-03-2008, 23:09
My vote goes to the Monolith. The Falcon can protect one unit from death all game but with a Monolith you can help keep most of your army standing. It's also shootier, loses nothing from Deep Striking and makes your army in general more mobile. On the whole I think it makes more of a contribution to the Necron army than the Falcon does to the Eldar one.

The_Outsider
22-03-2008, 00:42
A monolith can easily double a necron units survivability and through this extension the army.

Not to mention you simply cannot stop it particle whipping you (outside of destroying the monolith) unless the necron player decides it.

Grubnar
22-03-2008, 00:56
My vote goes to the Monolith. The Falcon can protect one unit from death all game but with a Monolith you can help keep most of your army standing. It's also shootier, loses nothing from Deep Striking and makes your army in general more mobile. On the whole I think it makes more of a contribution to the Necron army than the Falcon does to the Eldar one.

I second that.

squeekenator
22-03-2008, 07:08
Falcons because they are a funny shaped lump of flying cheese. Monoliths help out the Necrons by decreasing the number of kills their opponent needs to cause a Phase Out.

Burning Star IV
22-03-2008, 07:46
It's a bit like asking which is better - A piece of gorgonzola, or a lump of calcium carbonate?

I actually don't know what either of those are, but gorgonzola sounds like Italian food, which I hate, and calcium carbonate sounds like it has potential. I voted for the carbonate.

Kveld-Ulf
22-03-2008, 10:35
I just can't get over my unreasoningly zealous fear/hatred of Monolith's.

Most times I play it's against people who can't use them to full potential, but just want their own tank. So they're not all that bad for me usually. Just seems like they have hundreds of special rules of why living metal is "teh l33t pwnz0rs".

The falcon has a bit more survivability, but in perfect situations for both, the monolith would do better.

Trickle
22-03-2008, 11:03
(and even eldar don't have such a hard time with fire dragons, you'll penetrate on a 6).

Edit: Ap1 rule not affected

Huw_Dawson
22-03-2008, 11:15
Monoliths are EVIL.

Falcons are just abuses of the SMF rule.

Hence, Monoliths get my vote. A fully upgraded Falcon is nearly the same cost as a Monolith, but Monoliths have the inbuilt benefit of having Vectored Engines as standard, is a much better armoured tank and plays a core role in the Necron Army.

- Huw

imweasel
22-03-2008, 14:47
Monoliths are EVIL.

Falcons are just abuses of the SMF rule.

Hence, Monoliths get my vote. A fully upgraded Falcon is nearly the same cost as a Monolith, but Monoliths have the inbuilt benefit of having Vectored Engines as standard, is a much better armoured tank and plays a core role in the Necron Army.

- Huw

Now if the monolith could just move 7"...

azimaith
22-03-2008, 22:40
Edit: Ap1 rule not affected

Yep, AP1 works normally.
Which means a 6 to penetrate gives you a penetrating hit with dragons. With the number you get in a fire dragon squad you have a good chance of getting a penetrating hit.

Corax
23-03-2008, 05:05
I went for the Monolith for its sheer annoyance value. The people who point out that the two are quite different are dead on the money. The Falcon is fast and mobile and fairly difficult to destroy, while the Monolith is more like a (slightly) mobile bunker that generally gets in the way and gives other units something to hide behind. In the end, its really comparing apples and oranges, and I voted based on which I would prefer not to have to face in battle.

intellectawe
23-03-2008, 05:50
Oh great, not that template again...

"The _____ is better. A _____ supports the _____, not by brute strength, but by using tactics."

By that logic...

The Falcon is better. A Falcon supports the Harlequins / Fire Dragons, not by brute strength, but by using tactics.

Every time somebody mentions using "tactics", a 6 is rolled on the Glancing Hit table against a Monolith. 40k is about larger-scale strategy. Fantasy is about micromanagement and "tactics".

Anyway, to the point, they are very similar in function to either army. Their danger isn't in their actual power, or even their defensive capabilities, but its based on how they help other untis. In fact, many OMGZORZ!!!1121 selections and rules are similar. (Lash of Submission, Synapse Creature, Markerlights, ATSKNF...)

The Eldar are so hyperspecialized as a race that they needed one specific unit in one specific place yesterday. A Falcon does this extremely well, usually with Harlequins or Fire Dragons. What screws people up about the Falcon is that it's not as easy to pop as Dreadnoughts. Boo-hoo. Perhaps maybe that's why they're twice as expensive for the exact same Armor Values and a lower BS.

Necrons are the other way around. As a race that thrives on mountains upon mountains upon mediocrity, they just need generic support. Not for anybody specific, like the Eldar, or in any specific way, but for anybody, anywhere, anytime. Furthermore, as there are so few ways that Necrons need support (escaping combat, mobility, and increasing survivability) the Monolith doesn't have to do all that much to make itself look nastier than it is. The easiest way to reduce the performance of a Monolith drastically is to overtax it. The Mono can either use the Particle Whip OR Teleport a single unit, at its maximum effectiveness.

Oh, and as for my vote, the only reason I voted the Mono is because I hate Monos way more than I hate Falcons. The fact that the Falcon is only BS3 with so few shots is why I'm not really bothered by Falcons. But Monos screw me up because it makes assaulting Necrons with anything worthless, unless you Lash stuff around.

Good job! You proved my point. You agree with me then that a Monolith supports an entire army, while the Falcon only supports those unit both you and I mentioned. Thanks! :evilgrin:

toxic_wisdom
23-03-2008, 06:59
Several reasons come to mind why the Monolith is overall better than a Falcon. Not going into all of them right here, but as a Necron player I have to ask a few...

Can a Falcon pull squads from close combat and place them in rapid fire range of their former assailants ?

And help bring back those that suffered casualties along the way ?

Or scatter into enemy units after Deep Strike and not get destroyed - instead moving the enemy out of the way ?

Can the Falcon target x number of enemy units within a given range ?