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.

If you've got the points, Squadroning a Griffon + another indirect fire artillery tank can be quite hilarious. Since the closest firer to the target fires first in a multiple barrage, placing the Griffon in the front will allow the Griffon to re-reoll to hit on whatever you're shooting at, allowing your second (or third) tank to hit more reliably. Mind you this isn't the most cost-effective use of them, but can be hilarious in Apoc games. You can squadron a Griffon and a Basilisk to fire within the Basilisk's minimum range (as laid out on MRB p 34) easily by utilizing the Griffon's Accurate Bombardment to make your shot land where you want it, then planting an Earthsaker round on/near it.

A single Griffon can be useful in lower points games, but as the points go up, you're better off with a Medusa. Unless you play against large blobs of Orks, Nids, Gaurd, etc. The Griffon probably won't do too much, you're probably better off going for multiple HWTs with mortars for that role anyways.

 Ailaros wrote:
A third of the time, a D3 will show up with 2, the same number of large blasts a pair of griffons puts down. A third of the time, it gets to put down three. When this happens, it puts down 50% more large blast templates.

I just misread what you were saying, I thought you meant that 1/3 of the time you get 50% more, and the other 2/3 of the time you get equal or better, which would be absurd.

A pair of griffons also uses the multiple barrage rule. A single griffon is a waste of an HS slot. Two seperate griffons is a HORRIBLE waste of HS slots.

The difference is that, thanks the Griffon's far superior accuracy on the first shot and re-roll on the second, it's a lot more likely to get good hits with both shots. The Manticore is extremely vulnerable to a bad first shot ruining the rest, or even a direct hit ensuring that you only have a 1/3 chance of hitting the target a second time.

For 150 points, I can get 30 lasgunners. 30 lasgunners kill 3.3 marines, or 10 guardsmen in a turn of shooting. A pair of griffons (let's assume for whatever horrible reason that they're separate), assuming 4 models per hit kills 2.2 marines, or 5 guardsmen.

Why are you assuming that the guardsmen are all in rapid fire range? Is this an honest mistake, or are you trying to dishonestly compare a close-range weapon to a long-range one?

So, more accurately, the guardsmen kill zero marines at a Griffon's maximum range, and only 1.667 within 24". And of course they can't barrage snipe, can't kill hordes effectively, can't murder squads that just lost their transport and couldn't spread out, etc. It's just ridiculous to argue that lasgunners can even come close to competing with a Griffon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 entendre_entendre wrote:
If you've got the points, Squadroning a Griffon + another indirect fire artillery tank can be quite hilarious.

If by 'hilarious' you mean 'terrible'. Even if you get a direct hit with the Griffon you just ensured that you can't get a direct hit, or less than 5" scatter, no matter how well you roll on the distance unless the scatter die is a hit. If you have LOS you just increased average scatter distance from 4" to 5", and paid 75 points to do it.

And of course if you roll a hit on the second shot you hit your target anyway, so getting to place it based on the Griffon's shot doesn't help you at all.

 ender502 wrote:
The Griffin doesn't have any glaring weaknesses.
ender502

Except for the Str 6 and 12" min range, I agree.

 TheCaptain wrote:
Alright.

I'm gunna lay it down for you guys, plain and simple.

Say you've got like, three hotties watching you play an 1850 game. You've got a 6, a 7, and a 9 (all out of 10).

You drop some wicked accurate shots from the griffon, kill a few non-elite troop choices, get the job done conservatively; that six and seven will be pretty damn interested. You've presented yourself as a reliable, consistent man worth their time.

But that sweet, 5'7", Blonde, Sub-100lb Southern Belle of a 9 isn't into that. No. You drop a couple shots with that Medusa; blow up some termie squads, she'll dig it. Powerful, unforgiving, commanding. The Medusa pulls, man.

Go with a Medusa.

You're welcome.

This is a perfect explanation.
Would you rather have the 9? Go with the Medusa.
Would you rather have the 6 and the 7 at the same time? Take the griffons.
It's all good.

-Matt

 alarmingrick wrote:

 ender502 wrote:
The Griffin doesn't have any glaring weaknesses.
ender502

Except for the Str 6 and 12" min range, I agree.

Minimum range no longer matters.

 Peregrine wrote:

 alarmingrick wrote:

 ender502 wrote:
The Griffin doesn't have any glaring weaknesses.
ender502

Except for the Str 6 and 12" min range, I agree.

Minimum range no longer matters.

I've noticed alot of people are still having trouble with this rule, ever since they got rid of min range I've been having a blast (literally) with artillery.

The other day I played a game with a griffon and a basilisk at 1000 points in a squadron, since I had the option of rerolling my shots I had ALOT more control over my artillery and how it was being used. This alone seemed to have an effect psychologically on my opponent, mostly because of the uncanny accuracy of my artillery got him to refocus on them and not on my sneaky demoliser LR or my plasma blob. I even got it to hit the corner of a landraider, covering part of a termie squad, killing one of them, then the earthshaker round glanced the landraider! Definitely luck, but it had enough of an effect that I will gladly use it again. I also hate land raiders. ALOT

schadenfreude wrote:The meta changed going into 6th ed.

Certainly the manticore may have gotten worse relative to 5th ed manticores. This does not, however make them worse than griffons.

Griffons were crappy before, and are crappy now. That manticores got worse doesn't mean I should run out and buy some griffon kits.

Peregrine wrote:

For 150 points, I can get 30 lasgunners. 30 lasgunners kill 3.3 marines, or 10 guardsmen in a turn of shooting. A pair of griffons (let's assume for whatever horrible reason that they're separate), assuming 4 models per hit kills 2.2 marines, or 5 guardsmen.

Why are you assuming that the guardsmen are all in rapid fire range? Is this an honest mistake, or are you trying to dishonestly compare a close-range weapon to a long-range one?

You said volume of fire is the best way to do things. If this is true, then lasguns are much better, because they do volume of fire better. If it's not true, then the griffon is terrible because it doesn't ignore armor or cover on most stuff.

If you want to start adding variables to weasel out of the position that you, yourself, made indefensible, that's your prerogative. Whatever desire you have to "win" the "argument" is ultimately irrelevant to the griffon's poor performance over all.

 Ailaros wrote:
You said volume of fire is the best way to do things. If this is true, then lasguns are much better, because they do volume of fire better. If it's not true, then the griffon is terrible because it doesn't ignore armor or cover on most stuff.

Oh FFS. If you're out of range you have ZERO volume of fire.

And I never said that volume of fire is the best way to do things at all times, I said that it's best in this comparison. The Griffon's advantage in volume of wounds offsets the Colossus' ability to ignore saves with a smaller volume of wounds. In other cases quality of fire is best. Don't strawman my claim about a specific situation into some kind of general rule.

Just to make this nice and clear:

Me: Unit X has a single STR 10 AP 1 shot. Unit Y has a thousand STR 10 AP - shots. Unit Y is better at killing infantry than unit X.
You: You're saying you should always take lasguns instead of upgrade weapons!

See the problem?

If you want to start adding variables to weasel out of the position that you, yourself, made indefensible, that's your prerogative. Whatever desire you have to "win" the "argument" is ultimately irrelevant to the griffon's poor performance over all.

I only "made that proposition" in your mind. The comparison is between two units with the same role, of long range fire against infantry targets. Bringing in a unit that only "wins" inside 12" is just plain stupid because it can't compete in that role.

Only a few posters above have mentioned a key difference between the Griffon and Manticore/Colossus: two Griffons last more than twice as long as one Manticore of Colossus for the same points.

When comparing the damage output alone the Griffon may lose out, even if it is by a very small margin and only against a certain group of targets, but that's only half the point.

A Colossus may scare the hell out of MEQs, but that Colossus will be dead very soon for precisely that reason. Same with the Manticore.

The Squadron rules and being able to move and fire barrage makes 2 Griffons a solid choice in mosts lists.

Interesting point from my past experiences:

I have never lost my Griffon, I always lose my Manticore. The Manticore's reputation precedes itself and it tends to die rather quickly, or it loses the Storm Eagle launcher and is essentially worthless. I dig my Griffon in area terrain and it draws some fire but never enough to kill it.

The Griffon is never a priority target, people will more than likely ignore it and they do that at their own discretion/peril, it can do some nice damage and isn't exactly expensive. I like using it as a way to force my opponent to re-evaluate their movements and overall tactical approach in one battle. Maybe they decide against a mad dash with their scoring units across open ground knowing there's a pretty accurate mortar back there to more than likely make them go splat.

Just like Marbo, sew disorder in your opponent's mind and watch their plans evaporate.

I have also found that the Griffon excels at lower point levels. 750-1000 is where I've had the most success with the Griffon, combine it with a Hellhound and you have a reliable tandem of vehicles that work well together to slay infantry and light vehicles.

I see some "overreaching" in this thread (and in 40k in general), expecting a Griffon and a Manticore to have similar roles is IMO the wrong approach to maximizing both artillery piece's abilities. Manticores are terribly inefficient at killing infantry, but they're highly effective at it (when optimum shots land). Griffon's aren't vehicle killers, but they're not bad against infantry at all. Don't use units in roles that they're not built for. Square pegs aren't made for round holes.

StormRider...if you keep applying logic and reason to this thread I will have you banned!

Generally, when we have 1 item/vehicle/weapon that is better in every situation we talk about how "broken" it is. In the case of the guard dex I think they got most of the stuff close to right.

Like the whole AS v Las debate, I thin it really depends on your meta and your particular style of Army.

ender502

 TheCaptain wrote:


In College, anything can happen.

Except for work apparently.

Edit: oh yeah the topic. Griffons are pretty cool in a TAC list. Find they are a work horse consistently putting down wounds, and causing failed saves. N.B. notice I said "they" if I take one I'm always disappointed and should have just taken Marbo and a throw away HB or AC for some vets.

Peregrine wrote:If you're out of range you have ZERO volume of fire.

This is true for every unit in the game.

Peregrine wrote:And I never said that volume of fire is the best way to do things at all times, I said that it's best in this comparison.

You're making an abstract principle and then going back on it with specific exceptions without explaining either why the rule or the exceptions should be true.

You'll have to forgive the rest of us for being confused as you bicker with yourself.

Stormrider wrote:I have never lost my Griffon, I always lose my Manticore.

I don't know how much ignorability is a virtue.

I'd rather only take awesome stuff that my opponent can't ignore, rather than having some awesome units that my opponent can't ignore, and some crummy stuff that they can.

Aleinikov wrote:Only a few posters above have mentioned a key difference between the Griffon and Manticore/Colossus: two Griffons last more than twice as long as one Manticore of Colossus for the same points.

True, but to what end?

I suppose if you're looking for more scoring units in big guns mission this would be useful. Otherwise, the point of HS slots is to kill stuff. Yes, you do have to balance things, of course, and some extra durability can help you do more damage over time, but you still need to have killing power.

In a way, the griffons are sort of the conscripts of the HS slot. You get more of them, and they're harder to kill as a result, but the damage they do is poor. That's fine for conscripts, because they're scoring units, but for HS slots...

 Ailaros wrote:

Stormrider wrote:I have never lost my Griffon, I always lose my Manticore.

I don't know how much ignorability is a virtue.

I agree with this. Especially in a mech list where you want your opponent to be shooting at the scary manticore with a great cover save rather than the chimeras with squishy troops inside.

I think it is unfair to say the Griffin's damage is "poor". It is just as good (or bad depending on your point of view) at killing MEQ's and TEQ's as a manticore.

Versus the Manticore I think the Griffon has the advantage. Twice as survivable and a guaranteed # of shots.

The Colossus and Medusa are a different matter entirely. If you are facing mainly MEQ's and are tailoring your army to take them on, I think either of these choices MAY be better than the Griffon. But do you want to sink that many points into a single AV 12 target?

ender502

 ender502 wrote:
I think it is unfair to say the Griffin's damage is "poor". It is just as good (or bad depending on your point of view) at killing MEQ's and TEQ's as a manticore.

Versus the Manticore I think the Griffon has the advantage. Twice as survivable and a guaranteed # of shots.

The Colossus and Medusa are a different matter entirely. If you are facing mainly MEQ's and are tailoring your army to take them on, I think either of these choices MAY be better than the Griffon. But do you want to sink that many points into a single AV 12 target?

ender502

But that's just it, well, for me.
I'm not shooting targets with the Manticore, that I'd be shooting at with the Griffon.
MultiLasers and Griffons would be a better comparison.
If they both laid down Str 10 pie plates, it would be a better arguement.

 Ailaros wrote:

Peregrine wrote:If you're out of range you have ZERO volume of fire.

This is true for every unit in the game.

This is quite possibly the dumbest argument I've ever seen on this forum. You were comparing the Griffon and Colossus in the context of long range artillery. Comparing either to lasguns in rapid fire range is just plain stupid, since lasguns have ZERO volume of fire in the 24"+ range we're talking about.

You're making an abstract principle and then going back on it with specific exceptions without explaining either why the rule or the exceptions should be true.

You'll have to forgive the rest of us for being confused as you bicker with yourself.

No, you're making a strawman out of my argument and pretending I said something that I didn't so you can call me inconsistent. I made it very clear that I'm not talking about some universal "volume of fire is better" rule, and that volume of fire just happens to get better results in this comparison between these two units. You're the only one trying to apply this statement to any other set of units.

 Dwayne_Wade wrote:
I was wondering what dakka has to say about Griffon mortar tanks. I feel like they are going to be pretty useful in 6th edition now that ordnance hit at full strength against vehicles. It's barrage so back armour correct? and now that mechanized is on it's way out the Griffon seems great for taking out infantry using cover to march up the battle field.

any thoughts?

I like them. The FW Vanaheim griffon is cute. Sometimes I like to pair it up with another arty tank. It hides well, being low. I don't think I ever have marched up the battle field with one. That's what LRBT are for They tend to follow the wreckage, sort of schlepping their way along. The Griffon is not a tank to build a list around, not that you can't, but more of a why would you. I'm sure it been done though. Like I said. Cute. They just beg to be bubble wrapped by praetorians or something.

 alarmingrick wrote:

 ender502 wrote:
I think it is unfair to say the Griffin's damage is "poor". It is just as good (or bad depending on your point of view) at killing MEQ's and TEQ's as a manticore.

Versus the Manticore I think the Griffon has the advantage. Twice as survivable and a guaranteed # of shots.

The Colossus and Medusa are a different matter entirely. If you are facing mainly MEQ's and are tailoring your army to take them on, I think either of these choices MAY be better than the Griffon. But do you want to sink that many points into a single AV 12 target?

ender502

But that's just it, well, for me.
I'm not shooting targets with the Manticore, that I'd be shooting at with the Griffon.
MultiLasers and Griffons would be a better comparison.
If they both laid down Str 10 pie plates, it would be a better arguement.

Now that makes sense. The manticore is far superior to the Griffon in 2 areas multi-wound Meqs/Teqs and against vehicles. In just about every other situation think the Griffon is better. But against those 2 situations...I think I would probably be looking at the medusa and colossus before the Manticore. I remember a few years back a dakka poster had a really nasty Creed army that had a group of flanking medusas or colossus.

ender502

ender502 wrote:I think it is unfair to say the Griffin's damage is "poor". It is just as good (or bad depending on your point of view) at killing MEQ's and TEQ's as a manticore.

Right, I think a manticore is bad against MEQs and TEQs as well.

 ender502 wrote:
[
As Alairos pointed out the Manti CAN get more shots but on average, over 6 turns, will get 12 shots. Same as 2 Griffions over 6 turns. So, the idea that a manticore MAY get more shots isn't all that persuasive as on average, they get the same # of shots for the same # of points. And yes, twice the durability ( 2 griffins for 1 manti) means twice the vehicles to hide. Though I have found folks do have a habit of ignoring Griffins. Just an observation.

ender502

That is not true. Manticore can only fire 4 times per game, which averages out to 8 blasts, and has the potential of 4 - 12 blasts.

Unless you add time into the equation. If neither of them is going to survive to the end of the game, then the fact that the manticore has a maximum number of shots is less relevant.

Also, in the unreliable world of D3 shots, when a manticore DOES put down three shots, it's going to be earlier in the game, when it's going to matter more.

Guys.

D3 large blasts is party waiting to happen.

Get on that.

 Ailaros wrote:
Unless you add time into the equation. If neither of them is going to survive to the end of the game, then the fact that the manticore has a maximum number of shots is less relevant.

Yes, but that was a reply to a claim that the Manticore averaged 12 shots per game, which it doesn't. Whether or not it dies earlier, it's still a false claim.

Also, in the unreliable world of D3 shots, when a manticore DOES put down three shots, it's going to be earlier in the game, when it's going to matter more.

And if it puts down one shot, it's going to be earlier in the game, when it's going to matter more. Random shots is a double-edged sword and you can't only consider the benefits.

I think we could go with the whole 3plusplus adage here RE: letting playstyle inform list building. It is awfully fun to argue about something like this, but it's not like either side is really without merit.

What are people tending to shoot their manticores at these days anyway? Racking up a bunch of splash damage on parking lots siege tank style? How many instances is each single blast better than the griffons?

I'm sorta not impressed with where the Ailaros arguments have gone. It seems like you are just defending or attacking arguments now and not really interacting with the content of the topic or trying to learn/demonstrate anything anymore.

I like this sort of unit because objective clearing is getting more necessary and you are seeing lots of small devastator style units behind interfering cover these days (now that you can buy your own interfering cover) and the new cover system is making it necessary for them to get nice and close. If you lot aren't seeing a lot of necron warriors or allied guard or boyz I'm not really sure what to say, but it's been one of the big shifts in fashion in competitive sixth.

HawaiiMatt wrote:


This is a perfect explanation.
Would you rather have the 9? Go with the Medusa.
Would you rather have the 6 and the 7 at the same time? Take the griffons.
It's all good.

-Matt

Hahahha I think group sex tends to be a little more of a diceroll than two griffons are though.
Not that I buy into this numbering business but I tend to find the people who get ranked as nines are often very interested in trying to come off that way and aren't a whole lot of fun else wise, then again, beautiful people tend to be very worldly. I haven't used the maticore like ever so I can't really make a lewd comparison.

Lucre wrote:I like this sort of unit because objective clearing is getting more necessary and you are seeing lots of small devastator style units behind interfering cover these days (now that you can buy your own interfering cover) and the new cover system is making it necessary for them to get nice and close.

A feat which both manticores and colossuses do better, and that's just looking at artillery.

How much better is the manticore doing it than 2x griffons? I'm not getting that bit. And I know that only a third of wounds tend to get through to marines even if there happen to be twice as many when it comes to colossus vs the 2x griffons but I've also been finding it pretty rare that the backfield objective campers (or walking in from reserves guys) are actually marines these days. I guess I just don't often see C:SM too often so a lot fewer combat squaded 5 dudes and ML.

Griffons might fall behind a bit vs marines, 2 of them being more accurate so scoring more hits and quite a few more wounds than the colossus but then having that number reduced to a third. But against many other targets the griffon will shine, and I've been seeing a lot more splashed non +3 guys of late, and as it seems quite likely less area terrain than you.

I'm not sure there is a better pick, though I'm wondering if the manticore has too much of a reputation now and that sneaky griffons might be more fun. Though it's something I'm only going to have to worry about in enemies because Necrons and chaos don't have problems with objective clearing already.

Take Griffon with a basilisk or even 2 basilisks if points allow.

Position griffon mid front of basi, so its closest to target(s)

Now you get to barrage more accuratly! ( their all barrage weapons )

Griffon shoots first, re-roll if neccesary, then resolve your basi shots

Then throw in a manticore to realy piss em off!

Lucre wrote:How much better is the manticore doing it than 2x griffons?

It can ID things, possibly get three shots off at once, and, most importantly, can kill scoring units that are hanging out near objectives in transports much better.

Small things, but even if we say that the manticore and the griffon are equal at it, that still doesn't make the griffons GOOD at it. If I've got a scoring unit in a ruin, then artillery, including the griffon, is only hitting the top floor. If I've got regular scoring units in area terrain, they're going to ground for a 3+ or a 4+ save, and good luck to the griffons to chisel them out of that.

If what is important is nailing scoring units on the other side of the board, then a short-ranged artillery piece that doesn't ignore cover saves is going to be a crappy way to go about it, being neither good in its own right, nor better than other options in the codex.

Which, apart from effectiveness issues, is probably the biggest problem with the griffon. What does a griffon do well that nothing else in the codex can't do better? It seems either crappy at any particular role, or outshone in any particular role to me.

Doesn't it ignore cover saves that aren't area or is that a remnant of the last edition in my noggin?

I like how cheap griffons are and how often they get to hit a decent amount of stuff for 75 points. I also like the colossus though. I'm not sure which one I like more. Colossus is such a nice silver bullet for lists that rely on coversaves while still being alright at removing marines too (I hate BS3 blasts).

I can't say I'm excited about the prospect of shooting a manticore at a tank hiding in cover. I actually don't like the idea of shooting it at tanks at all unless there is something immediately beside it to take some splash.

I do get excited about shooting griffons at just about any old garbage (so long as it has more than 4 bases) because the griffon costs less than most garbage and you're pretty likely to be getting to accurately shoot it quite a number of times through the game.