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.

Ohman Lasscannons are so underpowered. I keep shooting Ork Boyz with them and I only return like 10% of my investment in points in a 7 turn game!

Don't be disingenous, Unit.

fe40k wrote:
See edit: You're aiming a 1d3 weapon at 1W models. It's overkill - find a better target (big monster) to shoot at, and you'll get more accurate results.

More "accurate?"

Perhaps the way to beat manticores is to not try to fight them with big stuff, mmh? Though I will say my superheavy tanks have also crushed our 9-manticore friend, mostly because there's no terrain in the world to hide 9 manticores behind and they die to a stiff breeze. Like a Baneblade cannon.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

fe40k wrote:
See edit: You're aiming a 1d3 weapon at 1W models. It's overkill - find a better target (big monster) to shoot at, and you'll get more accurate results.

More "accurate?"

Perhaps the way to beat manticores is to not try to fight them with big stuff, mmh? Though I will say my superheavy tanks have also crushed our 9-manticore friend, mostly because there's no terrain in the world to hide 9 manticores behind and they die to a stiff breeze. Like a Baneblade cannon.

Yeah, the way to counter manticores is with hordes!... Hmmm... whats one the bests unit in the game to kill hordes? What? Imperial Guard Infantry do you say?... wait a minute...

 Galas wrote:
Ohman Lasscannons are so underpowered. I keep shooting Ork Boyz with them and I only return like 10% of my investment in points in a 7 turn game!

Don't be disingenous, Unit.

Are you implying the manticore is a specialist and not a generalist weapon system?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

fe40k wrote:
See edit: You're aiming a 1d3 weapon at 1W models. It's overkill - find a better target (big monster) to shoot at, and you'll get more accurate results.

More "accurate?"

Perhaps the way to beat manticores is to not try to fight them with big stuff, mmh? Though I will say my superheavy tanks have also crushed our 9-manticore friend, mostly because there's no terrain in the world to hide 9 manticores behind and they die to a stiff breeze. Like a Baneblade cannon.

Yeah, the way to counter manticores is with hordes!... Hmmm... whats the best unit in the game to kill hordes? What? Imperial Guard Infantry do you say?... wait a minute...

I still think the best counter to hordes in the game are Sisters of Battle dominion squads.

you get 20 storm bolter shots for 60 points.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Ohman Lasscannons are so underpowered. I keep shooting Ork Boyz with them and I only return like 10% of my investment in points in a 7 turn game!

Don't be disingenous, Unit.

Are you implying the manticore is a specialist and not a generalist weapon system?

It is a weapon to kill anything with more than 1Wound per model. And even some 1W models it can kill eficiently because they are expensive, like some space marine models, DW, GK, TS, DG, Eldar Aspect Warriors, etc...

Marmatag wrote:You don't need to "basically explain" about a manticore. We all know exactly what it is at this point. We've all had 4+ of them crushing us from across the table for turns.

When people keep trying to assert they're worth more than kitted heavy battle tanks, that they are inferior to in all respects, based on a single ability which is highly variable in utility (can be very powerful, can be totally pointless), it is hard not to. Especially when the response to my assertion isn't to actually dispute any of my arguments, but instead to just complain about anecdotal incidents.

If you're routinely playing IG armies that are able to consistently keep 4 Manticores totally hidden every game, something is wrong.

Martel732 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Or their genestealers. Or their dunestriders. Or acolytes. Or ANYTHING. Most armies have to fire huge amounts of points of models to clear guardmen. It takes 39 points of marines to kill one guardsmen outside rapid fire range. That's insane. 5+ armor alone is worth more than 4 ppm.

"Guardsmen being cheap in a Guard army is one thing. "

Yes, a broken thing. Because the stuff they are screening for is more efficient than anything in a marine army anyway.

My point wasnt about their specific cost but their role, read cheap as "low cost" not "undercosted". Even if they're perfectly costed within the context of an IG army, when used alongside other forces built around different strengths and weaknesses, their value can change quite dramatically.

Their best value is standing in front of a manticore.

Lots of things can do that in a guard army however.

Being able to double your unit and model count by swaping literally just swapping out a couple of basic Troop infantry models in a Custodes force provides an altogether different level of utility that the army does not natively possess.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Basically everything FW saw a significant price hike thanks to Chapter Approved. Someone, for example, decided that a Tarantula Sentry Gun needed to be bumped up from 24ppm when equipped with a twin Heavy Bolter up to 34ppm for the same Tarantula.

aye, CA brutally ruined most FW options, not sure what they were thinking there.

The denial is strong here.

 Galas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Ohman Lasscannons are so underpowered. I keep shooting Ork Boyz with them and I only return like 10% of my investment in points in a 7 turn game!

Don't be disingenous, Unit.

Are you implying the manticore is a specialist and not a generalist weapon system?

It is a weapon to kill anything with more than 1Wound per model. And even some 1W models it can kill efficiently because they are expensive, like some space marine models, DW, GK, TS, DG, Eldar Aspect Warriors, etc...

It's not a 2-damage weapon though. It's a d3 damage weapon. The difference is massive, because what will show up if you just round the averages to 2 is that it wipes the floor with Primaris Marines / Terminators /whatever, but in reality about 50% of the damage is wasted (rolling a 1 to do one wound, then rolling a 2 or a 3 to do two or three wounds, and therefore using 3 or 4 of your potential damage points to kill 1 model).

"Being able to double your unit and model count by swaping literally just swapping out a couple of basic Troop infantry models in a Custodes force provides an altogether different level of utility that the army does not natively possess. "

We can agree to disagree. Undercosted is undercosted. If elite infantry weren't so inefficient, then the cheap units wouldn't be so desirable.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Ohman Lasscannons are so underpowered. I keep shooting Ork Boyz with them and I only return like 10% of my investment in points in a 7 turn game!

Don't be disingenous, Unit.

Are you implying the manticore is a specialist and not a generalist weapon system?

It is a weapon to kill anything with more than 1Wound per model. And even some 1W models it can kill efficiently because they are expensive, like some space marine models, DW, GK, TS, DG, Eldar Aspect Warriors, etc...

It's not a 2-damage weapon though. It's a d3 damage weapon. The difference is massive, because what will show up if you just round the averages to 2 is that it wipes the floor with Primaris Marines / Terminators /whatever, but in reality about 50% of the damage is wasted (rolling a 1 to do one wound, then rolling a 2 or a 3 to do two or three wounds, and therefore using 3 or 4 of your potential damage points to kill 1 model).

With 120" of range and without needing LOS you can target whatever you want in the table. A Manticore will always shoot at his most efficient target in the enemy list, even if that list is pure horde with some elite units and without tanks, etc...

I believe a Mantiroce should lost his max 4 shoots per battle, just like a Deathstrike should lost his turn 3 (Or 4 I don't remember) requirement. Balance them that way, and if you can't balance them, redesign them.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Ohman Lasscannons are so underpowered. I keep shooting Ork Boyz with them and I only return like 10% of my investment in points in a 7 turn game!

Don't be disingenous, Unit.

Are you implying the manticore is a specialist and not a generalist weapon system?

It is a weapon to kill anything with more than 1Wound per model. And even some 1W models it can kill efficiently because they are expensive, like some space marine models, DW, GK, TS, DG, Eldar Aspect Warriors, etc...

It's not a 2-damage weapon though. It's a d3 damage weapon. The difference is massive, because what will show up if you just round the averages to 2 is that it wipes the floor with Primaris Marines / Terminators /whatever, but in reality about 50% of the damage is wasted (rolling a 1 to do one wound, then rolling a 2 or a 3 to do two or three wounds, and therefore using 3 or 4 of your potential damage points to kill 1 model).

It has a 66% chance to do 2-3 damage.

But that's the world of all d3/d6 weapons; they're prone to low rolls, and overkill. At least the manticore gets 2d6 shots on top of it too.

Edit: I'd also argue that the LRBT Punisher is probably the most efficient anti-horde unit out there; 150 points for 40 S5 AP0 shots. Sisters of Battle with Storm Bolters are effective too - but they're T4 infantry that has half the range of the Punisher if you want those 20 shots (Otherwise you're getting 10 shots at 24" range, 5 models x 12points per model).

 Galas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Ohman Lasscannons are so underpowered. I keep shooting Ork Boyz with them and I only return like 10% of my investment in points in a 7 turn game!

Don't be disingenous, Unit.

Are you implying the manticore is a specialist and not a generalist weapon system?

It is a weapon to kill anything with more than 1Wound per model. And even some 1W models it can kill efficiently because they are expensive, like some space marine models, DW, GK, TS, DG, Eldar Aspect Warriors, etc...

It's not a 2-damage weapon though. It's a d3 damage weapon. The difference is massive, because what will show up if you just round the averages to 2 is that it wipes the floor with Primaris Marines / Terminators /whatever, but in reality about 50% of the damage is wasted (rolling a 1 to do one wound, then rolling a 2 or a 3 to do two or three wounds, and therefore using 3 or 4 of your potential damage points to kill 1 model).

With 120" of range and without needing LOS you can target whatever you want in the table. A Manticore will always shoot at his most efficient target in the enemy list, even if that list is pure horde with some elite units and without tanks, etc...

Yes, but as a generalist unit, it's much less efficient than it seems against elite units. Let's look at it versus Primaris Marines, it's best foe.

7 shots, 3.5 hits, 2.91 wounds, 1.94 past saves.

That's either 1 dead primaris marine (rolling a 1 on either d3) or 2 dead primaris marines (rolling a 2+ on both d3s). Assuming a 50/50 split on whether it kills one primaris marine or two primaris marines, the manticore will kill 7 primaris marines per game.

7 Primaris marine can go from 126 for Intercessors to 245 for hellblasters (And with a manticore, if theres hellblasters in the table why are you shooting at intercessors?)

And personally I don't know how a Heavy 2d6 S10 -2 ap d3 weapon is a "generalist" weapon. If you are saying that is "generalist" in the sense that is good at killing pseudo-elite/elite infantry to damaging super heavy tanks and all in between, then ok, is generalistic.
And you keep measuring Manticores without Cadian or Catachan regiment bonuses. And you know thats not how they are played.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Commissar Benny wrote:
...Manticore nerf...

What, the one that bumped it from 125 to 145pts (or whatever it was)?

I'd like to state for the record that my Warp Hunter is 245pts for a quarter of the Manticore's main gun and it is good. Calling a 20pt bump a "nerf" on a unit that's still at least 50pts too cheap is kind of silly.

Perhaps the Warp Hunter is absurdly overcosted instead? A Manticore is basically a barebones LRBT that trades potentially up to 3 turns of main weapon fire, a point lower of Toughness, an extra wound, extra weapons upgrades options, and Lumbering Behemoth...for the ability to shoot without LoS and a 9pt cost decrease. The ability to shoot without LoS is extremely variable in utility depending on an array of factors (sometimes it can be amazing, other times you're playing on planet bowling ball and it is utterly irrelevant), but ultimately the idea that a Manticore should be a 200pt tank is absurd.

Problem: The Warp Hunter isn't absurdly overcosted. It's a completely playable unit.

Further problem: "Potentially up to three turns of main weapon fire" is a bit of a joke; I have yet to see an 8e game that wasn't decided by most of one side dying by turn four, and the alpha strike is way too decisive for the tradeoff in shooting in turn five and on to matter.

Addendum: Grinding Advance bumps you from d6 shots to 2d6 shots. The Manticore already has 2d6 shots. The ability to move and fire at no penalty is irrelevant when you're comparing it to a unit that can shoot the entire table without moving.

On considering the facts I will amend that if you were to ignore the ability to fire without line of sight you might be more correct (you're making a unit a bit squishier to make it hit a bit harder), but fundamentally to me the problem is that the Manticore is giving up things that don't matter for things that do matter. You're giving up the ability to move and fire at no penalty in exchange for the ability to hit the entire table without moving. You're trading Toughness/Wounds for the ability to camp in a corner behind a layer of chaff the thickness of your deployment zone and still contribute 100% of your firepower to the game. You're giving up shooting from turn five onwards in exchange for a vastly stronger/more reliable alpha strike that can't be avoided by counter-deploying.

The issue of ignoring line of sight is vastly more important than you're suggesting it is, simply because line of sight allows me to force a Leman Russ to move up the table to engage. A Manticore can camp in the corner where I can't interact with it because it's got the range to cover the table and doesn't give a s*** about line of sight, which means it's positioning is always perfectly optimal, whereas a Russ may have to choose between exposing itself to shorter ranged weapons/chargers and not getting shots.

So yeah. The Manticore on pure stats isn't OP by comparison to the Russ, but every disadvantage it gets is mitigated, negated, or outright ignored by indirect fire.

 Galas wrote:
7 Primaris marine can go from 126 for Intercessors to 245 for hellblasters (And with a manticore, if theres hellblasters in the table why are you shooting at intercessors?)

And personally I don't know how a Heavy 2d6 S10 -2 ap d3 weapon is a "generalist" weapon. If you are saying that is "generalist" in the sense that is good at killing pseudo-elite/elite infantry to damaging super heavy tanks and all in between, then ok, is generalistic.
And you keep measuring Manticores without Cadian or Catachan regiment bonuses. And you know thats not how they are played.

Sometimes it is how they're played. One of the best guard players in my local area uses Mordian, I myself use Vostroyan, there are Valhallan regiments about as well (in fact this one is fairly popular).

Even on facebook people are telling eachother to use Valhallan manticores because if you can't hide them, at least it keeps them more useful for longer, and there's apparently been people having trouble hiding them. *Shrug*

The Manticore is not costed for regiment bonuses, and rightly shouldn't be, because the regimental bonuses affect it differently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Commissar Benny wrote:
...Manticore nerf...

What, the one that bumped it from 125 to 145pts (or whatever it was)?

I'd like to state for the record that my Warp Hunter is 245pts for a quarter of the Manticore's main gun and it is good. Calling a 20pt bump a "nerf" on a unit that's still at least 50pts too cheap is kind of silly.

Perhaps the Warp Hunter is absurdly overcosted instead? A Manticore is basically a barebones LRBT that trades potentially up to 3 turns of main weapon fire, a point lower of Toughness, an extra wound, extra weapons upgrades options, and Lumbering Behemoth...for the ability to shoot without LoS and a 9pt cost decrease. The ability to shoot without LoS is extremely variable in utility depending on an array of factors (sometimes it can be amazing, other times you're playing on planet bowling ball and it is utterly irrelevant), but ultimately the idea that a Manticore should be a 200pt tank is absurd.

Problem: The Warp Hunter isn't absurdly overcosted. It's a completely playable unit.

Further problem: "Potentially up to three turns of main weapon fire" is a bit of a joke; I have yet to see an 8e game that wasn't decided by most of one side dying by turn four, and the alpha strike is way too decisive for the tradeoff in shooting in turn five and on to matter.

Addendum: Grinding Advance bumps you from d6 shots to 2d6 shots. The Manticore already has 2d6 shots. The ability to move and fire at no penalty is irrelevant when you're comparing it to a unit that can shoot the entire table without moving.

On considering the facts I will amend that if you were to ignore the ability to fire without line of sight you might be more correct (you're making a unit a bit squishier to make it hit a bit harder), but fundamentally to me the problem is that the Manticore is giving up things that don't matter for things that do matter. You're giving up the ability to move and fire at no penalty in exchange for the ability to hit the entire table without moving. You're trading Toughness/Wounds for the ability to camp in a corner behind a layer of chaff the thickness of your deployment zone and still contribute 100% of your firepower to the game. You're giving up shooting from turn five onwards in exchange for a vastly stronger/more reliable alpha strike that can't be avoided by counter-deploying.

The issue of ignoring line of sight is vastly more important than you're suggesting it is, simply because line of sight allows me to force a Leman Russ to move up the table to engage. A Manticore can camp in the corner where I can't interact with it because it's got the range to cover the table and doesn't give a s*** about line of sight, which means it's positioning is always perfectly optimal, whereas a Russ may have to choose between exposing itself to shorter ranged weapons/chargers and not getting shots.

So yeah. The Manticore on pure stats isn't OP by comparison to the Russ, but every disadvantage it gets is mitigated, negated, or outright ignored by indirect fire.

The problem is, Indirect Fire is not something easy to price. If you're playing ITC and every ruin ever blocks LOS to things about the height of the Manticore, then it's ridiculously OP. But if you're playing with GW's terrain the way it's designed in photos and stuff, it's dramatically less good. You'd be lucky to hide one, maybe two, on most GW photo battlefields.

You are right, the Manticore is not costed for regiment bonuses. But AnomanderRake has explained much better why its that unti is a problem.

Is the same argument as Basilisk vs Earthshaker battery. Yeah, the Eartshaker Battery was much "weaker" than a Basilisk, and thats why it was cheaper. But in reality and in the game, it didn't mattered because all the things a Basilisk had over a Earthshaker waere irrelevant to how that unit was supposed to work.
That wasn't a problem of costing. It was a problem of game design. The Earthshaker battery was from a design standpoint a bad unit when you allready had the Basilisk.

And you are using the "ignore LOS" rule as if its only benefit was to hidde the manticore. It is not! Is stronger use is to shoot whatever you want in the table, no matter how your enemy tries to hide it. I can deploy my bikers outside plasma range in deployment. I can't deploy them outside a Manticore range.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

fe40k wrote:
See edit: You're aiming a 1d3 weapon at 1W models. It's overkill - find a better target (big monster) to shoot at, and you'll get more accurate results.

More "accurate?"

Perhaps the way to beat manticores is to not try to fight them with big stuff, mmh? Though I will say my superheavy tanks have also crushed our 9-manticore friend, mostly because there's no terrain in the world to hide 9 manticores behind and they die to a stiff breeze. Like a Baneblade cannon.

Ok, lets give this a shot.

Vs say an Exocrine.

Heavy 2d6, 7 shots being the most common result on 2d6.
3.5 hit.
3+ to wound so 2.4ish wound.
1.6ish get through the save.
Generally looking at somewhere between 2 and 4 dmg per manticore from across the table and no Los.

So 9 manticores can kill between 1.5-3 exocrines a turn on average from the opposite side of the table in complete safety.

I also addressed Anomander's point, which is that "Indirect Fire" completely makes the Manticore irrelevant.

I'll wait for him to counter my argument before proceeding further.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

fe40k wrote:
See edit: You're aiming a 1d3 weapon at 1W models. It's overkill - find a better target (big monster) to shoot at, and you'll get more accurate results.

More "accurate?"

Perhaps the way to beat manticores is to not try to fight them with big stuff, mmh? Though I will say my superheavy tanks have also crushed our 9-manticore friend, mostly because there's no terrain in the world to hide 9 manticores behind and they die to a stiff breeze. Like a Baneblade cannon.

Ok, lets give this a shot.

Vs say an Exocrine.

Heavy 2d6, 7 shots being the most common result on 2d6.
3.5 hit.
3+ to wound so 2.4 wound.
1.6 get through the save.
Generally looking at somewhere between 2 and 4 dmg per manticore from across the table and no Los.

So 9 manticores can kill between 1.5-3 exocrines a turn on average from the opposite side of the table in complete safety.

Interesting, that looks and sounds exactly like what 9 Leman Russ tanks can do for a very similar cost, with the manticore being less durable and having a limited number of shots, but also having indirect fire.

It's a shame LOS blocking terrain isn't something that can be relied on, or else you'd have a point.

Since we're discussing balance - and balance discussion really only matters in the context of competitive games - it's safe to conclude there will be significant LOS blocking terrain.

But I agree, let's balance around a casual tabletop, and take away the manticore's ability to fire without line of sight. It doesn't matter anyway, right?

Saying you can't rely on the presence of LOS blocking terrain is an outright fabrication.

Unit, you can't say you "adressed" an argument when your counter-argument is "LOL but GW terrain sucks! So we shouldn't even try to balance shooting out of LOS"

9 Leman Russes can't shoot whatever they want in the table at any moment in the battle. And the limited number of shoots is irrelevant. And for that reason, by shooting whatever you want in the table without moving, the difference in durability is irrelevant too. Just like a Basilisk vs Eartshaker Battery.

 Marmatag wrote:
Since we're discussing balance - and balance discussion really only matters in the context of competitive games - it's safe to conclude there will be significant LOS blocking terrain.

But I agree, let's balance around a casual tabletop, and take away the manticore's ability to fire without line of sight. It doesn't matter anyway, right?

Saying you can't rely on the presence of LOS blocking terrain is an outright fabrication.

Except... you can't. Because not every game is a tournament game. It's possible to play competitive games outside of a tournament. People and clubs have different amounts of terrain with different abilities. Hell, people model their manticores with the missiles extended and it becomes 1" or so taller than it does with its missiles folded.

It's really not a reliable thing. NOVA had 2 pieces, directly in the center. I played at NOVA and my tanks routinely knocked artillery pieces out when I shot at them.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I also addressed Anomander's point, which is that "Indirect Fire" completely makes the Manticore irrelevant.

I'll wait for him to counter my argument before proceeding further.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

fe40k wrote:
See edit: You're aiming a 1d3 weapon at 1W models. It's overkill - find a better target (big monster) to shoot at, and you'll get more accurate results.

More "accurate?"

Perhaps the way to beat manticores is to not try to fight them with big stuff, mmh? Though I will say my superheavy tanks have also crushed our 9-manticore friend, mostly because there's no terrain in the world to hide 9 manticores behind and they die to a stiff breeze. Like a Baneblade cannon.

Ok, lets give this a shot.

Vs say an Exocrine.

Heavy 2d6, 7 shots being the most common result on 2d6.
3.5 hit.
3+ to wound so 2.4 wound.
1.6 get through the save.
Generally looking at somewhere between 2 and 4 dmg per manticore from across the table and no Los.

So 9 manticores can kill between 1.5-3 exocrines a turn on average from the opposite side of the table in complete safety.

Interesting, that looks and sounds exactly like what 9 Leman Russ tanks can do for a very similar cost, with the manticore being less durable and having a limited number of shots, but also having indirect fire.

It's a shame LOS blocking terrain isn't something that can be relied on, or else you'd have a point.

1) LoS blocking terrain IS something that can be relied on for anyone who is building a good battlefield. I guess you don't play on good tables? Buy more terrain.

2) Range. The Leman Russ has to come to me to some extent to do what the Manticore does by being deployed and never moving. The shorter range exposes is to counter attacks that the Manticore doesn't have to deal with.

 Galas wrote:
Unit, you can't say you "adressed" an argument when your counter-argument is "LOL but GW terrain sucks! So we shouldn't even try to balance shooting out of LOS"

9 Leman Russes can't shoot whatever they want in the table at any moment in the battle. And the limited number of shoots is irrelevant.

That's not my argument though.

My argument is that "terrain is unreliable, so we can't determine a price easily."

And sure, the number of shots is irrelevant. I'll make sure to count throughout 2018 how many times a manticore can't fire because it runs out of ammo, and I'll start running one every game. We'll see how irrelevant it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I also addressed Anomander's point, which is that "Indirect Fire" completely makes the Manticore irrelevant.

I'll wait for him to counter my argument before proceeding further.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

fe40k wrote:
See edit: You're aiming a 1d3 weapon at 1W models. It's overkill - find a better target (big monster) to shoot at, and you'll get more accurate results.

More "accurate?"

Perhaps the way to beat manticores is to not try to fight them with big stuff, mmh? Though I will say my superheavy tanks have also crushed our 9-manticore friend, mostly because there's no terrain in the world to hide 9 manticores behind and they die to a stiff breeze. Like a Baneblade cannon.

Ok, lets give this a shot.

Vs say an Exocrine.

Heavy 2d6, 7 shots being the most common result on 2d6.
3.5 hit.
3+ to wound so 2.4 wound.
1.6 get through the save.
Generally looking at somewhere between 2 and 4 dmg per manticore from across the table and no Los.

So 9 manticores can kill between 1.5-3 exocrines a turn on average from the opposite side of the table in complete safety.

Interesting, that looks and sounds exactly like what 9 Leman Russ tanks can do for a very similar cost, with the manticore being less durable and having a limited number of shots, but also having indirect fire.

It's a shame LOS blocking terrain isn't something that can be relied on, or else you'd have a point.

1) LoS blocking terrain IS something that can be relied on for anyone who is building a good battlefield. I guess you don't play on good tables? Buy more terrain.

2) Range. The Leman Russ has to come to me to some extent to do what the Manticore does by being deployed and never moving. The shorter range exposes is to counter attacks that the Manticore doesn't have to deal with.

1) My clubs use GW terrain, built the way it is in GW photos. Arguably, that's the closest thing to designer's intent one can get.

2) The Leman Russ has a 72" range, so... yeah I have no idea what you're on about, other than just being wrong.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
...The problem is, Indirect Fire is not something easy to price. If you're playing ITC and every ruin ever blocks LOS to things about the height of the Manticore, then it's ridiculously OP. But if you're playing with GW's terrain the way it's designed in photos and stuff, it's dramatically less good. You'd be lucky to hide one, maybe two, on most GW photo battlefields.

The ability to hide one or two units is only trivial if you're playing Guard and have three or four instances of every unit. If you've got, say, two lascannon Predators and you've got just enough line of sight block to keep them from getting hit by direct-fire guns turn one that lets you have some anti-tank firepower bottom of turn one; unless they're packing Manticores (or Basilisks, to be fair) and can choose to cripple or kill all your anti-tank firepower top of turn one because they can choose perfectly optimal targets without restriction or constraint.

Every play with an indirect-fire-capable weapon is mathematically optimal, there's nothing you can do to interact with that as a defender. Against direct-fire weapons and/or weapons with a more limited range you can do something about it.

LOS-ignoring shooting could be balanced. But it is not interactive and/or fun!

And you know what game designers do with unfun and uninteractive components...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


1) LoS blocking terrain IS something that can be relied on for anyone who is building a good battlefield. I guess you don't play on good tables? Buy more terrain.

2) Range. The Leman Russ has to come to me to some extent to do what the Manticore does by being deployed and never moving. The shorter range exposes is to counter attacks that the Manticore doesn't have to deal with.

1) My clubs use GW terrain, built the way it is in GW photos. Arguably, that's the closest thing to designer's intent one can get.

2) The Leman Russ has a 72" range, so... yeah I have no idea what you're on about, other than just being wrong.

Then 1) your club are idiots who should think for themselves and build tables for better game play.

2) LOS combined with range means they have to move. The 2 points are not mutually exclusive. If the Manticore had a 36" range but didn't need LoS then it would have to move out and expose itself or be deployed near mid table to get practical use. The Leman Russ can have good range, but since it also needs LoS it needs to move into firing positions to get good coverage on the table to hit desirable targets. The manticore has literal full table range AND does not require LoS. Do you really not understand the advantage that both of those things combined is?

It just needs to be priced appropriately.

My proposal for the Manticore:

Lower the wounds to 9; Degrading at 6 wounds, and 3 wounds.
Lower the toughness to 5.
Lower the range to 36".
Set the shots to a flat 6.
Drop the strength of the gun to 8.
Increase the cost slightly.
Lower the save to 4+
If not within 24" of a unit capable of issuing orders, it suffers -1 to hit for not targeting the closest enemy.

Sound fair? This is what Tyranids get for indirect fire.

If it has 9 wounds it can't degrade.

EDIT: I should have read everything

But ey, can't Tyranid Guard shoot 72" indirect fire weapons? that do flat 2 damage?

This dudes:

 Galas wrote:
If it has 9 wounds it can't degrade.

I thought it was at least nine wounds for it to degrade?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
If it has 9 wounds it can't degrade.

EDIT: I should have read everything

But ey, can't Tyranid Guard shoot 72" indirect fire weapons? that do flat 2 damage?

Hive guard are the closest comparison to a Manticore in terms of damage and price.

Biovores have a 48" range for instance and deal mortal wounds, but they also create spore mines so it's a bit different.