I love mantlets, I think the ‘No base size’ rule is a bit silly, and they are very expensive to buy, but rules-wise I think they are a great addition to the game.
The issue I have is the 1” deployment distance. It means you can’t deploy a medium to large model directly behind it at the same time as the gate because there isn’t the room (because the the gate is in the way). It also limits their tactical application.
I would love it if that deployment distance (only for mantlets) was increased to 3”. It would make them far more practical and useful.
What do you think?
The “no base size” makes them more trouble than they’re worth in my opinion. In a game where everything model-related is dependent on base size, we have models that are not units, and not actually terrain pieces, but something in between. Measuring to and from a physical model (and restricting modeling and conversion because of that) sounds like something GW would do.
Yeah, it feels out of character for PP in my opinion. Typically everything that is “summon-able” (models, clouds, walls, etc; anything other than terrain) has a specific constant size with a simple footprint, either a cylinder (models, clouds, AOEs), or in rare cases a rectangle (i.e. walls). And that’s one of the things I like about PP: models occupy a standardized volume.
The 1" deployment isn’t as limiting as you’d think in practice. You can deploy the mantlet as long as any part of it is within 1" of the gate, so place your warjack to the side of the gate, and the mantlet in front of the warjack with the “tip” of the mantlet within 1" of the gate. It’s actually pretty easy to do and if you can’t deploy with cover, you need blast resistance or just want to block off a part of the board it’s quite handy.
I’m a little hesitant to make the mantlet deploy distance larger, within 3" is a huge area and the fact that you can’t move through mantlets would rapidly make the game unfun if you could throw them that far, especially with gatecrasher.
I would have preferred they were on standardized semicircular acrylic bases to maintain their ability to curve around bases to provide cover but the die is cast on them, so to speak. The biggest buff mantlets need is to be more affordable considering every player should have 4 and they’re $15 USD a pop, it’s a big ask for relatively small single piece resin bits, if it was a 4 pack for $20-$30 that would be a lot more reasonable.
If I had to change any rules on mantlets as they are, please please make them interact with slams normally, right now since they don’t have a base size and aren’t structures, they don’t add an extra dice when you slam models into them, and additionally don’t take any collateral damage. I’d add a sentence saying mantlets count as extra-large bases for the purposes of slams.
I’ve used Mantlets a lot and found the 1” deployment makes them more annoying in that they get in the way of other models deploying, especially units that want to benefit from said mantlet.
Your example is fine if you have your fat in the middle of the open, but if it’s near other terrain your proposal becomes much more difficult.
For example, I can’t deploy the mantlet and have both synturians in cover because only one will fit. A wider deployment would give the player greater options.
Mantle price is a big reason why I can never pull the trigger on getting a set. I dont think the model…AC Mantle is ugly too
It is possible that is a feature, not a bug. Instantly giving cheap, strong models strong defensive positions might be too good.
Here’s an example of what I mean, I’m not even using the full 1" but because the squad only has to be deployed within 2" of the first model both synturions fit behind the mantlet comfortably. You have to give up a little bit of aggressive positioning but that’s a fair tradeoff for cover, blast resist and whatever else your mantlet gives you (free charge out of activation in AC’s case, excellent for synturions and a good deterrent for furies)
The mantle are so small…i rarely get to see a size comparison. Those should be 5 bucks lol
I understand but I feel it is unnecessarily finicky and could be easier to use.
That’s not really “finicky” or “difficult to use”. What it is is restrictive. If you want to have your guys in cover at deployment, you limit your deployment range and formation. That’s probably by design. Broader deployment → less cover. More cover → tighter deployment.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You need to make a choice.