Big FAQ 2 discussion

[chapter master 454]

Yeah, I mean, and a Guardsmen is worth more than a kabalite or one less than a sister? Guard dies like flies.

 

If you have trouble killing infantry squads, your not bringing enough Bolters.

 

I would bring more if their carriers weren't so darn expensive!

 

Overall i like the changes. Except I will insert some extra humour:

 

"WAAAAh my knights got nerfed. Why GW nerf me? I am fair army. I Win all game and that fair. Wah"

Seriously, fair change to knights there. Darkest hour is so much fun and really did deserve to be 3CP (considering you can then combo into machine resurgent. So dirty).

 

Edit: also, someone please explain where the fly change is and what it fully is to me. I am just not seeing it for some reason so if someone can explain it to me as I am clearly being a bit stupid here!

[Schlitzaf]

The issue here is that folks (and Marine players) literally take 3 small 5 man MSU Squads and load up on all the toys (I cannot tell you how often I see someone tell me Helbrect and 3 MSU Crusaders in an LRCRusader is a good idea). This isn’t to say Marines aren’t overpriced or Gaurdsman aren’t efficient. But the thing that is overlooked whenever someone says “30 Gaurdsman > 10 Marines” is that it is factually wrong.

 

Why? Because on the tabletop due to board size, and weapon rangers. 30 Gaurdsman actually lose to 10 Marines (I dare you to set it up. And not mathhammer. Deployed a 10 man marine squad 12” and 3 10 man gaurdsman 12” from the other side. 24” apart).

 

What happens is the Marine Squad can tear and kill around 10 gaurdsman a turn espacially once in rapid. Where the Gaurdsman kill maybe 2-3. Now you’ll say “that is both equivalent to 1/3!”. But the Gaurdsman losing a third of their manpower hurts a lot more than the Marine squad losing a third.

 

In summary, what I mean. Is that even if the gaurd might be more mathematically efficient (only by a smidge if you look at the math). The gaurdsman have issue focus firing where Marines don’t.

[BitsHammer]

 

Yeah, I mean, and a Guardsmen is worth more than a kabalite or one less than a sister? Guard dies like flies.

 

If you have trouble killing infantry squads, your not bringing enough Bolters.

 

I would bring more if their carriers weren't so darn expensive!

 

Overall i like the changes. Except I will insert some extra humour:

 

"WAAAAh my knights got nerfed. Why GW nerf me? I am fair army. I Win all game and that fair. Wah"

Seriously, fair change to knights there. Darkest hour is so much fun and really did deserve to be 3CP (considering you can then combo into machine resurgent. So dirty).

 

Edit: also, someone please explain where the fly change is and what it fully is to me. I am just not seeing it for some reason so if someone can explain it to me as I am clearly being a bit stupid here!

 

Fly now only allows you to ignore intervening terrain and models in the movement phase. No, it's not a beta rule.

[Lord Nord in Gravis Armour]

Anyone here ever been in actual hand to hand combat? I can't imagine anyone thinking they could land via parachute or disembark from a APC, let alone some damn flying motorcycle and be vaguely effective in hand to hand until their momentum was adjusted and got their feet bearings under them. Shooting yes, but a knife fight? Forget it.

 

Well, we are talking about superhumans specifically augmented and trained for fighting AND seventh- or tenth-generation powered fighting suits. It's entirely reasonable to assume that the issues of momentum adjusting and bearings-getting have been raised and addressed.

[Tamiel]

The issue here is that folks (and Marine players) literally take 3 small 5 man MSU Squads and load up on all the toys (I cannot tell you how often I see someone tell me Helbrect and 3 MSU Crusaders in an LRCRusader is a good idea). This isn’t to say Marines aren’t overpriced or Gaurdsman aren’t efficient. But the thing that is overlooked whenever someone says “30 Gaurdsman > 10 Marines” is that it is factually wrong.

 

Why? Because on the tabletop due to board size, and weapon rangers. 30 Gaurdsman actually lose to 10 Marines (I dare you to set it up. And not mathhammer. Deployed a 10 man marine squad 12” and 3 10 man gaurdsman 12” from the other side. 24” apart).

 

What happens is the Marine Squad can tear and kill around 10 gaurdsman a turn espacially once in rapid. Where the Gaurdsman kill maybe 2-3. Now you’ll say “that is both equivalent to 1/3!”. But the Gaurdsman losing a third of their manpower hurts a lot more than the Marine squad losing a third.

 

In summary, what I mean. Is that even if the gaurd might be more mathematically efficient (only by a smidge if you look at the math). The gaurdsman have issue focus firing where Marines don’t.

One of the things that is really good about guardsmen, though, is that with the addition of a company commander (which is 30pts), two of the squads become super soldiers. They can either run super fast if they need to get objectives or reposition (they run faster than a landspeeder), or shoot twice with all of their lasguns. So because guardsmen are so strong with company commanders, you gotta include them in the matchup.

[BlackTriton]

Quantity is it own quality.

30 guardsmen do a far better job bubble wraping, DS denial and objective holding than 5 marine can ever hope to do.

On top of that, they get orders (free small stratagem) and they unlock CP.

Basic mathammer might indicate a guardsmen to be 1/3 of a tactical in Damage per turn, but they are so much more than that.

 

Im having problem with fly being largely useless to melee fighter while still allowing shooty unit to fall back and shoot without penalty.

 

Not much discution about the new reserve rule, are most people just ok with it?

I know I am.

[Lord Raven 19]

I play raven guard and veteran heavy astra; enough said.

[Schlitzaf]

That is different debate the statement was 3 Gaurdsman and implicitly 3 squads of 10 Gaurdsman are better/beat 10 Tactical Marines. As a reason for Tacticals marines price drop or increase of Gaurdsman.

 

While by pure hammer it isn’t wrong. It also completely ignores the actual battlefield situation and scenarios. Yes Hordes have better zoning? That the whole point or partly the point. Hordes however have a sigificantly more difficultly bringing all their firepower to bear.

 

And a SM Captain increases several squads raw fire power by around 16%. (9>6 (reroll 1, 1.5>1. Increase of hitting by 16%). So for 10 Marines, he adds just 1.5 Marine worth of points (20). Then he has own shots, which atleast 1 BolterBro depending on range. (33). Then you have his own stats, with even just a power sword he isn’t a bad melee fighter. So your spending assuming MasterBolter&PowSword, 48 points for a character who if he gets in close can thrash whole gaurd squads.

 

Also the Company Commanders can only buff and utterly useless at counter assault or even helping out. With pathetic stats (strength 3) and armor (5+). Your spending 30 points to get around 40 points per an order. That sounds good and all, but that is only true with one order. And if all you are doing is FRSRTR with flashlights. Your not basically just spending 30 points for a 10 point cheaper gaurdsman Squad with. Except that basically your losing twice your combat effectiveness per wound loss than you’d have lost otherwise. Compare to SM Captain whom losing 1-2 marines doesn’t reduce the affect of his aura buff too significantly.

[Ishagu]

180 points for 30 guardsmen and two commanders can't be matched by Marines in terms of output and contribution. For a measely investment of 180 points you unlock 5 cp, 32 models that provide board control and area denial, not to mention each 10 man unit can move 20+ inches or fire 40 times.

 

The Guardsmen have their own set of substantial regimental bonuses on top, such as free re rolls, greater range, outflanks, higher strength, etc

 

If Marines had a 30 point upgrade that allowed squads to move twice, shoot twice etc then perhaps we'd have a better argument to make.

 

To put simply, there's no situation At all in which a single Marine is better than 3 guardsmen. 3 of them are more resilient, more offensive, better at holding an objective, etc

Cadians have a Captain's aura for free. Catachans are better in close combat than Astartes. List goes on.

 

 

For the record I'm not even saying Guard are overpowered. I'm simply pointing out that GWs point system has valued many things incorrectly.

[Kallas]

The issue here is that folks (and Marine players) literally take 3 small 5 man MSU Squads and load up on all the toys (I cannot tell you how often I see someone tell me Helbrect and 3 MSU Crusaders in an LRCRusader is a good idea). This isn’t to say Marines aren’t overpriced or Gaurdsman aren’t efficient. But the thing that is overlooked whenever someone says “30 Gaurdsman > 10 Marines” is that it is factually wrong.

The issue is not MSU. There is not benefit to taking larger squads, and this we've been over time and again. Two MSU units is tougher than one 10-man; have the exact same firepower (or more, considering that basic Marine squads with Special Weapons can pack in more through MSU); and have better board presence (ie, can be in two places at once and can potentially screen one another if necessary).

 

Personally, I have been having some decent success with my current Space Wolves list which has 6x5-man Grey Hunter squads (who you've said repeatedly are the best basic non-Primaris Marine squad) with zero upgrades. But the issue is that they aren't actually all that important in the games: they do hold objectives and they do contribute to the fighting a little bit, but the lion's share of the fighting and winning of the battle is carried by my cavalcade of characters and Razorbacks/Rhinos.

 

Additionally, a key component of the list is that the Grey Hunters all start embarked on transports, making them massively harder to remove as the opponent has to chew through at least one transport before they can put their anti-infantry weaponry into them; which in turn gives me time to shut down said weapons.

 

When the Grey Hunters do contribute (and they do, I will happily admit) they're ok, but they're massively supplementary and far from the golden boys of any battle. Their key selling point is that they're basic Marines with little threat! They sit on an objective, often in cover, and be innocuously doing little to nothing to actually swing the fighting while my more powerful units successfully distract the enemy's big hitters/kill off their useful units. Yes they help, but it's only because basic Marines are crap.

 

Why? Because on the tabletop due to board size, and weapon rangers. 30 Gaurdsman actually lose to 10 Marines (I dare you to set it up. And not mathhammer. Deployed a 10 man marine squad 12” and 3 10 man gaurdsman 12” from the other side. 24” apart).

As BlackTriton mentions, this is pretty simplified. Board control/presence is a big factor. My above objective camping Grey Hunters, for example, would almost certainly have their points better spent being 60 Guardsmen, 3 Company Commanders and a Primaris Psyker, and that would maintain the same CPs (actually more, as I'm currently running double Battalion: this would be that plus probably a Supreme Command of Space Wolves characters/vehicles!)

 

Board control/presence; killing/not being killed power; cost-to-CP; etc - these are all equally important factors, and Space Marines fall short. Gah, getting sucked into arguing about Space Marines...sorry thread! 

[Schlitzaf]

Okay let’s put this in the most blunt way possible;

2 MSU Squads are NOT superior in firepower, and durability in any shape or form then single 10 Man

 

2 5 Man MSU - 186

-2 5 man Man 4 Plasmas (4> 2.66 > 2.22 or 1.8ish)*

-6 Bolters (6 > 4 > 2)*

•Cannot Fail Morale reasonably

•If one squad suffers 4 wounds you lose a special. And have 16% chance to lose another

 

1 10 Man 186 (GravCannon, DoublePlas)

•2 Plasma (2 > 1.32 > 1.10 or 0.88)*

•1 GravCannon (5 > 3.32 or 2.5 > 2.20 or 1.6)

•7 (7 > 4.66 > 2.33)

•needs to lose 8 wounds units until a special weapon is lost

•Morale matters after 6-7 wounds

 

You actually have double effective wound value over the 2 man MSU. Period. As what would cause morale to matter would have already killed an MSU Squad. And notice a moving GravCannon is more effective than two plasma effective inside rapid range.

 

10 man squads are better than 2 MSU Squads except when the MSU squads are in rapid and the GravCannon is moving.

 

Secondly the best use of MSU squads is tag teaming them inside 4-6 Razors. Not footwalking across the board because you literally took the minimum necessary ‘troop tax’. MSU in Razors are fine, but generally should still be paired with another squad. But this is because too many Marine lists using the fabled 3 man 5 man MSU neither Razors and impliclitly Footwalking.

*Double inside Rapid.

[Kallas]

You rail against mathhammer then use it support your arguments

 

My initial point still stands, however. MSU is more resilient: maybe not from a perspective of losing special weapons (which, by the way, I made only passing mention of: I was actually thinking more of unequipped squads - and you yourself talk a lot about overequipped MSU units, I would agree that overequipping units is a bad idea) but from a targeting and opportunity cost point of view.

 

As you mentioned, Morale is irrelevant to MSU; not so to Max.

When it comes to targeting, two MSU squads force an opponent to dedicate resources to wholly separate pools of defence. A unit of four Plasma Guns (say Scions, for example) have to decide where to put those shots. Do they split fire, hoping to drop a good few from each, or do they dedicate it all to one to try and wipe it? Damage doesn't overspill into the other MSU squad, any additional shots are, effectively, additional resilience for the other pool as those shots theoretically could have gone in to them if the opponent had allocated resources differently.

 

The opportunity cost also plays an important factor. Do you drop Plasma into the small MSU squad, or do you focus it instead on something else that might be more important, like say a vehicle? If they don't target the (seemingly toothless) MSU squad, then their resilience has increased, comparatively, whereas the larger squad is a better target (because, again, overspill is less likely).

 

These aren't quantifiable, but are still a hugely important facet of the comparison. 

 

Edit: Also bear in mind, those two MSU squads can have the exact same firepower as the big squad: 1 with Combi-Plasma/Grav or Plasma, 1 with Plasma or Grav. Identical in every way to the bigger squad, but with the above mentioned opportunity costs of targeting different units. The main difference here is whether the game involves killing units where MSU gives up more points; but the bigger squad has the overspill issue and cannot cover as much ground (eg, a Combi-Plas/Plas MSU squad can go after one objective, while the Grav goes for another). Further, the MSU units here contribute more towards CP (as they fill two slots as opposed to one).

 

Edit 2: Also also; the MSU brings two Sergeants as opposed to one, which is +2 Attacks (+1 profile plus a free Chainsword) over the big squad. Difference here being the possibility to the Counter Charge stratagem/strike first abilities mucking up combat orders. Not clear cut, but statistically the MSU is superior here.

[Schlitzaf]

Um? If you do GravCannon/PlasmGun those two MSU squads are now 30 points more expensive. Then the one 1 10 Man equivalent. The point is folks claims that 4 specials (PlasmaGuns) > 2 Specials and 1 Heavy when that actually isn’t the case. Sense the GravCannon and lesser extent Lascannon do the same damage statistically as 2 PlasmaGuns. And yes while Morale doesn’t matter for 2 5 Man, the point it would matter for 10 Man (6-7 casualties as anything below your likely to pass due ATSKNF) that would meant that one of the 5 man and its special (which make up most of the damage) would be dead.

 

And while MSU does fill slots better to make the MSU effective you need Razors which add another 100+ points. And need to play the partner rule. MSU and 10 Man have there roles. 10 Man are bluntly meant to be the spearhead of the central objective or position. Being the glorified body blockers or second wave to the hammer. While MSU should be partnered and/or in Razors running perimeter to scare off bully and ward deep strikes. Then threaten the enemy backrow or hammers by drawing chaff away from the center to deal with them.

 

In any case unless your Black Templar Or Space Wolves, or mechanized (Razor) list, and/or wanted glorified 90 point Lascannons with ObSec. Intercessors are just better than Tacticals.

[USNCenturion]

As thrilling as the debate on marine point cost is, I wanted to try and nudge the discussion back towards the Big FAQ 2 and its new and altered rules.

 

I must say I’m a fan of the turn 2 deep strike limit, as I felt it was pretty fair in the previous editions. I think they should explore granting certain units or armies a turn 1 drop mechanic. GSC as they’ve stated and also marine drop pods and grey knight units perhaps ; it could provide a nice boost to these armies while they await further adjustments.

 

One thing I don’t like or understand is the post turn 3 auto-death for units left off the board. Is there a reason this is put in place? It seems rather restrictive for no reason.

[chapter master 454]

 

 

Yeah, I mean, and a Guardsmen is worth more than a kabalite or one less than a sister? Guard dies like flies.

 

If you have trouble killing infantry squads, your not bringing enough Bolters.

 

I would bring more if their carriers weren't so darn expensive!

 

Overall i like the changes. Except I will insert some extra humour:

 

"WAAAAh my knights got nerfed. Why GW nerf me? I am fair army. I Win all game and that fair. Wah"

Seriously, fair change to knights there. Darkest hour is so much fun and really did deserve to be 3CP (considering you can then combo into machine resurgent. So dirty).

 

Edit: also, someone please explain where the fly change is and what it fully is to me. I am just not seeing it for some reason so if someone can explain it to me as I am clearly being a bit stupid here!

 

Fly now only allows you to ignore intervening terrain and models in the movement phase. No, it's not a beta rule.

 

 Oh so you can no longer ignore units when charging along with terrain...hmmm...certainly a bit of a hit certainly.

 

Personally I can see the logic as to why not. However it is odd however as I can only give reasons why but the reasons for why not let them charge over is odd. To be honest, got to be some form of meh changes per FAQ.

 

To be honest, if that is the biggest issue with the FAQ I am quite happy with it. The changes to reinforcements is good, tactical restraint is awesome (batteries are still a thing but no longer recharging an amount of points in EXCESS of what you started with). Battle Brothers stops soup (which my definition is having different factions within the same detachment. Allies is having two detachments of different factions) which is to be honest something that stopped with codexes (which I would argue if armies were still souping post codex then it speaks volumes of the codexs strength in the negative).

[sairence]

As thrilling as the debate on marine point cost is, I wanted to try and nudge the discussion back towards the Big FAQ 2 and its new and altered rules.

 

I must say I’m a fan of the turn 2 deep strike limit, as I felt it was pretty fair in the previous editions. I think they should explore granting certain units or armies a turn 1 drop mechanic. GSC as they’ve stated and also marine drop pods and grey knight units perhaps ; it could provide a nice boost to these armies while they await further adjustments.

 

One thing I don’t like or understand is the post turn 3 auto-death for units left off the board. Is there a reason this is put in place? It seems rather restrictive for no reason.

I like it. It hurts the offensive capacities for sure, which is a shame. But having the ability to keep some of your more powerful units completely safe T1 was just silly. I've regularly dropped scion command squads into my deployment zone to counter whatever big thing had moved close. It was stupid powerful and I don't mind it gone.

 

The T3 limit has always been a balance thing to me. Having the option to drop a cheap deepstriker in t4 or t5 to score linebreaker or late game objectives would just be too good, as there often would be very little to no time to counter it.

[FirstSonofHorus]

As thrilling as the debate on marine point cost is, I wanted to try and nudge the discussion back towards the Big FAQ 2 and its new and altered rules.

 

I must say I’m a fan of the turn 2 deep strike limit, as I felt it was pretty fair in the previous editions. I think they should explore granting certain units or armies a turn 1 drop mechanic. GSC as they’ve stated and also marine drop pods and grey knight units perhaps ; it could provide a nice boost to these armies while they await further adjustments.

 

One thing I don’t like or understand is the post turn 3 auto-death for units left off the board. Is there a reason this is put in place? It seems rather restrictive for no reason.

 

Agreed. I would have preferred it if they'd had different levels of deep strike - not everyone should be able to get as close as 9", but this is another way around that. GK and GSC should definitely have exceptions to the Turn 2 limit. With GSC the lack of a codex means it is pointless really elaborating on it, but GK should either be exempt or be able to deploy more than half their units in deepstrike. That's their whole thing after all!

[Lord Raven 19]

 

Folks, I want to point out that you're not going to get anything changed by arguing about it here. Email GW!

 

I fully intend to, after I've gotten a reasonable base of games under my belt to pull out and wave at them saying how stupid the change is.

Maybe flying units can charge over infantry and swarms only

[chapter master 454]

 

As thrilling as the debate on marine point cost is, I wanted to try and nudge the discussion back towards the Big FAQ 2 and its new and altered rules.

 

I must say I’m a fan of the turn 2 deep strike limit, as I felt it was pretty fair in the previous editions. I think they should explore granting certain units or armies a turn 1 drop mechanic. GSC as they’ve stated and also marine drop pods and grey knight units perhaps ; it could provide a nice boost to these armies while they await further adjustments.

 

One thing I don’t like or understand is the post turn 3 auto-death for units left off the board. Is there a reason this is put in place? It seems rather restrictive for no reason.

 

Agreed. I would have preferred it if they'd had different levels of deep strike - not everyone should be able to get as close as 9", but this is another way around that. GK and GSC should definitely have exceptions to the Turn 2 limit. With GSC the lack of a codex means it is pointless really elaborating on it, but GK should either be exempt or be able to deploy more than half their units in deepstrike. That's their whole thing after all!

 

 

This is something I feel is certainly a point that we could, you know, talk about.

 

So GW went "right guys, we are removing universal special rules because it caused bloat and made it hard to keep track of things so now all units will have their own rules on their page. This way we can tweak them to be unique each time for balance"

And they then just gave out USR of deep strike and never bothered to give different units different versions to actually make them unique. I'm not crazy right, pretty sure that is what they said THEN didn't do.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

My main issue with the faq is the fly nerf. I'm not sure of the impact that it will have on the game as a whole, but its nerf to slow down smash captains. At a certain point GW needs to realize that the real issue is the supreme command detachment, since 8th started we've had it abused with smash captains, Tau suits, flying tryants, jet bike custodes, etc. I like the rule of three but there is a certain point where instead of nerfing the units being abused you need to accept that the formation has caused a lot of problems. That and a person playing blood angels as a stand alone fraction needed those rules IMO (full disclaimer I don't have BA). 

 

The issue here is that folks (and Marine players) literally take 3 small 5 man MSU Squads and load up on all the toys (I cannot tell you how often I see someone tell me Helbrect and 3 MSU Crusaders in an LRCRusader is a good idea). This isn’t to say Marines aren’t overpriced or Gaurdsman aren’t efficient. But the thing that is overlooked whenever someone says “30 Gaurdsman > 10 Marines” is that it is factually wrong.

Why? Because on the tabletop due to board size, and weapon rangers. 30 Gaurdsman actually lose to 10 Marines (I dare you to set it up. And not mathhammer. Deployed a 10 man marine squad 12” and 3 10 man gaurdsman 12” from the other side. 24” apart).

What happens is the Marine Squad can tear and kill around 10 gaurdsman a turn espacially once in rapid. Where the Gaurdsman kill maybe 2-3. Now you’ll say “that is both equivalent to 1/3!”. But the Gaurdsman losing a third of their manpower hurts a lot more than the Marine squad losing a third.

In summary, what I mean. Is that even if the gaurd might be more mathematically efficient (only by a smidge if you look at the math). The gaurdsman have issue focus firing where Marines don’t.

 

You created an artificial scenario in order for that to work though. Why would the guard player spread out the units? In an actual game there would be tactical reasons for them to do so, but not when comparing 10 tacticals to 30 guardsmen. 

[Schlitzaf]

It’s not artifactial. 30 Gaurdsman deployed in 12” long edges cannot all get into rapid range against a target that is 2-3” by 6-7” that starts 24” away from their deployment side. Only 14-16 of the gaurdsman will be in range because the gaurdsman whom standing directly parallel with the marines start 25” away. Assuming 1” base that means as the gaurdsman further away the distance is increase due to the pytheorem theorem. And moving diagonally is longer than moving straightforward if the side gaurdsman to the left or right of them try move into range they get less closer than the squad directly parallel.

 

Resulting in up to about 8-15 not being in range. And they you have 3 las pistols armed sargeants. Secondly the part people bemeon about the loyal 32 is their ability to spread out so now we assume they are in tightly back formation?

 

It’s not an artificial creation. It’s how the table interacts with models. Sense models take up space.

[BitsHammer]

Honestly I don't want them to see them kill the Supreme Command Detachment, but rather brings back more 0-1 limits per detachment.

[Siax]

Hey guys,

 

I play in a very friendly and non competitive environment... I play a lot of GK and AM and I 'soup' from time to time :-)

 

I have read a very large amount of posts about how to give mono-dex armies a boost, and couldn't you just do something like: All detachments in your army must share a faction keyword (except Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari...). If not, then your army doens't gain the base 3CP?

 

I know it's not huge, and that wouldn't be my intention, but if all you want is the Loyal 32, then you are still getting some bodies, but only +2CP since you are gaining 5 but loosing 3.

 

With the change to CP regen, wouldn't you think this is a reasonable trade-off, which still makes multi-dex worth it, but giving mono-dex an edge - CP wise?

 

Maybe this wouldn't be enough of a change, to really mess with the meta, but I think it would do something :-)

[Ishagu]

Soup is popular because some armies are more efficient.

 

The problem can be solved with balance adjustments. If, for example, Marines were more competitive and efficient then yes - you would see more mono Astartes armies. Just an example. It's not a great mystery why things are taken.

 

Also, the detachments need adjusting. Why is a battalion the same for Guard and Custodes for example?

Surely a Guard Battalion should consist of a minimum of 6 troops and 3 HQ, whilst for Marines its 3 troops and 2 HQ, and for Custodes 2 troops and 1 HQ? This way each army will generate the same CP per invested points. No need for complicated restrictions on CP usage. The generation of CP should be equally achievable by any faction.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Here is an example why horde is so good...

 

Take a maximum squad of Trzangors. Take Dark Matter Crystal. First turn use DMC to reposition them 9” from enemy line. Next use psy powers to make them -1 to hit, +1 invul then warp time them up into the grill. This is mostly psy power and only requires one relic. Even if you can deny warp time they need an 8” charge with a reroll.

 

Space Marines have nothing close to this level of buffing.