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.

Asherian Command wrote:

I honestly don't think the fix to Marines is a change to Marines; making them bigger/killier just passes the buck for the basic size creep problem on to units rendered irrelevant by bigger/killer Marines.

Then what would you suggest?

Infantry are almost completely left behind by the stuff that can carry big weapons and move fast. Yet they’re still clearly useful to the factions like in the fluff and also they’re the good looking models that people get into the hobby for lots of the time. So infantry in general need a massive boost in usefulness. I say two things. One is that if they get the conditions right in the game, like they are in half range and in cover and whatever, then they can do extra wounds so they can hurt war machines. The other is that infantry can shoot or charge in their opponent’s turn. They just take turns, all the units in player A’s army and all the infantry in player B’s army, and you just don’t remove casualties until the end of the phase.

So just huge buffs to infantry, and that improves marines because A they are infantry and B if they were good at killing anything, it’d be other infantry.

Then on top of hat I’d give buffs to elite infantry in general. If your elite infantry is in cover in addition to their +1 armor save they’d get a 5+++ against anything g that’s less elite. And since elite infantry should massacre crappier infantry, your elite infantry get -1ap against anything less elite. How do you know your infantry is more or less elite than other units? Simple, they have a higher attacks characteristic. Then you give +1 a to marine squads, eldar guardians, +2 A to aspect warriors, +1 A to some of the better mortals like Seraphim and IG and MT command squads.

The exceptions to infantry being bad rn are very specific cases of fearless cheap hordes that give CP. that’s not enough infantry and it’s not balanced.

HoundsofDemos wrote: The main way to fix this would be to limit offensive output and put superheavies back were they belong (apoc). GW won't do that though because they make a lot of money off of knights and other big stompy things. I miss 5th edition when a 3+ save actually meant something.

I really don’t like the idea of this game. It’s a war game, but all of the sides have agreed that infantry and tank units are going to live in an artificial world where they never run get hit by air strikes or surprised by superheavies. It’s like I have characters and minis that I’m attached to but I won’t respect the reality that they supposedly live in.

Bharring wrote:
There's still design space and fluff space for them to roll Primaris and Real marines into the same statline. I hope that's the direction they go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"And really any weapon that was AP3 in 7th edition became way stronger against terminators in 8th."

Shouldn't AP3 weapons - things liked shaped-charge missiles - have been better at cracking 2+ armor than AP- stuff?

I always found it odd that the main gun of Predator tank was just as likely to pierce the armor of a Space Marine as a Lasgun was. The ASM route lets them actually model that. They can have the Autocannon have light armor piercing (AP-1) without it being as good against armor as a Lascannon.

The problem is they handed AP-1 and AP-2 out like candy.

I mean this is the fundamental problem with invulnerable saves though isn't it? And if everything that was AP-1 and AP-2 went to AP0, then terminators are kind of in the same area where AP-2 doesn't chip their save.

The core problem is that the AP system is just too simple. Different types of guns should be more effective against different types of armors.

For example, if we had armor classifications, and weapon classifications, that would be an interesting way for them to play off of one another. As it stands terminators are supposed to have "heavy armor," but the problem is that this designation is currently a combination of save, toughness, and wounds.

Consider the Boltgun. This gun should be:

Excellent against unarmored foes
Excellent against light class armor
Decent against medium class armor
Weak against heavy class armor
Useless against titan class armor

Each gun in this game technically has its own design space if you embrace the complexity. So it could be...

Light/Unarmored: AP-2, automatically wounds
Medium armor: AP-1
Heavy armor: AP0
Titan class armor: AP0, wounds on 6 only

Coming up with proper classes and bonuses/penalties for weapons would take time. It is very possible that the list i created wouldn't be very good. But it doesn't make sense that a Hot Shot Lasgun reduces an Imperial Knight to a 5+ save.

Right. So we are now at the phase where people completely redesign the game from the ground up...

 Crimson wrote:
Right. So we are now at the phase where people completely redesign the game from the ground up...

Honestly I am not against that.

 Crimson wrote:
Right. So we are now at the phase where people completely redesign the game from the ground up...

What else is there to say?

Guardsmen built for melee have 3 attacks at strength 4 in melee with free fight twice. Even with these HQs they're cheaper than Marines.

Sisters will also have strength 4 multiple attacks, free fight twice, 3+/4++, and vastly superior dakka.

Meanwhile marines can stack their HQs to get reroll1 to hit and reroll1 to wound, and the paltry cost of 200+ points just for those 2 auras. Meanwhile other armies triple their attack volume and increase their strength.

I've been running Dark Eldar and Tyranids for pretty much the entirety of 8th edition. I do not even think about marines when planning my lists & strategies. They are a non factor because other imperium armies do everything better and cheaper than they do.

Ok, actual fixes:

Make Guardsmen five points, nerf some of the orders (MMM: roll two dice for advance, pick the better, FRFSRF: one extra las shot if the unit didn't move, etc.)

Make Intercessors 16 point (Some other Primaris units need to be cheaper too, esp. Reivers.)

Make many of the D2 weapons in the game a bit more expensive.

Forget the minimarines exist. (Or if you must, make the tactical eleven point or something.)


These are small but realistic fixes.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Honestly I am not against that.

Would you like a pony with that? It's not gonna happen.

Guardsmen should be 7 points per model.
Sisters should be 13 points per model.
Termagants should be 5 points per model.
Conscripts should be 6 points per model.
Hormagants should be 6 points per model.
Kabalite Warriors should be 8 points per model.
Ork Boyz should be 9 points per model.
Fire Warriors should be 9 points per model.

Guard Commanders should be 90 points.
Guard Psykers should be 80 points.
Commissars should be 70 points.
Priests should be 100 points per model.
Named characters should double in price.
Slabshields should cost 20 points per model.

Weird Boyz should be 100 points per model.

 Marmatag wrote:
Guardsmen should be 7 points per model.
Sisters should be 13 points per model.
Termagants should be 5 points per model.
Conscripts should be 6 points per model.
Hormagants should be 6 points per model.
Kabalite Warriors should be 8 points per model.
Ork Boyz should be 9 points per model.
Fire Warriors should be 9 points per model.

Guard Commanders should be 90 points.
Guard Psykers should be 80 points.
Commissars should be 70 points.

Weird Boyz should be 100 points per model.

And this is why no one can take anything Marmatag says seriously anymore. It's sad. But Sororitas have no business being the same price as tactical marines, nor IG psykers half the price of a Keeper of Secrets. I think the Keeper of Secrets is more than twice as useful, even just in the psychic phase...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Guardsmen should be 7 points per model.
Sisters should be 13 points per model.
Termagants should be 5 points per model.
Conscripts should be 6 points per model.
Hormagants should be 6 points per model.
Kabalite Warriors should be 8 points per model.
Ork Boyz should be 9 points per model.
Fire Warriors should be 9 points per model.

Guard Commanders should be 90 points.
Guard Psykers should be 80 points.
Commissars should be 70 points.

Weird Boyz should be 100 points per model.

And this is why no one can take anything Marmatag says seriously anymore. It's sad. But Sororitas have no business being the same price as tactical marines, nor IG psykers half the price of a Keeper of Secrets. I think the Keeper of Secrets is more than twice as useful, even just in the psychic phase...

The difference between a Sister and a Marine at this point is:

-1 toughness
5++ or 4++ invulnerable save
Acts of faith

They are absolutely superior to tac marines. Marines are costed based on auras and synergies, so should sisters.

Nearly ALL light infantry and infantry in this game are undercosted, badly. Super heavies are also undercosted.

But let's trust the guy who identifies as a "sisters player" to be the definitive source of fair balance for an army he has a vested interest in.

 Marmatag wrote:
The difference between a Sister and a Marine at this point is:

-1 toughness
5++ or 4++ invulnerable save
Acts of faith

They are absolutely superior to tac marines.

Nearly ALL light infantry and infantry in this game are undercosted, badly. Super heavies are also undercosted.

By the same logic you've applied (making gak up about a unit based on what it could have maybe someday if certain conditions are met) then a Tactical Marine is

+1 toughness
3++ invulnerable save
Mission Tactics
Storm Bolter by default

EDIT:
Sure, accuse me of not wanting Sororitas to be the same price as a Marine. Do you want the data on how many tournament wins Sororitas have at 9pts vs how many Marines have at 13? Because I'll tell you now: one is more than zero.

I'm not even going to argue with you anymore in this thread, Marmatag. You've become so embittered about your Marines (who do need a buff) that you have actively come to want other armies to fail. That's not healthy, both for yourself and the game.

Except that's not true at all.

You're the ultimate fake news poster on this forum.

You read something you don't like and distract with nonsense or scream fake news. What you posted is nonsense.

Will sisters players not run Celestine?
Will they not take +1 strength?
Will they not use their free acts of faith to fight twice?
Will they not expand acts of faith to be auras?
Will they not fire AP-2, 2 damage storm bolters?

Everything below Celestine in that list costs 0 points. And, she's always been brutally cheap.

It's not bitter, it's a fact. You'll notice i listed more than just Sisters in my post, but that's all you see, because you're biased. I am advocating for points increases for both of the armies that i play.

The reality, whether you see it or not, is that some factions possess troops / infantry that are simply too cheap.

I want a balanced game. You want overpowered sisters, guard, and whatever nonsense you claim to be on a weekly basis.

3++ invulnerable save

Where you getting this? You mean our +2pts stormshields that can only be taken on certain squads and characters ?

Storm Bolter by default

Where?

Acts of faith are really unreliable and the stratagem affects only one unit and costs CP.

 Marmatag wrote:
Guardsmen should be 7 points per model.
Sisters should be 13 points per model.
Termagants should be 5 points per model.
Conscripts should be 6 points per model.
Hormagants should be 6 points per model.
Kabalite Warriors should be 8 points per model.
Ork Boyz should be 9 points per model.
Fire Warriors should be 9 points per model.

Guard Commanders should be 90 points.
Guard Psykers should be 80 points.
Commissars should be 70 points.
Priests should be 100 points per model.
Named characters should double in price.
Slabshields should cost 20 points per model.

Weird Boyz should be 100 points per model.

Conscripts should be 5ppm
Regular guardsmen should be 6ppm
Kabalite fair should be the same cost as guardians. (i thought they were.....)
Guard commanders being 90pts makes some sense, but a bit too expensive, maybe 60 - 70pts (equalivent of a Primaris LT)

Commissars are fine with their current cost, but lord commissars should be the same cost as guard commanders
Priests (HQ version) should be fine at 80pts.

Overall makes some sense. Sisters costing 9ppm was already interesting considering they have a 5++ invulnerable save on base.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
Acts of faith are really unreliable and the stratagem affects only one unit and costs CP.

Which marine tacticals don't have access to

 Marmatag wrote:
Except that's not true at all.

You're the ultimate fake news poster on this forum.
You read something you don't like and distract with nonsense or scream fake news. What you posted is nonsense.

No u! And let me demonstrate with facts:

 Marmatag wrote:
Will sisters players not run Celestine?

Because some venues don't allow it. I'm playing in a campaign right now that does not allow special characters. EDIT: Also, not every Sister will be within 6" of Celestine.

 Marmatag wrote:
Will they not take +1 strength?

Because it's not "+1 strength" unless certain conditions are met, and its arguably not even the best Order. The 5+ overwatch and losing one model to morale is right up there with it, as is the Ebon Chalice +1 to Act of Faith using. You know, the one that's basically the Dark Angels and the one that buffs the Army Special Rule, which is okay I guess.

 Marmatag wrote:
Will they not use their free acts of faith to fight twice?

Because they don't have much control over when this happens, because it's only 33% of the time unless you build your army to maximize it, at which point it's not free anymore?

 Marmatag wrote:
Will they not expand acts of faith to be auras?

Because Acts of Faith are bad, and not worth splashing for 3CP. Go read the Tactica thread where players are writing battle reports and coming to the conclusion that Vessels of the Emperor isn't worth their time.

 Marmatag wrote:
Will they not fire AP-2, 2 damage storm bolters?

Because that's a stratagem and limited to once per turn, you dingus.

 Marmatag wrote:
Everything below Celestine in that list costs 0 points. And, she's always been brutally cheap.

Yes, because it has other drawbacks and conditions that addressing does cost points. But you peddle fake news, so of course you'd omit that.

 Marmatag wrote:
It's not bitter, it's a fact. You'll notice i listed more than just Sisters in my post, but that's all you see, because you're biased. I am advocating for points increases for both of the armies that i play.

It's all I see because it's all I can address. I can't speak to whether or not Fire Warriors should be 9pts. I think they're fine where they are, but I have less evidence since I don't play them.

I can't believe I'm having this discussion. It's so obviously false... I don't even know how to address it except using facts, and I know that you don't even care about facts and will probably weasel around having to address them somehow.

Some venues not allowing Celestine doesn't change the fact that she exists. There is no matched play rule that says Celestine should be restricted, and armies are balanced around access to their full model range. This is a spurious argument you just made, how on earth do you not see this?

And no, if you've played even 1 game of 40k you'll know that the ability to take your strength 3 models to strength 4 is absolutely worth it. Look at Catachan guard, sisters can be just as effective offensively (and, they blow guardsmen out of the water defensively).

You will have acts of faith. It is not 33% chance, let's not pretend that rerolls aren't a thing. And paying CP to make everything within a bubble range fight twice is BONKERS, you don't see it, again, because of bias.

As it stands Sisters can throw 100 bodies on the table that will be...

3+/4++
Strength 4 in combat
Fighting twice with ladyorders

You can just push that up the table and win. There is no argument here. Let's not even factor in their very, very good transports and other synergies. Meltaguns got cheaper, too, remember?

And, there's nothing stopping you from throwing in a Castellan, just like everyone else with undercosted chaff.

Forget the minimarines exist. (Or if you must, make the tactical eleven point or something.)

Yeah, forget they exist. People who have never met me are angry that I’m not playing third edition and they are insulted that primaris exist.

These are small but realistic fixes.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote:

Honestly I am not against that.

Would you like a pony with that? It's not gonna happen.

Your stuff is never going to happen, Bess GW is going to do whatever it wants and it’s priority is not to go through and incrementally adjust points for d2 guns. Chances are, the next time there’s an IG codex the orders will be almost completely unrecognizable.

If there aren’t any points changes, and there aren’t any picayune tweaks to one or two specific armies, on the other hand, changes can happen when the hell ever anyone feels like it, because people don’t have to change their models or write new army lists.

Yeah it’s not hard to just put an extra half of a normal turn of shooting into the opponents turn but wait it makes it way more fun.

Also, not every Sister will be within 6" of Celestine.

Neither will marines be within 6" of their HQ yet its baked into their costs.

Ok, Marmatag, I'm looking forward you winning tournaments with your invincible Sister list!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pelicaniforce wrote:

Your stuff is never going to happen, Bess GW is going to do whatever it wants and it’s priority is not to go through and incrementally adjust points for d2 guns.

Point changes are absolutely the likeliest of any of the fixes to actually happen. They change the point costs annually, sweeping changes to the rules of a huge line of units such as marines on the other hand are a pipe dream, and sweeping changes to the core rules of the game are even beyond that.

 Crimson wrote:
Ok, Marmatag, I'm looking forward you winning tournaments with your invincible Sister list!

Yeah, honestly, if they're as unstoppable as he claims them to be, I look forwards to them actually coming out on top of tournaments for once.

I wouldn't bet on it, but I'll concede defeat when an army of Bloody Rose Sisters with 100 girls wins several major tournaments, I think.

As it stands, assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and I'm done arguing with people who do it in bad faith. I do, though, wonder sometimes if they honestly believe what they say, or are just trying to cause trouble. The first sounds too incredible to be true, but the second is malicious and spiteful, so I guess it depends on what I want to believe about people.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Also, not every Sister will be within 6" of Celestine.

Neither will marines be within 6" of their HQ yet its baked into their costs.

Yes, and it should not be. Marines need a buff (as I mentioned above...).

 Marmatag wrote:
And no, if you've played even 1 game of 40k you'll know that the ability to take your strength 3 models to strength 4 is absolutely worth it. Look at Catachan guard, sisters can be just as effective offensively (and, they blow guardsmen out of the water defensively).

You will have acts of faith. It is not 33% chance, let's not pretend that rerolls aren't a thing. And paying CP to make everything within a bubble range fight twice is BONKERS, you don't see it, again, because of bias.

As it stands Sisters can throw 100 bodies on the table that will be...

3+/4++
Strength 4 in combat
Fighting twice with ladyorders

You can just push that up the table and win. There is no argument here. Let's not even factor in their very, very good transports and other synergies. Meltaguns got cheaper, too, remember?

And, there's nothing stopping you from throwing in a Castellan, just like everyone else with undercosted chaff.

Have to say this is much closer to my reading of the Sisters codex than the general doom and gloom.
It does require people to go and buy 100 models though - rather than use the 30~ relics from a metal age they have right now. Which I think is why people see it differently.

 Marmatag wrote:
But let's trust the guy who identifies as a "sisters player" to be the definitive source of fair balance for an army he has a vested interest in.

Instead, you expect us to trust the player who wants to nerf into oblivion specifically the armies that he plays against on a regular basis, while deliberately misrepresenting their rules (you know full well by now that Fix Bayonets is not a 'fight twice' ability, that's arguing in bad faith).

But you're not biased, no sirree, because you'll recommend an increase of a single point on some of the core units you use. While advocating a 75% price hike on the one you face, and complain about, the most, along with doubling or tripling the cost of their characters. And a random hike on units that nobody is complaining about. Fire Warriors? Really? Did a Fireblade gunline beat you last weekend?

'Space Marines all get rerolling all hits and wounds because for just 13ppm, they should be 20 points and girlyman should be 1000pts, you're biased because you play marines, I'm not biased because I say my guard should be 5 points'.

Come. On.

Is that the metric for what makes an army good? Winning a major? Basically first place means you're good, otherwise, all arguments are bad and the army is bad?

 Marmatag wrote:
Is that the metric for what makes an army good? Winning a major? Basically first place means you're good, otherwise, all arguments are bad and the army is bad?

There is a vast gulf between "overpowered" and "bad." You can not come in first at a GT and have an army that is just fine. Because remember, "just fine" is the goal, not "Bad" nor "too good". Sisters are not bad. I don't think they're good, either. I think they're adequate, balanced, just fine. I don't expect them to win any major tournaments, nor do I expect them to be as badly off as GK or Necrons.

And yes, any argument that sisters are too good is bad if sisters aren't too good. I figure that'd be self-evident.

Yes, and it should not be. Marines need a buff (as I mentioned above...).

Shifting focus...
What do you think would be best for marines? That would be a tide over buff for marines in general?

A special rule?

Making tactical ten mans more valuable?

Factionwide space marine rules?

Mono army buffs if you play marines entirely by themselves?

And yes, any argument that sisters are too good is bad if sisters aren't too good. I figure that'd be self-evident.

For reference i've already made this argument before and got proven wrong, sisters do have acts of faith but they are still not as powerful as just loyal 32 as they lack armor penetration or the tactical options marines have.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Is that the metric for what makes an army good? Winning a major? Basically first place means you're good, otherwise, all arguments are bad and the army is bad?

There is a vast gulf between "overpowered" and "bad." You can not come in first at a GT and have an army that is just fine. Because remember, "just fine" is the goal, not "Bad" nor "too good". Sisters are not bad. I don't think they're good, either. I think they're adequate, balanced, just fine. I don't expect them to win any major tournaments, nor do I expect them to be as badly off as GK or Necrons.

And yes, any argument that sisters are too good is bad if sisters aren't too good. I figure that'd be self-evident.

You guys are citing majors and other tournaments as an indicator of balance. Fine. Then you really can't also come back with arguments that say "well you can't assume Celestine because clownshoes format #12 doesn't allow named characters." You're wishy washy and inconsistent.

I mean its like every marine and sisters list always accounting for having their super buffer nearby it doesn't always happen and while players say they can its pretty rare for them all to stay in a 6" buffer range. Which is a problem with auras in general.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Yes, and it should not be. Marines need a buff (as I mentioned above...).

Shifting focus...
What do you think would be best for marines? That would be a tide over buff for marines in general?

A special rule?

Making tactical ten mans more valuable?

Factionwide space marine rules?

Mono army buffs if you play marines entirely by themselves?

I'm not really sure, exactly, because I don't play them (and unlike Marmatag, I am reluctant to prognosticate about armies I don't play).

My experience with Marine players tends to be that their good units are actually pretty good (e.g. smash captains), but most of their other units aren't good (e.g. BA tacticals). But I'm not sure what's wrong other than points costs; every time I think of a thing someone else says another army has that is OP, I realize some flavor of Marines already has it, except for cheapness (e.g. +1 strength for Sororitas on the charge is less good than +1 To-Wound from BA, but BA aren't good, and apparently +1 Strength totally is).

So probably I would drop their points costs by a good bit. Start with 11ppm tactical marines, then like 12-13 pt veteran marines. But that's just a guess from someone who doesn't play the army.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Is that the metric for what makes an army good? Winning a major? Basically first place means you're good, otherwise, all arguments are bad and the army is bad?

There is a vast gulf between "overpowered" and "bad." You can not come in first at a GT and have an army that is just fine. Because remember, "just fine" is the goal, not "Bad" nor "too good". Sisters are not bad. I don't think they're good, either. I think they're adequate, balanced, just fine. I don't expect them to win any major tournaments, nor do I expect them to be as badly off as GK or Necrons.

And yes, any argument that sisters are too good is bad if sisters aren't too good. I figure that'd be self-evident.

You guys are citing majors and other tournaments as an indicator of balance. Fine. Then you really can't also come back with arguments that say "well you can't assume Celestine because clownshoes format #12 doesn't allow named characters." You're wishy washy and inconsistent.

Right. I conceded the Celestine argument, by saying "alright, sure, they can bring Celestine." But my criterion for Sisters actually being an army that's too good is whether or not they can win several tournaments, as the powerful armies have done (yes, including IG, whom I readily concede are very powerful right now. I think we disagree on the reasons why).

catbarf wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
But let's trust the guy who identifies as a "sisters player" to be the definitive source of fair balance for an army he has a vested interest in.

Instead, you expect us to trust the player who wants to nerf into oblivion specifically the armies that he plays against on a regular basis, while deliberately misrepresenting their rules (you know full well by now that Fix Bayonets is not a 'fight twice' ability, that's arguing in bad faith).

But you're not biased, no sirree, because you'll recommend an increase of a single point on some of the core units you use. While advocating a 75% price hike on the one you face, and complain about, the most, along with doubling or tripling the cost of their characters. And a random hike on units that nobody is complaining about. Fire Warriors? Really? Did a Fireblade gunline beat you last weekend?

'Space Marines all get rerolling all hits and wounds because for just 13ppm, they should be 20 points and girlyman should be 1000pts, you're biased because you play marines, I'm not biased because I say my guard should be 5 points'.

Come. On.

Actually no, I didn't lose to a Fireblade Gunline. But firewarriors are very good for their points, and thematically as i've said almost all troops / infantry are undercosted in this game right now, as with super heavies. Like it or not the point is consistent.

Tau would instantly become better if Super Heavies were banned from competitive play. I'm not suggesting that super heavies be banned, but it illustrates a point that a faction can be fine overall but suffer from imbalances in another. And FWIW, Tau have done well at majors even in spite of the current game.

Combine some infantry squads, wrap around and you will get to fight twice. It exists. If you run into a squad of 20 and kill 10, you'll eat 90 S4 attacks before you swing again.

 Marmatag wrote:
Combine some infantry squads, wrap around and you will get to fight twice. It exists. If you run into a squad of 20 and kill 10, you'll eat 90 S4 attacks before you swing again.

*Does math* So Catachan in a Straken bubble have +1 attack, with another +1 for a priest, for 3 attacks each, 4 on the Sergeant. 10 Guardsmen (assuming the Combined Squad kept both sergeants alive) is 8 Guardsmen plus two Sergeants, or 16 attacks plus eight attacks, for 24 attacks.

That happens once after you kill the ten, once in their shooting phase, and once in their fight phase, for a total of ... 72 attacks. Hardly 90.

Is there a buff I am missing?