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.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Commissioning one guy to make one book is a lot less investment than doing an Orks v Nids starter box. Though GW has famously undershot the true sales potential of their non-marine model lines (lol sisters).

Yeah I'm not talking about an all non-"good guy" starter/booster/value box. I'm talking about the Summer Campaign- type stuff. Fluff out the Xenos/Heretic/etc codexes so each Subfaction has something of a peer to Abby/Guilliman/Eldrad. Rotate more of the Subfactions in more often. Write the scenario so this one planet is not a matter of life and death for the subfaction. For that matter, set it up so it's not one planet. Having "The Eldar, sensing the threat to their own worlds should this bastion world of the Imperium fall, send a strike force to Somewhere in order to manipulate the strands of fate in their favor during the Heretic Astartes invasion that has also drawn the attention of the warlike Orks who will travel anywhere for a good scrap at the same time a small force of Tau are trying to sneak onto the planet to recover an ancient device promoting The Greater Good just as the Genestealer Cult that was trying to prosper under the nose of the Astra Militarum, Adepta Sororitas, and Adeptus Arbites prepares to summon the Tyranid Hive Fleet they serve, even as an emergency reinforcement crusade of Adeptus Astartes hurtles toward the planet at breakneck speed." I get that every faction needs a hook for being there, but that's also why it shouldn't just be the One Planet, make it a sector with multiple planets and multiple environments so the UM vs Nids on an old Macragge board would also fit in with the Tyranid swarm hitting the outer edge of the Hoth System.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

How so? I'm actually a bit worried that spreading out the vehicles like this potentially makes weapon selection *less* interesting because you're compelled to grab as many high strength anti-tank guns as possible while the midling-strength guns are viewed as less desirable due to the potential for a bad matchup.

For instance, in 9th, I can take a blaster on my kabalites and be confident that said blaster will be a threat to whatever my opponent brings to the table. Even if he brings out a land raider, I'll be wounding it at least half the time. In 10th, the previews have me wondering if I should even bother with blasters. Sure, they'll work fine against T7 or less, but they'll be less valuable than before against T8, and they might be straight up bad against T9+ (single shot, only wounds 1/3rd of the time). So in this, admittedly very specific, example, we're going from having multiple worthwhile weapon choices to blasters maybe possibly not being worth it. (Depending on what we don't know, points costs, etc.)

No one wants to spend a bunch of points on S8 plasma only to find out their opponent's list is full of T9.

Sure. That's what happens when you reduce lethality. 9e had problem that everything was deleted too easily.

Unless reduced lethality should affect only opponent

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Mechanically, it can be awkward when you face daemons or tyranids and your splinters are suddenly good against both the enemy's big stuff and their little stuff.

This may be why the Screamer Killer was T9 and not T10. Not for this poison specifically, but the limited amount of anti-tank that is also anti-monster.

It's also interesting to see the Venom at T6. They're creating a broader range of vehicles, which should make weapon selection more interesting.

T6/7 - Light
T8/9 - Medium
T10/11 - Heavy
T12/13 - Superheavy
T14 - Titans

How so? I'm actually a bit worried that spreading out the vehicles like this potentially makes weapon selection *less* interesting because you're compelled to grab as many high strength anti-tank guns as possible while the midling-strength guns are viewed as less desirable due to the potential for a bad matchup.

For instance, in 9th, I can take a blaster on my kabalites and be confident that said blaster will be a threat to whatever my opponent brings to the table. Even if he brings out a land raider, I'll be wounding it at least half the time. In 10th, the previews have me wondering if I should even bother with blasters. Sure, they'll work fine against T7 or less, but they'll be less valuable than before against T8, and they might be straight up bad against T9+ (single shot, only wounds 1/3rd of the time). So in this, admittedly very specific, example, we're going from having multiple worthwhile weapon choices to blasters maybe possibly not being worth it. (Depending on what we don't know, points costs, etc.)

No one wants to spend a bunch of points on S8 plasma only to find out their opponent's list is full of T9.

I'd argue that Plasma isn't an anti-tank weapon or at least should not be considered one, but what made it so good in 8th and 9th was that it was extremely good at killing elite infantry AND delivering damage to vehicles thanks to high S and AP. I'd actually prefer weapons like the Lascannon, melta and xenos equivalents be the go to for anti-vehicle, with plasma being great for evaporating infantry while having some utility against vehicles. Currently it looks like 10th is leaning that way with Plasma still being good, but no longer a swiss army knife useful against 99% of targets.

Blasters still look very effective against light vehicles / skimmers. But the haywire blaster looks ridiculous

I wouldn't put much focus on rules balance. From how GW handles stuff, to them if one has "bad" or unfun rules they should either play an army with good rules or switch to a GW rules with an army that has updated and "good" rules.
I mean GW is at the level, where they think that str 10 anti tank weapons should do d6 wounds and str 14 d6+1. In a world they want people to use tanks and those almost don't degrade and have 10+ wounds.
It is classic GW over reaction. They write the rules to make tanks bad in 9th, now they try to make everyone buy more tanks

Anybody else a little underwhelmed at the GSC Patriarch? It seems a little meh for being the "big-bad" of the Cults.

Don't get me wrong, devastating wounds spreading to a Genestealer squad will be nice but comparing to other Codex "warlords"...

 Lord Clinto wrote:
Anybody else a little underwhelmed at the GSC Patriarch? It seems a little meh for being the "big-bad" of the Cults.

Don't get me wrong, devastating wounds spreading to a Genestealer squad will be nice but comparing to other Codex "warlords"...

I was hoping he’d be a bit punchier, yes.

His role seems more ‘buffing while yelling angrily at the enemy’ now.

 Lord Clinto wrote:
Anybody else a little underwhelmed at the GSC Patriarch? It seems a little meh for being the "big-bad" of the Cults.

Don't get me wrong, devastating wounds spreading to a Genestealer squad will be nice but comparing to other Codex "warlords"...

Yeah, he's just an overgrown Genestealer, which kinda fits, but I was hoping for more.

tneva82 wrote:

 Lord Clinto wrote:
I'm happy with the Martial Ka'Tah and the Strat, but a little disappointed that I'm going to have to change all of my axes over to spears now.

And Sisters of Silence are even now, some how, more irrelevant than they were previously.

If you feel need to have to change keep in mind you will "have" to change them back to axes in future. Quite possibly in few month

Not to mention maybe spears are overpriced.

Personally I don’t mind that people who just want to play math-hammer are inconvenienced in this way.

He doesn’t “have to” to do anything.

 Lord Clinto wrote:
Anybody else a little underwhelmed at the GSC Patriarch? It seems a little meh for being the "big-bad" of the Cults.

Don't get me wrong, devastating wounds spreading to a Genestealer squad will be nice but comparing to other Codex "warlords"...

Yeah they cut his offensive capabilities a lot. Because what isn't immediately notable in the drop in efficiency is his offensive psychic abilities as well. I get it, they're lowering the amount of killing power of the edition, but it helped him handle multiple targets. He had Psychic Onslaught, which was WC5, 24", roll 4d6, on a 5+ do a mortal wound, which mathammer-wise outpreformed smite on most things on w1 with more than 4 models. It also had Psionic Blast, WC5, pick an enemy unit in 18", deal d3 mortals which becomes flat 3 mortals if your casting roll was better than their leadership, which also outperformed smite on anything LD9 or lower,

now the Patriarch doesn't even have a smite replacement.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Mechanically, it can be awkward when you face daemons or tyranids and your splinters are suddenly good against both the enemy's big stuff and their little stuff.

This may be why the Screamer Killer was T9 and not T10. Not for this poison specifically, but the limited amount of anti-tank that is also anti-monster.

It's also interesting to see the Venom at T6. They're creating a broader range of vehicles, which should make weapon selection more interesting.

T6/7 - Light
T8/9 - Medium
T10/11 - Heavy
T12/13 - Superheavy
T14 - Titans

How so? I'm actually a bit worried that spreading out the vehicles like this potentially makes weapon selection *less* interesting because you're compelled to grab as many high strength anti-tank guns as possible while the midling-strength guns are viewed as less desirable due to the potential for a bad matchup.

For instance, in 9th, I can take a blaster on my kabalites and be confident that said blaster will be a threat to whatever my opponent brings to the table. Even if he brings out a land raider, I'll be wounding it at least half the time. In 10th, the previews have me wondering if I should even bother with blasters. Sure, they'll work fine against T7 or less, but they'll be less valuable than before against T8, and they might be straight up bad against T9+ (single shot, only wounds 1/3rd of the time). So in this, admittedly very specific, example, we're going from having multiple worthwhile weapon choices to blasters maybe possibly not being worth it. (Depending on what we don't know, points costs, etc.)

No one wants to spend a bunch of points on S8 plasma only to find out their opponent's list is full of T9.

When we have all the datasheets I'll run scenarios.

Also...waa wee woo Greyfax is a scary scary beast ( to my poor psykers ). I know what unit I'm killing first...

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

 Lord Clinto wrote:
Anybody else a little underwhelmed at the GSC Patriarch? It seems a little meh for being the "big-bad" of the Cults.

Don't get me wrong, devastating wounds spreading to a Genestealer squad will be nice but comparing to other Codex "warlords"...

Yeah they cut his offensive capabilities a lot. Because what isn't immediately notable in the drop in efficiency is his offensive psychic abilities as well. I get it, they're lowering the amount of killing power of the edition, but it helped him handle multiple targets. He had Psychic Onslaught, which was WC5, 24", roll 4d6, on a 5+ do a mortal wound, which mathammer-wise outpreformed smite on most things on w1 with more than 4 models. It also had Psionic Blast, WC5, pick an enemy unit in 18", deal d3 mortals which becomes flat 3 mortals if your casting roll was better than their leadership, which also outperformed smite on anything LD9 or lower,

now the Patriarch doesn't even have a smite replacement.

I still hope for a cynical cashgrab in them 'recognizing their errors and listening' and releasing a Storm of Magic™-like box in the middle of the edition, with psychic powers for everyone and some wargear, enhancements etc.... call it Darker Millenium* or whatever.

*

Tsagualsa wrote:

2 Dark 2 Millenium

LOL! got me on that one. =)

"Enlightened Millenium"

tneva82 wrote:
Sure. That's what happens when you reduce lethality. 9e had problem that everything was deleted too easily.

Unless reduced lethality should affect only opponent

I'm fine with a reduction in lethality in general. I'm a little worried about whether or not blasters will still be viable choices and if they'll still work against enough common targets to remain decent anti-tank. Because if not, that probably means I have to start building my lists around haywire spam or something to avoid bad matchups against vehicle-heavy lists.

IIRC, blasters used to have the lance rule that basically meant they could still hurt especially heavily armored targets on a 4+. I could see them getting Anti-Vehicle (4+) or something so that they're *better* against lighter vehicles but don't have to fish for 5s against heavier vehicles.

Also, while I'm actively looking forward to the game being less lethal, I do think it's worth pointing out that drukhari are one of the most extreme glass cannon armies. While I do want their lethality reduced, I also don't want it reduced so much that they struggle or that players are forced to spam certain options in every list. Also also, it seems weird that our venoms are getting easier to kill the reduced lethality edition.

The Red Hobbit wrote:
I'd argue that Plasma isn't an anti-tank weapon or at least should not be considered one, but what made it so good in 8th and 9th was that it was extremely good at killing elite infantry AND delivering damage to vehicles thanks to high S and AP. I'd actually prefer weapons like the Lascannon, melta and xenos equivalents be the go to for anti-vehicle, with plasma being great for evaporating infantry while having some utility against vehicles. Currently it looks like 10th is leaning that way with Plasma still being good, but no longer a swiss army knife useful against 99% of targets.

I agree with all of that.

Blasters still look very effective against light vehicles / skimmers. But the haywire blaster looks ridiculous

Agreed that blasters will be fine against squishier vehicles. My concern is what the Toughness and Wounds of something like a rhino will be. Where plasma can fall back on being a good marine killer/general anti-infantry, blasters only having a single shot makes them a bit less flexible. But maybe it will be fine. Just depends on stats and point costs and so forth.

Haywire blasters do look strong, although I'm not sure they're *that* strong. Assuming a squad of scourges with 4 haywire blasters for 8 shots. I'm going to give them a bonus shot for a total of 9 so I can do lazier math. 9 shots at BS 3+ = 6 hits. 6 hits becomes 3 wounds vs a vehicle including a single 6. Assuming that vehicle has a 3+ save, it will make 1 save, fail 1 save, and won't get any saves against the to-wound roll of 6 because Devastating Wounds. So you're looking at a total of 6 Damage from a specialized unit that currently costs ~150 points. Seems solid, but I'm not sure how good it is exactly.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

 Lord Clinto wrote:
Anybody else a little underwhelmed at the GSC Patriarch? It seems a little meh for being the "big-bad" of the Cults.

Don't get me wrong, devastating wounds spreading to a Genestealer squad will be nice but comparing to other Codex "warlords"...

Yeah they cut his offensive capabilities a lot. Because what isn't immediately notable in the drop in efficiency is his offensive psychic abilities as well. I get it, they're lowering the amount of killing power of the edition, but it helped him handle multiple targets. He had Psychic Onslaught, which was WC5, 24", roll 4d6, on a 5+ do a mortal wound, which mathammer-wise outpreformed smite on most things on w1 with more than 4 models. It also had Psionic Blast, WC5, pick an enemy unit in 18", deal d3 mortals which becomes flat 3 mortals if your casting roll was better than their leadership, which also outperformed smite on anything LD9 or lower,

now the Patriarch doesn't even have a smite replacement.

I still hope for a cynical cashgrab in them 'recognizing their errors and listening' and releasing a Storm of Magic™-like box in the middle of the edition, with psychic powers for everyone and some wargear, enhancements etc.... call it Darker Millenium* or whatever.

*

Spoiler:

or 2 Dark 2 Millenium, 10*100 Dark, Dark Millenium 2: Psychic Boogaloo

Well, they are having the Imperium jet back to the Pariah Nexus which as I recall had ordinary humans manifesting saint-like powers and apparitions. Maybe that's where the Storm of Magic™ will come in.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Haywire blasters do look strong, although I'm not sure they're *that* strong. Assuming a squad of scourges with 4 haywire blasters for 8 shots. I'm going to give them a bonus shot for a total of 9 so I can do lazier math. 9 shots at BS 3+ = 6 hits. 6 hits becomes 3 wounds vs a vehicle including a single 6. Assuming that vehicle has a 3+ save, it will make 1 save, fail 1 save, and won't get any saves against the to-wound roll of 6 because Devastating Wounds. So you're looking at a total of 6 Damage from a specialized unit that currently costs ~150 points. Seems solid, but I'm not sure how good it is exactly.

I think you've forgotten that the previewed T/L Haywire Blaster has Anti-Vehicle 4+, so any 4+ to wound triggers Devastating Wounds.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Haywire blasters do look strong, although I'm not sure they're *that* strong. Assuming a squad of scourges with 4 haywire blasters for 8 shots. I'm going to give them a bonus shot for a total of 9 so I can do lazier math. 9 shots at BS 3+ = 6 hits. 6 hits becomes 3 wounds vs a vehicle including a single 6. Assuming that vehicle has a 3+ save, it will make 1 save, fail 1 save, and won't get any saves against the to-wound roll of 6 because Devastating Wounds. So you're looking at a total of 6 Damage from a specialized unit that currently costs ~150 points. Seems solid, but I'm not sure how good it is exactly.

I think you've forgotten that the previewed T/L Haywire Blaster has Anti-Vehicle 4+, so any 4+ to wound triggers Devastating Wounds.

Ah. I didn't realize that Anti-Vehicle triggered Devastating on a 4+. I thought it was still only on a 6+. That would bring the total damage up to 9. Pretty gnarly.

@Wyldhunt A Rhino is T9 and W10. I think a flock of scourges with 4x Blasters has a reasonable chance of destroying one with a single volley. But, unless something delightfully unpleasant happens to the folks inside, they could well shoot the Scourges to death next turn.

Which fits the idea of Blaster Scouges in the role of suicide troops, I guess.

And bluntly…that’s just a smegging Rhino…not anywhere near the thoughest transport we’ve seen, and definitely not the most fragile.

I’ve tended to see Blasters more and things embedded in Kabalite squads to help against heavy infantry. There were editions where even 16+ model Warrior squads did very little against even Tac Marines, and I think that’s kind of cemented my view of the Blaster’s role. 😄

I can see the concern over Drukhari anti-tank though. At one point Dark Lances and Blasters had special rules that really meant they weren’t much better than a Las Cannon a lot of the time. Then we had the fad for spamming Disintegrators I’ve Dark Lances because apparently they worked better.

Unlike Craftworld and Harlequins (and Coven heavy builds) Drukhari have relied on being actual glass cannons. We’ve seen only a fraction of Datasheets at this point, not played any games, etc but things have changed a lot. Someone like me, a die-hard casual player could be forgiven for scratching their head right now because they don’t quite see how it all fits together yet.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Sure. That's what happens when you reduce lethality. 9e had problem that everything was deleted too easily.

Unless reduced lethality should affect only opponent

I'm fine with a reduction in lethality in general. I'm a little worried about whether or not blasters will still be viable choices and if they'll still work against enough common targets to remain decent anti-tank. Because if not, that probably means I have to start building my lists around haywire spam or something to avoid bad matchups against vehicle-heavy lists.

IIRC, blasters used to have the lance rule that basically meant they could still hurt especially heavily armored targets on a 4+. I could see them getting Anti-Vehicle (4+) or something so that they're *better* against lighter vehicles but don't have to fish for 5s against heavier vehicles.

Also, while I'm actively looking forward to the game being less lethal, I do think it's worth pointing out that drukhari are one of the most extreme glass cannon armies. While I do want their lethality reduced, I also don't want it reduced so much that they struggle or that players are forced to spam certain options in every list. Also also, it seems weird that our venoms are getting easier to kill the reduced lethality edition.

I think blasters might become anti-TEQ as much as anti-tank tbh.

Oddly they’ve a better AP value than dark lances, despite the much lower S.

Vs something with good saves but mid T and W they might be quite efficient.

Invuns aside, you’re turning a 2+ into a 6+, or ignoring it entirely if you’ve got plunging fire active (easy to achieve from a raider).

 Souleater wrote:
@Wyldhunt A Rhino is T9 and W10. I think a flock of scourges with 4x Blasters has a reasonable chance of destroying one with a single volley. But, unless something delightfully unpleasant happens to the folks inside, they could well shoot the Scourges to death next turn.

Which fits the idea of Blaster Scouges in the role of suicide troops, I guess.

And bluntly…that’s just a smegging Rhino…not anywhere near the thoughest transport we’ve seen, and definitely not the most fragile.

I’ve tended to see Blasters more and things embedded in Kabalite squads to help against heavy infantry. There were editions where even 16+ model Warrior squads did very little against even Tac Marines, and I think that’s kind of cemented my view of the Blaster’s role. 😄

I can see the concern over Drukhari anti-tank though. At one point Dark Lances and Blasters had special rules that really meant they weren’t much better than a Las Cannon a lot of the time. Then we had the fad for spamming Disintegrators I’ve Dark Lances because apparently they worked better.

Unlike Craftworld and Harlequins (and Coven heavy builds) Drukhari have relied on being actual glass cannons. We’ve seen only a fraction of Datasheets at this point, not played any games, etc but things have changed a lot. Someone like me, a die-hard casual player could be forgiven for scratching their head right now because they don’t quite see how it all fits together yet.

At S8 AP-4, a Blaster performs only slightly worse against a Land Raider than a Rhino.
And exactly the same against a 3+ armor Repulsor.

But the Rhino has fewer wounds, if I remember rightly? My point is that the Sample Scourges could *generally* one shot a Rhino, likely kill anything more fragile but be unlikely to kill anything tougher.

It’s just looking at what I expect from them.

Just like melta's on imperium side. They won't be main at in 10th. For that bring proper at.

Which I think is fair enough.

 Souleater wrote:
@Wyldhunt A Rhino is T9 and W10. I think a flock of scourges with 4x Blasters has a reasonable chance of destroying one with a single volley.

A flock of 5 Scourges inflicts an average of 4 wounds on a Rhino.

So it actually takes 2-3 units of Scourges to kill a single Marine Transport.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

The Red Hobbit wrote:
I'd argue that Plasma isn't an anti-tank weapon or at least should not be considered one, but what made it so good in 8th and 9th was that it was extremely good at killing elite infantry AND delivering damage to vehicles thanks to high S and AP. I'd actually prefer weapons like the Lascannon, melta and xenos equivalents be the go to for anti-vehicle, with plasma being great for evaporating infantry while having some utility against vehicles. Currently it looks like 10th is leaning that way with Plasma still being good, but no longer a swiss army knife useful against 99% of targets.

I agree with all of that.

Blasters still look very effective against light vehicles / skimmers. But the haywire blaster looks ridiculous

Agreed that blasters will be fine against squishier vehicles. My concern is what the Toughness and Wounds of something like a rhino will be. Where plasma can fall back on being a good marine killer/general anti-infantry, blasters only having a single shot makes them a bit less flexible. But maybe it will be fine. Just depends on stats and point costs and so forth.

Haywire blasters do look strong, although I'm not sure they're *that* strong. Assuming a squad of scourges with 4 haywire blasters for 8 shots. I'm going to give them a bonus shot for a total of 9 so I can do lazier math. 9 shots at BS 3+ = 6 hits. 6 hits becomes 3 wounds vs a vehicle including a single 6. Assuming that vehicle has a 3+ save, it will make 1 save, fail 1 save, and won't get any saves against the to-wound roll of 6 because Devastating Wounds. So you're looking at a total of 6 Damage from a specialized unit that currently costs ~150 points. Seems solid, but I'm not sure how good it is exactly.

Haywire is going to be insane, I'm not looking forward to the next time I play my friend's DEldar army haha.

For Blasters it seems to me from the design space they are treating them similarly to Sister's Melta. A strong high Strength weapon with good AP and damage, great against tough targets but no longer annihilating vehicles. I'm not familiar with DEldar army rules but from the number of times I've had my Custodes and Orks shot by blasters I assume they're fairly easy to take on your units, like meltas are with Sisters.

I think we're using to seeing Rhino's pop constantly but design wise I think they're going to try and buck that trend this edition and make transports last more than a single turn.

 vipoid wrote:

 Souleater wrote:
@Wyldhunt A Rhino is T9 and W10. I think a flock of scourges with 4x Blasters has a reasonable chance of destroying one with a single volley.

A flock of 5 Scourges inflicts an average of 4 wounds on a Rhino.

So it actually takes 2-3 units of Scourges to kill a single Marine Transport.

Ah, I shouldn’t try to do mathematics with a migraine.

So assuming a PT to get for hits, even with Haywire that’s pushing it to kill one?

 Souleater wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Souleater wrote:
@Wyldhunt A Rhino is T9 and W10. I think a flock of scourges with 4x Blasters has a reasonable chance of destroying one with a single volley.

A flock of 5 Scourges inflicts an average of 4 wounds on a Rhino.

So it actually takes 2-3 units of Scourges to kill a single Marine Transport.

Ah, I shouldn’t try to do mathematics with a migraine.

So assuming a PT to get for hits, even with Haywire that’s pushing it to kill one?

I'm not sure what you mean - Blasters and haywire are two different weapons. Blasters don't get any sort of Haywire effect, unfortunately.

If you're willing to spend Pain Tokens, then a Scourge unit with Blasters inflicts 5.3 units on a Rhino.

So that brings it to 2 Scourge flocks and 2 Pain Tokens to kill a Rhino.

4 Haywire Scourges with PT rerolls should kill a Rhino on average. The same is true for Dark Lance Scourges but they also have to be stationary.

Blasters are simply not an anti-tank weapon anymore and are clearly outperformed by Dark Lances and Haywire at that role, but they are better on T7 or less targets and assault means they are more mobile.

tneva82 wrote:
Just like melta's on imperium side. They won't be main at in 10th. For that bring proper at.

But I ain't got no AT Lieutenant Dan.

Thank you, Tyran.

I’ll be quite happy deleting Marines with Blasters, so Silver Lining and all that. 😄