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.

 grouchoben wrote:
Can someone tell me whether I'm crazy, because I think a 5man vet team all armed with combi-flamers might be worth a punt?

Put in one or two stormshields to make the squad 145-150pts, and you have 5d6 autohits, and 20 SIA shots (at -1 to hit ofc).

Normally, that would be some pretty nice chaff cleaning power (19 dead boyz w/watchmaster & mission), but a bit too overspecialised to really be worth it, but the weight of shots these guys can concentrate makes them a clear pick for spending 2cps on a doctine. Assuming you have a Watchmaster to back them up, and use a 2cp doctrine, you're talking about 8.6 expected damage on a Predator... With 5 combi-flamers.

What do you think? I'll proxy them next game and see what happens.

Of the combi weapons I think it's the weakest choice. Storm Bolters will average out to 1.5 fewer shots per model, but you always know what you're getting and still benefit from SIA for cheaper and you're not taking a -1 to hit on the Bolter portion.

Delivery is an issue as well. Getting vets into 8" without a Corvus is pretty hard unless you use a teleport slot. Even then, you'll need a couple terminators and 2-4 storm shields to make sure you survive to enter flame range. If you're going through all that trouble to protect a unit that needs to get within 8", then you may as well upgrade to frag cannons.

Let us know how it goes though.

 grouchoben wrote:
Can someone tell me whether I'm crazy, because I think a 5man vet team all armed with combi-flamers might be worth a punt?

Put in one or two stormshields to make the squad 145-150pts, and you have 5d6 autohits, and 20 SIA shots (at -1 to hit ofc).

Normally, that would be some pretty nice chaff cleaning power (19 dead boyz w/watchmaster & mission), but a bit too overspecialised to really be worth it, but the weight of shots these guys can concentrate makes them a clear pick for spending 2cps on a doctine. Assuming you have a Watchmaster to back them up, and use a 2cp doctrine, you're talking about 8.6 expected damage on a Predator... With 5 combi-flamers.

What do you think? I'll proxy them next game and see what happens.

The main issues are cost and delivery. How do you get flamers in range of anything worth killing? And for 12 points a pop, they aren't exactly cheap weapons.

You're both right - delivery means either an asscan razorback or a Corvus. I've been running a corvus or two in my lists, as well as DS Fortis teams, so there's often space at the back for a cheeky 5-man.

4 Frag cannons & a sarg are a better bet, as you say. I just ran the numbers on them vs boyz and they delete 23 models (vs 19 for the 5xcombiflamers). Brutal. But they do clock in about 46pts more, about 33% price increase.

It's just that I've been having so much fun with my stormbolter vets that I'm considering a 40pt upgrade on a squad of 5 to buy them an extra 5d6 autohits at 8".

So, reading on through some of the lists here I have been assembling a fair bit and settling on a few builds:

5xvet squad
-Sgt with SB and PS
- 1x SB and SS (should I be using 2?)
- 3xvet SB and chain swords.
- 1x frag cannon.
These guys would be jumping out of a TAC Razorback, I figure at least one more squad like this for the TLC Razorback.

Primarus is easy to get mixed up with all the add-ons.

The assault Intercessors is good for on the move, good shooting and Sgt with chain sword.
An Aggressor to remove the -1 for advancing, I figured flame-storm was the way to go in the off-chance of being charged.
Inceptor to be able to back out of a fight and shoot with assault bolters.
I keep being tempted with adding 3 assault Hellblasters.

I was thinking a normal Intercessor x6 with x4 Hellblasters (rapid fire) is a way to go and possibly combat squad.
I assume people run the Watch Master near these guys.

I assume due to the meta we try to get as many squads as possible and keep the size down.

What are people kitting their Darkstars out with?
I am a bit leery of dropping out of supersonic to drop off passengers.
It is a great dakka-aircraft but we have much of that on the ground.
I figure their role is to be vehicle/large creature hunting and "opportunity" character assassination.
Bombing units on the ground is a bonus.

I keep hearing some characters with jump-packs are a good choice like Librarian and Chaplain.

Venerable Dreadnought with TLC and ML will help with armor.

I will have to get these thoughts into Battlescribe and see what a 2000 point list looks like.

If you were to do a Deathwatch list from scratch with any option available: what would you do?

more for casual games than anything competitive, what are the thoughts on landraiders? mostly because they are the only transport besides the corvus or storm eagle that can handle mixed squads

Looking at expanding my army, I'm looking at possibly supplementing my DW a bit, and A lot of what I have learned in this thread is that Deathwatch is okay, but better if brought as a "soup" with another Imperium-based detachment. A lot of people go toward IG for the CP farm and cheap models, but I'm not a huge fan of IG, and I'm wondering if there's any other solid choices out there.

In your guys' opinions, what are some good alternatives? I was thinking about BA, but I don't have the codex yet and I'm not sure what a good starting detachment would be if I were to bring them (or if they would even be worth it).....

You can squeeze a double battalion and a cheap knight in to 2k - I think that's a viable soup choice. The top-target priority of a paragon-gauntlet Gallant charging your enemy will take a lots of AT pressure off your expensive toys too.

Really, your DW chew through CPs so you want the 13CP from 2 battalions somehow. That means Admech or guard, with both being good, or MSU DW.

If you don't like Infantry Guard, you can make do with Scions for a little more elite feel as well. They're nearly as cheap (just as 5 mans instead of 10) and while they're not as good at dying as their half priced brethren, they'll still create a very cheap battalion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jcd386 wrote:

I don't think I actually suggested specific changes there, so i'm not sure exactly what you are referring to. I just pointed out imbalances the game currently has that make the IG battery a best in class option for literally every faction in the game that has it as a legal option.

What I'm getting at is they you're not necessarily describing imbalances, just sort of what the game looks like in what may be a balanced state. Most "balanced" games still settle on some obvious choices and attempting to fix them doesn't generally make the game any more balanced; it just changes what the obvious choices are.

Codex's create a very siloed mindset as you play 40k. That's where you weigh a lot of your options and make most of your decisions, so when something feels like a no brainer, it feels like the balance is off. A codex is just internal balance though, and focusing on it isn't nearly as important as external balance. If every single faction in the game had a competitive build, even if it was just ONE competitive build, it would be more diverse and healthy game than one in which 2-3 codexes can run whatever they want and win.

In terms of list creativity, an auto include that takes up 10% of a list enables way more than it takes away. Given the classic FOC literally determined the composition of more of a list than that, I see it as something that does far more to improve the game than it takes away.

 Talizvar wrote:

Primarus is easy to get mixed up with all the add-ons.

The assault Intercessors is good for on the move, good shooting and Sgt with chain sword.
An Aggressor to remove the -1 for advancing, I figured flame-storm was the way to go in the off-chance of being charged.
Inceptor to be able to back out of a fight and shoot with assault bolters.
I keep being tempted with adding 3 assault Hellblasters.

I'd avoid the assault hellblasters. While they'd work great for hunting elite infantry in any other force, SIA can fill that gap for you. It's better to bring rapid fire for heavier T7-T8 targets.

I would absolutely avoid the flamestorm gauntlets. That's a lot of points to dissuade somebody from charging you, which they probably don't want to do already, and you're unlikely to actually gain any normal benefit from them with such a pitiful range. Go bolters - better range and with the Intercessors acting as ablative wounds, you'll get the opportunity to shoot twice much more often.

I've played with three versions of this unit - barebones just one Aggressor; one with an extra Inceptor; and one where I run 5 Intercessors alongside 4 bolter aggressors and an inceptor. That last one is expensive, but it's a T5, 2+ in cover, ultra mobile literal storm of screen clearing goodness.

 Talizvar wrote:
I was thinking a normal Intercessor x6 with x4 Hellblasters (rapid fire) is a way to go and possibly combat squad.
I assume people run the Watch Master near these guys.

I do 5x Intercessors, 4x Hellblasters, and an Inceptor. The last thing I want is for these guys to go silent (it's the biggest counter for Hellblasters outside of just murdering them).

 Talizvar wrote:
I assume due to the meta we try to get as many squads as possible and keep the size down.

Huge trade off here since you'll find the +1 to wound strats work much better on larger squads. Vets can also be immune to morale, so that's not even an issue. The only thing I'd keep in mind is a tournament setting like ITC could hurt - squad size can give up vp on certain objectives. Drop a body to avoid it.

 Talizvar wrote:
What are people kitting their Darkstars out with?
I am a bit leery of dropping out of supersonic to drop off passengers.
It is a great dakka-aircraft but we have much of that on the ground.
I figure their role is to be vehicle/large creature hunting and "opportunity" character assassination.
Bombing units on the ground is a bonus.

Dakka all the way. It's the cheapest and it isn't worth the couple lascannon shots that hit on 4s.

 Talizvar wrote:
I keep hearing some characters with jump-packs are a good choice like Librarian and Chaplain.

Definitely a way to go here. Lets them stay in reserve if you have enough power on the board already.

 Talizvar wrote:
Venerable Dreadnought with TLC and ML will help with armor.

I've been meaning to add one alongside a couple Armiger Helverins, but for now my T8 shooting is coming from a couple LR tank commanders.

 Talizvar wrote:
If you were to do a Deathwatch list from scratch with any option available: what would you do?

Only DW, or are allies acceptable?

 NickTheButcher wrote:
Looking at expanding my army, I'm looking at possibly supplementing my DW a bit, and A lot of what I have learned in this thread is that Deathwatch is okay, but better if brought as a "soup" with another Imperium-based detachment. A lot of people go toward IG for the CP farm and cheap models, but I'm not a huge fan of IG, and I'm wondering if there's any other solid choices out there.

In your guys' opinions, what are some good alternatives? I was thinking about BA, but I don't have the codex yet and I'm not sure what a good starting detachment would be if I were to bring them (or if they would even be worth it).....

BA can give you some tank hunting power with the slamfucker captains alongside decent screening and early board control with scouts. Or you could go Ad Mech for a nice fire base that will fill a similar role as the IG on the board, minus the CP regen. Like most elite army lists, they're going to be better as allies since they simply do not have the tools necessary to do it all on their own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:

What I'm getting at is they you're not necessarily describing imbalances, just sort of what the game looks like in what may be a balanced state. Most "balanced" games still settle on some obvious choices and attempting to fix them doesn't generally make the game any more balanced; it just changes what the obvious choices are.

Codex's create a very siloed mindset as you play 40k. That's where you weigh a lot of your options and make most of your decisions, so when something feels like a no brainer, it feels like the balance is off. A codex is just internal balance though, and focusing on it isn't nearly as important as external balance. If every single faction in the game had a competitive build, even if it was just ONE competitive build, it would be more diverse and healthy game than one in which 2-3 codexes can run whatever they want and win.

In terms of list creativity, an auto include that takes up 10% of a list enables way more than it takes away. Given the classic FOC literally determined the composition of more of a list than that, I see it as something that does far more to improve the game than it takes away.

While I agree, the problem is that right now there's really only one competitive choice. Guard is simply too good at the CP regen atm to make any other choice equivalent in any way.

I also feel like there's a ridiculously high amount of faction representation in the tournament scene lately - much, much more than we saw in 7th. I think that's an important thing to recognize and keep in mind when we talk balance. We're actually at a really good place now compared to before. I feel like the IG battalion is an issue not because of its points costs, but because of the CP regen - it's not worth considering alternative options until that is addressed, I feel.

Lemondish wrote:

 NickTheButcher wrote:
Looking at expanding my army, I'm looking at possibly supplementing my DW a bit, and A lot of what I have learned in this thread is that Deathwatch is okay, but better if brought as a "soup" with another Imperium-based detachment. A lot of people go toward IG for the CP farm and cheap models, but I'm not a huge fan of IG, and I'm wondering if there's any other solid choices out there.

In your guys' opinions, what are some good alternatives? I was thinking about BA, but I don't have the codex yet and I'm not sure what a good starting detachment would be if I were to bring them (or if they would even be worth it).....

BA can give you some tank hunting power with the slamfucker captains alongside decent screening and early board control with scouts. Or you could go Ad Mech for a nice fire base that will fill a similar role as the IG on the board, minus the CP regen. Like most elite army lists, they're going to be better as allies since they simply do not have the tools necessary to do it all on their own.

Kind of what I was looking for -- I see a lot of the recommendations lean toward IG, however, I'm under the impression that the CP battery will eventually get "changed" and not be as effective as it is now. So with that in mind, I'm seeing what other options might fit this role that aren't specific to IG. I'll look into AdMech as well -- any thoughts on what you would aim to bring in an AdMech detachment?

Lemondish wrote:

While I agree, the problem is that right now there's really only one competitive choice. Guard is simply too good at the CP regen atm to make any other choice equivalent in any way.

I also feel like there's a ridiculously high amount of faction representation in the tournament scene lately - much, much more than we saw in 7th. I think that's an important thing to recognize and keep in mind when we talk balance. We're actually at a really good place now compared to before. I feel like the IG battalion is an issue not because of its points costs, but because of the CP regen - it's not worth considering alternative options until that is addressed, I feel.

Only one choice for 180/2000 points. I think there's a wealth of options available to the remaining 1820. I think we'll find that if they remove the Guard, the actual freedom in list building will reduce pretty dramatically. Not just in Deathwatch, but Deathwatch is a prime example of a faction that suddenly has to pay so much for troops that you simply can't afford blackstars or even really large mixed kill teams.

I get people don't want to feel like they have to take something (though I also think Space Marine models look significantly better next to scale peppers... I mean, Guard) but there's not an easy fix and the overhaul required to remove them and keep the kind of competitive diversity we're seeing seems larger than what you're likely to see even in a new edition. The end result is way more likely to just create an enormous range of non-viable codexes. It feels like its better to embrace rather than fight, IMO.

That said, I do think the Aquila is ridiculous.

 LunarSol wrote:

It feels like its better to embrace rather than fight, IMO.

That said, I do think the Aquila is ridiculous.

I can agree with that, which is kind of where I'm coming from here. I'd personally like to see a couple small changes to encourage more options by making more things viable, not less. I would hate to see imperial bisque disappear, and since I'm a fan of buffs over nerfs, I think that's the best way to go. Kurovs may need to be limited, but even something small like say, Scouts or tacticals being cheaper, would go pretty far for astartes armies trying to keep up on bodies for screening, etc. Not as effective at those two jobs, but they bring other strengths and they'll perhaps be strong enough to support a well rounded force. I guess in closing (since I think we'll have killed this topic at this point) I want more options for allies at a competitive level without feeling like I'm giving up so much power by not taking guard. Does that make sense?

Lemondish wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

It feels like its better to embrace rather than fight, IMO.

That said, I do think the Aquila is ridiculous.

I can agree with that, which is kind of where I'm coming from here. I'd personally like to see a couple small changes to encourage more options by making more things viable, not less. I would hate to see imperial bisque disappear, and since I'm a fan of buffs over nerfs, I think that's the best way to go. Kurovs may need to be limited, but even something small like say, Scouts or tacticals being cheaper, would go pretty far for astartes armies trying to keep up on bodies for screening, etc. Not as effective at those two jobs, but they bring other strengths and they'll perhaps be strong enough to support a well rounded force. I guess in closing (since I think we'll have killed this topic at this point) I want more options for allies at a competitive level without feeling like I'm giving up so much power by not taking guard. Does that make sense?

I think we all generally agree here. The IG CP battery is a pretty low level problem to have, and I don't think fixing it at the cost of guard viability is the right solution.

That's why I'd much rather them redo the way CP are generated rather than make guard bad. Until then it is probably fine that everyone is playing 1820 + IG points.

I agree that the CP battery isn't going anywhere, and that that might not be a bad thing. Even if they did whack the Guard battalion, there'd be plenty of other options...

You can run 3 BA scouts and a couple of thunderhammer captains for 355pts. I know that's twice the cost, but it has a hell of a lot more utility in terms of area denial and CC counterattack. They all share <adeptus astartes>, so even if they tightened up the rules on detachments, we'd still have options on the table for a CP battalion.

I'm still grumbling for finding an efficient way to include Huron in an allied detachment with some Predators and some Scouts. Damn he needs to come down in price though...

DW units can get super pricy real fast. It is truly an exercise building solid optimized lists. I see them good at killing eveything but tough vehicles and SH.

Yup, to second what was said, I don't see the CP battery going anywhere unless they overhaul detachments. If they nerfed AM, 15 Scouts and 2 Lts is only 270 or the better BA option mentioned above for 350. Maybe they nerf Grand Strategist and/or Kurov's but the AM detachment itself is probably here to stay.

All that does get back to the first thing I wondered about when I read the 8th ed rules, why are CP ties to detachments to begin with? I realize this is due to my bias of wanting my mini wargame to be about moving a lot of minis around and not a couple OP hero HQ, but I was pissed that you get more CPs for taking min detachments (and wtf is with a supreme command giving CPs?! I'm rewarded for bringing the entire chapter command to a skirmish?!) instead of being rewarded for filling out an entire detachment. Think of what it'd do for list building if instead of wanting 2 min battalions you got the same 10 CPs for maxing out all the slots in 1 battalion...

Though, either way, having CPs tied to number of unit slots filled punishes elite armies.

The problem with the IG command point farm is non Imperial armies have nothing close to as good AND some of us don’t want to play IG. It’s simply too good. Sure it’s great for ‘cp hungry’ armies but like I said it’s too good.

jcd386 wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

It feels like its better to embrace rather than fight, IMO.

That said, I do think the Aquila is ridiculous.

I can agree with that, which is kind of where I'm coming from here. I'd personally like to see a couple small changes to encourage more options by making more things viable, not less. I would hate to see imperial bisque disappear, and since I'm a fan of buffs over nerfs, I think that's the best way to go. Kurovs may need to be limited, but even something small like say, Scouts or tacticals being cheaper, would go pretty far for astartes armies trying to keep up on bodies for screening, etc. Not as effective at those two jobs, but they bring other strengths and they'll perhaps be strong enough to support a well rounded force. I guess in closing (since I think we'll have killed this topic at this point) I want more options for allies at a competitive level without feeling like I'm giving up so much power by not taking guard. Does that make sense?

I think we all generally agree here. The IG CP battery is a pretty low level problem to have, and I don't think fixing it at the cost of guard viability is the right solution.

That's why I'd much rather them redo the way CP are generated rather than make guard bad. Until then it is probably fine that everyone is playing 1820 + IG points.

I don't even think the change needs to be that hardcore - nerf both Grand Strategist and Kurov's Aquila. Then you start to bring IG because of their flavour of bodies and screening, not because that flavour happens to come with a ridiculous bonus.

If we just make other armies better at generating CP without addressing why guard is the best ally, then we won't start seeing more allies.

Back to DW, I'm thinking of plugging the anti-tank hole DW has with ranged options rather than the slamming BA style. Thinking some Raven Guard Devastators and scouts.

I haven't tried anything on the table yet, but in theory I sorta feel like it has to be DW+Devs? The problem I was having with my DW list ideas was I always had too much I wanted to drop in. Vets with SIA stormbolters and frag cannons or Intercessors+Aggressors are awesome to DS in, but then you need some anti-tank. Hellblasters with or even without Intercessors seem the obvious first to go, but you want them in rapid fire range ASAP. You can't DS/SftS everything, you hit the 50% power limit. If you have to pick half your army to start on the table, I feel like it has to be Devs. They're fine while starting short range anti-infantry loses impact.

Only other option I can think of is BA slam starting on the table, which is also CP hungry.

 Primark G wrote:
The problem with the IG command point farm is non Imperial armies have nothing close to as good AND some of us don’t want to play IG. It’s simply too good. Sure it’s great for ‘cp hungry’ armies but like I said it’s too good.

The only Xenos armies that can't push out a solid double BN army at 2k are Necrons. I have yet to face an Eldar player with fewer than 13 CP starting as rangers/kabalites are cheap and Eldar do not lack for good HQ choices.

Chaos also have no issues hitting 13 CP. Cultists are cheap and good. Demon Princes and Sorcerers are solid HQ choices that also actually do things on the battlefield. Yes, their plug and play CP Battalions cost more, but they are also far more useful than 32 T3 models with S3 guns.

Nids have access to GSC and Brood Brothers in addition to being able to field a min battalion organically for 260 points if they really wanted to.

Tau can get a min BN for 192 points, 234 if you want 30 kroot as scree s instead of 15 fire warriors. 297 for 30 fire warriors Dark Strider, and a fireblade.

Orks also can load up on CP since they're taking 6 mobs of 30 Boyz and at least 3 weird Boyz anyway.

That leaves Necrons for non Imperium armies that hurt for CP.

Only IG can constantly regenerate CP being able to roll for both their own and yours on a 5+. It doesn’t matter how many you start with it at the beginning.

 Primark G wrote:
Only IG can constantly regenerate CP being able to roll for both their own and yours on a 5+. It doesn’t matter how many you start with it at the beginning.

It's a 4 CP edge if an opponent starting with 12 CP only uses 1 CP strats the entire game. If they use mostly 2 CP strats it's an extra 1-3 CP per game. Considering you've likely had to pay a CP to unlock either an additional AM relic or a DW/Custodes/Whatever relic, you're netting an average of 0-3 CP per game.

Sure, you can potentially roll hot and double your CP pool, but it's not very likely. If Imperium soup sweeps BAO/Socal Open I'd be willing to change my opinion, but I'm not convinced the extra CP is actually translating to Imperium dominating. If anything, it feels like the guard CP battalion is the only thing keeping Imperium armies in the running for top tables.

Lol Imperium is arguably the strongest now. Four extra CP is almost equivalent to bringing another battalion - if you can’t see the obvious advantage there’s not much else to say. I’m sure it’ll be addressed.

RogueApiary wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
Only IG can constantly regenerate CP being able to roll for both their own and yours on a 5+. It doesn’t matter how many you start with it at the beginning.

It's a 4 CP edge if an opponent starting with 12 CP only uses 1 CP strats the entire game. If they use mostly 2 CP strats it's an extra 1-3 CP per game. Considering you've likely had to pay a CP to unlock either an additional AM relic or a DW/Custodes/Whatever relic, you're netting an average of 0-3 CP per game.

Sure, you can potentially roll hot and double your CP pool, but it's not very likely. If Imperium soup sweeps BAO/Socal Open I'd be willing to change my opinion, but I'm not convinced the extra CP is actually translating to Imperium dominating. If anything, it feels like the guard CP battalion is the only thing keeping Imperium armies in the running for top tables.

It's not about dominating - they're overly represented, and I think that's more than enough to see there's some internal balance issues in the Imperium regarding allies. Ad mech could bring a lot of the same great tools as a second battalion to elite Imperium forces like DW, but it's not worth giving up the CP regen.

Has anyone actually been arguing that the Aquila is fair or that Grand Strategist being better than the other refund options is either?

Can we just agree to agree on that one?

*group hug*

 LunarSol wrote:
Has anyone actually been arguing that the Aquila is fair or that Grand Strategist being better than the other refund options is either?

Can we just agree to agree on that one?

Definitely agreed. Those are the only things I personally want to see changed. I really like what they can bring as allies, and I think adding them to the more elite Imperium forces is really fluffy and cool. But in a DW sense, I'd like there to be some options in allies (or even better internal solutions) outside of guard to fill in my weaknesses in board coverage, screening, backfield objective camping, and anti-tank. Some of those weaknesses honestly shouldn't exist. They can and should have been handled internally, like how it's super lame that a force with access to the land raider would have issues with anti-tank. Alas, that unit isn't anywhere worth its current price, so DW is effectively gimped in AT.

Back to tactics - for those of you who have faced lots of transports, how have you handled it? Our mission tactics and doctrines don't apply to transports, so do you focus on gunning down the walking stuff then switch once the units in the metal boxes disembark? Or do you try and crack open the transports as soon as possible to get at the goodies inside on your terms?

Haven't had the pleasure to face this yet.

Razorbacks and Dreadnoughts aren't bad as anti-tank, particularly the latter since they benefit from most of the DW bonuses. I think to get really efficient you need FW Dreadnoughts, but the Missile Launcher is okay. I suppose I'm tearing open another point of contention there, but if someone can tell me the meaningful difference between a Mortis Dreadnought and TAC Razorback, I'd love to hear it.

 LunarSol wrote:
Razorbacks and Dreadnoughts aren't bad as anti-tank, particularly the latter since they benefit from most of the DW bonuses. I think to get really efficient you need FW Dreadnoughts, but the Missile Launcher is okay. I suppose I'm tearing open another point of contention there, but if someone can tell me the meaningful difference between a Mortis Dreadnought and TAC Razorback, I'd love to hear it.

Well I like that the mortis can take the twin auto cannons.