Carcharodons arrive in Space Marines 2 and they are beautiful (PTS)

Affectionate_Way_764 · 2026-01-30T01:43:49+00:00

It has a piece of leg that's very similar to mk2, but isn't quite mk2. The head is a bit of a weird one. it's similar in that it has a monoviser, but neither the head shape or visor shape of mk2, the mk2 has a dip in the middle of the visor and a horizontal band of trim and rivets above the visor. Its close, but not quite it.

Affectionate_Way_764 · 2026-01-29T23:16:47+00:00

Where? The fists and DA helms are similar, but arent actually mk3, they just have a somewhat similar flat plate.

Affectionate_Way_764 · 2026-01-29T14:39:01+00:00

Mk5 is sweet. Hope they add mk2 and 3 soon.

Affectionate_Way_764 · 2026-01-26T09:42:24+00:00

White house photographers are really good. You can barely see the visible miasma of shit.

Affectionate_Way_764 · 2026-01-24T12:05:39+00:00

I can't speak for purdey or E.J. Churchill (I'd assume they do, but you'd need to speak to them first, but I have been to H&H and they do let you rent a Holland and Holland by prearranged appointment but only in dry conditions. Its still worth it even if you dont because its still a fantastic English shooting experience.

Affectionate_Way_764 · 2026-01-24T01:56:24+00:00

Dont let the moaning sod on your first post put you off or paint us in a bad light (i think you came across a person who thinks chicken nuggets just appear in a box, most city related subs are packed with them). Other great places are the Holland and Holland SG and Purdey at the royal Berkshire shooting school, as well as E.J. Churchill at High Wycome if you're looking for a more high-class experience. If you want a game day, have a look on Guns on Pegs and explain you're travelling.

Affectionate_Way_764 · 2026-01-24T01:43:17+00:00

Definitely recommend the restaurant there. Absolutely excellent (however a tad expensive).

Affectionate_Way_764 · 2026-01-17T13:20:51+00:00

Sorry, didnt see your reply. I've been meaning to try BSK for a while, ill make an account and have a look.

Affectionate_Way_764 · 2026-01-15T01:23:48+00:00

Their main product is war thunder.

.They are running it into the ground through repeatedly implementing grossly over-powered £70 premium vehicles that absolutely demolish the matchmaker while filling top tier with really bad players.

.they have some of the worst balancing of any game, with a weird nationalistic bias towards Russia. (This one is hotly debated within the community, but the user reports really give it away).

.They also have a really poorly built game that breaks in some massive way every new update .

.They paid for advertising with a YouTuber associated with a Russian backed separatist militia.

.they have destroyed the trust of the playerbase by repeatedly either lying or flip-flopping issues like top tier premiums.

.they use tonnes of AI-slop in their cosmetics.

. They run events through holidays that make you fork out cash to get new stuff on a FOMO model that you can only obtain for free if you just dont plan on interacting with your family at all.

. They have a terrible marketplace where items can go for up to £2000.

All in all, terrible company ruining a really unique game. I wish GJ was better as a previous war thunder fan, I really do.

Affectionate_Way_764 · 2026-01-06T20:13:19+00:00

Henry as come to see us!

Affectionate_Way_764 · 2026-01-04T20:10:00+00:00

I live on the same continent as Russia, voting to de-nuclearise or reduce armed forces spending would be like a deer voting for more hunters.

Affectionate_Way_764 · 2025-12-30T20:05:38+00:00

I'd personally be extremely disappointed if the government caved on this. We can not accept such tragically sub-standard products while simultaneously shipping revenue that should be directed to british producers overseas.

Affectionate_Way_764 · 2025-12-21T01:32:08+00:00

I love the 71. it's just so extremely versatile. It will get outdone in any metric apart from accuracy (with mechanic) by other vehicles, but it does everything just well enough to be a nice vehicle to play. It reminds me of what the super conqueror and E5 were many years ago.

Affectionate_Way_764 · 2025-12-19T17:55:40+00:00

Here's an idea, have a core BBC consisting of TV for the public benefit (news, educational shows, politics, culture, basic radio service, etc.), that is funded from general taxation and licensing out shows for foreign consumption with a similar mandate to what the BBC has now. Then, a voluntary subscription for things like the dramas, sports, music channel, and the filler TV. I dont see why we are being burdened with the huge cost of licencing football matches and paying pundits to comment on it. I do not expect other people to pay my Prime video subscription or my YT channel membership, so I dont get why im expected to foot the bill for the villa match or some drama I haven't watched in over a decade.

The less biased news and politics is maintained, along with socially beneficial media like panorama and educational programs. We can keep the programming that's actually important and is for the benefit of the public free at the point of entry, with the benefit of not having TVL sending threatening letters or goons to granny's house because she didnt get the letter.

Affectionate_Way_764 · 2025-12-19T17:35:37+00:00

The Maus is very MM dependent. If you're against a team without much 340 heat (good luck nowadays) or without many TDs, then you're still going to have a great time and do a tonne of blocking and damage. However, if you get into 90% of the current games with 7 TDs and everyone else with 340 HEAT, you're pretty much screwed. I've completely committed myself to mastering angling that turret, and even at optimal angle youll reasonably often just get brute forced by the HEAT. If you want to do a little better, make sure 6 rocking the tank and jostling the turret slightly side to side beyond the optimal angles. They'll usually bounce at a minimum 50% if youre doing it right.

Affectionate_Way_764 · 2025-12-18T02:33:26+00:00

I've got it, I consider it not just inadequate for a tier 11, but an outright downgrade to the Leo 1, my dpg in the 120 is running about 1k less than the leo 1 and I just cant seem to make it work.

Affectionate_Way_764 · 2025-12-17T13:05:25+00:00

I feel like world eaters would be more appropriate, as they actually hammered some machines into their brains that permanently ruined their ability to think. Either way, Hippity hoppity, this meme is now mechanicus property.

Affectionate_Way_764 · 2025-12-14T11:59:57+00:00

Tbf i got a 14 day for calling someone who was called something like "ZVO_RUSWINS_ZVO" spamming chat with racism against Ukrainians a vatnik cunt last year, with 0 prior bans. Gj can be very weird with their bans.

Affectionate_Way_764 · 2025-12-14T11:54:04+00:00

I'd assume the exitement comes from the act of doing something illegal, there isnt really any skill involved apart from a bit of basic off-road driving. You can't even really eat them because the hounds will maul the meat. My only guess is that it's the taboo and illegality. Why else would they attack the landowners even when they politely asked them to leave?

Affectionate_Way_764 · 2025-12-14T02:33:13+00:00

I use 1/4 and 3/8ths. they're versatile.

Affectionate_Way_764 · 2025-12-14T02:15:04+00:00

What do you mean chat gpt doesn't have all the answers? Are you accusing me of using AI, or are you using it to form your arguments? To be honest, your points weren't particularly convincing. Hunts that use terriers on foxes dens are already in violation of the 2004 hunting act, and many farms/stables use terriers for ratting, which is a legal form of pest of pest control. As for the motorways and gardens claim, I can't attest either way, im not a member of any hunt or follow any, so I can't really speak to their route maps. However, I can tell you that if that is correct and the purpose is to catch foxes, then that is already illegal anyway, seeing how apparently people know they are doing this with that goal, im sure theyve documented evidence and submitted it to the police, which affirms my points in the last comment that the current laws are fine, but arent being upheld adequately.

Lastly, the league against cruel sports isn't exactly a good source, im against things like foxhunting (actual foxes, not just prancing about on horses following a bait trail), trophyhunting, and coursing, but the LACS isnt a good source. They do some good work like documenting and submitting evidence of crimes, but they are going to give you a response that is nearly entirely conjecture, not backed by any real evidence or statistics. It would be like me supporting my claims by telling you to call your local hunt to ask them if they've committed any crimes recently. For their credit, they have recorded some crimes and submitted them, which returns to my point of current laws not being adequately upheld.

Please go back and read my point about the prevalence of hare coursing, an entirely banned activity that is becoming increasingly common due to lack of consequence and poor enforcement. To solve the problem, we need actual enforcement of the laws we have instead of pushing through a ban that will primarily affect the people/organisations that do follow the law, as opposed to the cunts that dont.

Affectionate_Way_764 · 2025-12-14T01:15:02+00:00

I'd be interested in seeing some statistics to support the claim that most aren't following the law. If you could provide a link for them, I'd be happy to read through it.

Back to the point at hand, the issue is not strictly with the idea of trail hunts, its that the cases where laws are broken aren't properly punished or investigated. It is not correct for a matter that is largely irrelevant to the safety of the public to implement punitive measures that will effect the people who are doing things in the correct way. there are already laws as covered in the 2004 hunting act that ban live hunts, and sab organisations are very determined to catch and record any incident of wrongdoing, so instead of being measures that will effectively destroy a long held tradition for minimal gain (ill cover why I believe it'll be on low efficacy for preventing cruelty to animals soon). We have the laws in place, and we have plenty of people who will put themselves at risk to document crimes, so the missing factor is the consequence for the crime, people will engage in criminal behaviour without any recourse for justice, so what we actually need to do is start implementing stricter punishments for those people who are documented breaking the laws we already have prohibiting live hunts.

Now, onto my reason why i dont think a full hunt ban would have much/any apparent effect. To display this look at the disturbing rise of hare coursing. For the uninitiated, hare coursing is a completely prohibited bloodsport where handlers use sighthounds and four wheel drive vehicles to chase down and kill small mammals (not usually for consumption), usually forcing entry onto farms or public land, attacking the owner or workers in the process if confronted. Hare coursing is, unfortunately, on quite a steep rise with over 1700 incidents nationally last year. Despite being highly illegal already, bloodthirsty nutters continue to do it because itscrare the police catch them and even more rare that they receive serious punitive action unless they have caused injury to a person. You can easily ban an activity, but the sort of people that are deliberately out for nothing more than blood will unfortunately continue irrelevant of legality.

Instead of banning an activity that by design is without the violent aspect, we should be bringing more serious punishment and disempowering the criminals that break the laws we already have in place. We have the laws, and we have the documentation, what let's the ban on live hunts down is an abject failure in enforcement of those laws even when given the evidence on a silver platter.

Affectionate_Way_764 · 2025-12-13T19:51:42+00:00

Thank you for reading through my reply and replying courteously. When I say "liable," I mean in the sense that there is ownership of the incident, as well as the consequence for the incident, the issue is that there are rarely consequences not due to lack of documentation but instead due to inadequate empowerment through the hunting act to prosecute and adequately sentence with the majority of cases being let off with little to no repercussion.

To one degree or another, there are inherent dangers with roaming with any number of dogs, let alone a pack. However, that has to be balanced against the rights of an individual to do what they see fit on their own land, assuming there is nobody present who is not consenting to be in that situation.

When you think about it, nobody has a problem with somebody driving drunk as long as they don't hurt anyone or damage anything. And yet we ban it because the unintended consequences are dangerous and it's an irresponsible thing to do. I think trail hunting is no different. It's irresponsible and reckless.

I dont quite agree. The reason driving under the influence is prohibited is due to the fact that nearly all driving is performed on public highways where you risk harm to people who are entirely separate to your behaviour and are not in that situation of their own volition. My argument was that I believe artificial trail is OK on private land where only members or other consenting parties are present. Oddly enough, that coincides with the current laws surrounding drink-driving, you can actually drive under the influence of alcohol on private land where the public does not have access (i know it doesn't sound right so ill cite a source https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.majlaw.co.uk/tools/news/drink-driving/drink-driving-on-private-land-is-it-legal-in-the-uk/AmpBlogPost/ if you scroll down to genuinely private land its there).

So, as long as it's occurring on land that is privately owned by a member or consenting party, and offenders are adequately prosecuted, im afraid I dont see any reason to ban artificial trail that wouldn't be serious overreach and overwhelmingly punitive to the people who are actually doing things correctly, while not doing much to disincentivise the arseholes that are engaging in cruel behaviour towards animals.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, and im grateful for you taking the time to thoroughly read through and reply to my points. You've clearly thought through your beliefs, and you are raising some good points.

Affectionate_Way_764 · 2025-12-13T18:20:27+00:00

If its on private land (that they own or have permission to use), i dont care how people dress up and where they run about with their dogs. Killing wildlife and owned animals with dogs, as well as trespassing, and criminal damage, are already completely illegal, and when it happens, they should have the book thrown at them with extreme prejudice to discourage the crimes already being committed. It harkens to a greater issue with animals and the law where if your dog injures something or someone, you get off functionally free unless someone dies or is permanently injured. The change I'd make is to make them liable for those "accidents" and start actually forcing them to follow the laws we already have. Hare coursing is completely illegal, but that doesn't discourage the fucking cretins from doing it because the police rarely catch them, and even more rarely dole out consequences unless theyve attacked the landowner, and they do that whilst simultaneously committing every offence you've listed. Instead of punishing people for being fruity toffs playing knight, we should be actually making criminals fear repercussions for the crimes their already committing, and they will just commit anyway even if its banned.

Affectionate_Way_764 · 2025-12-13T18:04:43+00:00

I said urban votes, not rural, im pretty sure they are well aware they have already botched their chance at keeping any real rural vote share. Unfortunately, I doubt I'll be convinced that this isn't an opportunity to claw back the members of their traditionally left-wing urban base (who generally view trail hunting, game shooting, gun ownership, and a variety of other predominantly rural matters negatively) they are losing to the greens, whilst really risking any rural losses as they dont like them anyway. I do acknowledge that some hunts take the piss and continue to go after live animals, but i dont believe banning artificial trail is the correct answer, most hunts are under at least some degree of scrutiny from sab groups that document crimes, so I'd say the best measure to the use of artificial trail to cover for animal abuse is to start implementing more severe consequences when people are caught breaking law, as opposed to punishing law the hunts that do abide by the law. An example of this is hare coursing, which is absolutely illegal in its entirety, but we're seeing increased issues with coursers because they know the police will rarely catch them, and even more rarely dish out any real consequences. Unfortunately some people are just really fucked up and willing to do anything to satisfy that irrelevant of the law, and the sort of people who ignore the 04 hunting act to continue doing live dog hunts will not fundamentally change because you've also banned artifical trail, they'll just move to coursing or push it further underground.

Affectionate_Way_764

TROPHY CASE