Monday, 29 February 2016

Episode 12.5: Postvasion - The Vasion

So, to ask you the same question I ask Mike each pod, how did you all enjoy the news? I thought so.

As promised, here is the second half of the same pod, which we have cheekily claimed as a point five episode. This instalment features the shenanigans from invasion, and also a run through of each of our games.

Intro - 00:00:30
Invasion review - 00:01:00
  • Round 1: Military Complex - 00:17:20
  • Game 2: Search and Control - 00:25:50
  • Game 3: Ground Control - 00:36:35
  • Game 4: Bunker Assault - 00:45:35
  • Game 5: Secure the Flanks - 00:59:15
Standings - 01:16:30
Army list Chat - 1:18:00
Outro - 01:27:15

All sounds effects used in the Orbital Bombardment Podcast are from


  1. Great cast! Thank you.

    Since I am biased; I have gotten the clarification regarding the transports and double squad at each Invasion. The intent has been perfectly clear; It is impossible to activate the transport or a squad without activating the other. That is, if you activate a squad the transport must activate. If you activate the transport the squad must activate. Both Simon and Dave were perfectly clear that for all purposes the transport and it's squad are to be activated at the same time - even with quick thinking. This gives the intended advantage that large transports becomes improved. For the Quick thinking card the transport also count as a "squad" so you can use this card on either squad or the transport to activate everything.

    But it becomes a bit strange with shared transports, infantry and where one squad is an aggressor in a CQB. When the occupier activates, the aggressor's squad becomes prematurely activated and thus the transport should be activated which I feel is rather strange...

    Thank you for listening in! Keep up the good work. I also feel I need to post my games faster so you can reference to them more :-)

  2. Thanks for the effort guys, always a 'fun' listen!

    Not sure about the destroyed ground transport thing, i'm pretty sure the objectives destroyed bit of the rulebook only suggests it happens to units being carried by aerial transports - which makes gates a bit of an oddity.

    My lifthawk / jacksons / sappers / sappers / fighters had it ruled only one squad, their jackson and the lifthawk if I wanted it in game 3 :(

    1. Was that for a quick thinking?
      If so that's awful inconsistency. If Eric can activate hunters, despoiled and reapers, then you should be able to activate all infantry squads, their transports and dropship.

      Personally I think it's bullshit. (dans favourite word) I think the card should only affect 1 squad and it's transport. If another squad is sharing then they have to wait. It's a a decision you'd have to make as quick thinking is a tremendous card

    2. Yeah it was a quick thinking - that paragraph doesn't make much sense without that tiny bit of context! :p

      I was pretty convinced the living rules had it down as everything activates - but we asked to clarify as both squads of sappers were going to drop a building some firstborns were abandoning - and it was ruled as one squad, its transport and optionally its transport's transport, but not any squads linked to it with even the suggestion that I might not want to activate the Hawk if it wants to grab the other jacksons later.

    3. I also think it is strange. In the FAQ it is very clear you can activate both squads on board. And it becomes strange if you have one squad on the board and another in transport. You use the card on the squad on the table and then activate the transport at the same time but the squad inside can then be used as a dead activation?

      I do think that many times will the Quick thinking card be much more powerful if you also can keep one of your squads connected to the big transport left giving you 7 activations. I do prefer you can activate the transport and it's connected squads as they activate at the same time.

    4. Whether I agree or disagree with the ruling, it should at least be consistent across the same tournament.

    5. Absolutely! :-) It is always better with agreed rules you might not like 100% than non agreed rules one party likes. If it is judged that Quick thinking should not work for all squads connected to the transport - so be it. Then we know. /Egge

    6. It might be an issue with the rules for shared transports, rather than the cards. All it needs is a paragraph that says something like 'For the purposes of playing cards, a squad is identified as one choice (and its transport) within a battlegroup.' It means you can't activate a standard and support, or 2 infantry, etc.

  3. Ah! That´s explain the broken chair-picture!

    I'm totally with you about the Search and Control-mission! I mentioned it in my blog post about Invasion.

    We Swedes have discuss the Quick Thinking-card at the beginning of our DzC era and we have come to the conclusion just as Erik played it. I played it on my Fighters Lifthawk the last game (you can also read about that in my blog post). We just considered that card as the most powerful card in the deck. But maybe the Hawk Team must take a closer look at it...

    1. Yeah, any ambiguity should be clarified. It is a very powerful card even if te ruling would be "Swuad not in a transport and not the transport" thus eliminating the whole transport issue. Sure it would not be as powerful as now, but the chance to shoot and take cover as a reaction to an activiation is very powerful in itself.

    2. True. But to me dave was pretty clear that one of the purposes with the card is that big transports should have this advantage. It is just a bit irritating they can't be clear about it in the faq. /egge

  4. Great podcast, Lads! Sorry I'm so late to the party, but the new job has me working 10 hour days and traveling to Chicago Monday thru Friday. I barely have time to see my wife and check the forum, but you outdid yourselves with these last two linked casts. Lots of laughing points.

    There's lots of stuff I was going to comment on, but I've got 3 Dewars in me now and I need to get up early, so not as much as I would've liked (or can remember from the first half I listened to last night).

    @Dan: First, the new Recon+++ rocks. Stop being a little bitch. Second, with your dice ranting antics and then still winning that game, you are EXACTLY like my very good friend Aaron. Most people won't play him any more because he gets so pissed when his dice don't "roll average" and then still ends up winning. I will still play vs him because he is my friend, and for that reason I hope to one day play vs you because I know exactly how to deal with/handle you. In the meantime -- stop being a little bitch. (Love you, Dan!)

    @Mike: Definitely play Scourge at the next tournament! You've made a point with UCM a, so now do it with Scourge. This is your challenge!

    @Ed: Thank you for still playing PHR, although I understand where you're coming from in terms of "The Spam Army". Double Medusa and Double Valkyries is just sooooo good -- a little too good? A lot of my mates here think so, and they play PHR, too. I rocked it at the LVO with mine (see how I got that in here?), but now I feel like I need to give everyone a break from having to face them. I tried using Resistance in our last tournament, but I got poned by Major Awesome and his Shametari in the last of three games, so now I'm thinking of trying UCM and following Mike's example. Need to get my Hazard Suits built...

    @Joe: I used almost your exact list at our last tourney a few weeks ago, and it did well until my last game (see above), but it just feels too easy with Resistance. Dunno. Double Pathfinders worked out for me, but I think I'm going to take the high road and work on my UCM. I've got more of them painted, so it would be less work to get them all done up nicely, and as I mentioned, my hobby time has been severely curtailed. And then Dropfleet is looming...

    @Bethany: Sorry, Alex, but I got so used to hearing you called Bethany that I couldn't resist. I applaud your attitude towards the game and these events. My mantra is, "I love my job, but a bad day of gaming beats a good day of work every time!" I live by that mantra, and you embody it. Cheers for that.

    And now, I must go to the 24 hour Target next to my hotel and see if I can buy a pineapple in Pete's honor. (Or, just pour myself another Dewars and read the other OB articles that I'm behind on... Yeah, the latter!)

    Cheers! 8^D

    1. Recon ++++!!!!!+++!+!++ is great for casual, I even say that. The fact the dice have the potential to throw out such unbalance means it is not fit for tournaments. It's just a fact.

      Also, I can't help being a little bitch. It's only for about 5% of some games; for the rest of them I'm one charming mutha fucka ;)

    2. For the LVO Simon changed Secure and Control so that you always scored a VP, no matter what you rolled, and if you rolled a 1 the other guy could still search, but if you rolled a 6 it turned into a FP and only you scored that VP for finding it. Can't remember how you guys played it at Invasion, but it got tweaked a little. I think with that tweak it's perfectly fine for tournament play; maybe it's just you playing that scenario that's the problem, just like I can't get Bunker Assault to go my way but you chaps all seem to love it...

      I will say that having the potential for a late game search to turn up a Focal Point makes for some tense moments, as you probably want the VP from searching but you also probably don't want that intel to turn into a FP in your opponent's backfield. I know that was the case for me at the LVO.., In my game, no FPs turned up, which is just as well, as either of us would've just demoed the shit out of wherever one turned up... Lots of rubble in our game...

    3. It's not that I don't know how to play Recon, I've played and won it a bunch of times, it just still doesn't sit well. There are some comments on the Sweedish blog that it is the beat tourney mission, which is complete madness.

      The beauty of opnion is that we don't have to agree. I'm just very opinionated with Recon (none of this secure and control nonsense) and I can't ever see my mind changing. It doesn't work for competitive play.