Monday, 21 November 2016

OB Podcast Episode 18: Emotional Gunship

Boy oh boy, have we been flooding out the digital content lately. It's seeping out of all our orifices, forming a visual and sonic soup that's just delicious to lap up, if not just a tad salty. Yumyumyum.

All the lads (including Squeekmaster Joe this time) gather in OB Towers to ruin Dan's intro, make the most of what little news we have to share (as of 2 weeks ago) and discuss what changes we would consider making were a DzC 2.0 to drop!

00;00;10 - Intro
00;03;20 - News
00;13;50 - Discussion Zone
00;14;00 - Discussion Zone 2.0 - DzC 2.0, OB stylz

All sounds effects used in the Orbital Bombardment Podcast are from


  1. A few thoughts on the ideas. I don't like the idea of including points For transports. All I think you need is a rule for which units can drive on and all the rest have to be air units. That also saves all issues with points scoring and then 'upgrading transports' with troops etc.

    I also agree with Mike about tailoring battle groups more. The idea of having Air groups alongside standards in UCM gave me happy 'unable to stand up' feelings. Whilst on fast movers just removing the attack run roll should help a lot. Still think it needs something else but who knows what.

    Love mikes objective idea of not being able to do anything else but search and also having a number of successes to achieve. Although I think you should be able to pass off to another infantry unit who hasn't searched in the building. Gives that turn 5 hope of 1 unit searching and another standing by in the building just to extract.

    Also I agree cards need a new deck for factions.


  2. Good podcast chaps with an interesting debate. On the point of having a number of successes to achieve to find an objective in a building. Would this discourage people from taking more specialised infantry like Mortar or Flak teams given you can only fit two bases in a Bear as opposed to 3 bases of Legionnaires?

    I agree with Adrian that you should have some way to pass off an objective on the round it's found. In my opinion needing an extra turn can lead to a game feeling like it's finished a turn early.

    I quite like Mike's idea about placing a fast mover on the board edge at the end of the round. However, how would you integrate that with attempting to intercept another fast mover? Would you treat it like AA and say if your fast mover hasn't gone yet it can attempt to intercept another but will be subject to any other AA it passes?

    Thanks again, Chris Sprules

  3. Nice podcast, guys. Good discussion. Felt like you had more to say, tho... Maybe an Episode 18.5, where you go into the other bullet points that had to be left out?...

    1. I had soooooooooo much more to say. It's a shame we ran out of time to go over everything, but then it's just my opinion, it may not be right/good - just ideas and thoughts.

  4. Falling masonry needs to be toned down (I'd have it only happen on 6+ in large buildings, 5+ for Med, and 4+ for Small and no bonus for half DP)

    Demo is out of control (Raise building armor to 8 and all weapons aside from Demo weapons can only do 1DP max. I think this is what you guys were getting at, anyway)

    Focus Fire needs a limit value (you guys discussed this and it's a GREAT idea)

    FMs need to be useful...
    * I'd delete the Attack Run roll, too, just like you guys said.
    * change the Reserves Roll to 6+ first turn and 3+ second turn and auto on third
    * And treat the FM mini-game sorta like a Focal Point. Whichever side scores any kills using their FM gets 1 VP, and whoever scores the most KP using their FMs gets a bonus VP.

    Absolutely the CQB mini-game needs clarification with pics!

    I'd also like to see commanders be able to have the Scout ability, too. Never understood why they can't call in artillery. This would also maybe give players a reason to move commanders FORWARD and expose them to fire more often. And, there might be more of a reason for multiple commanders.

  5. Interesting idea about the scout, i like it. My only fear would be that you would take a cheap commander over a unit of scouts???. and with current rules set the commander is a scout or is it the vehicle. Because you can stick a commander in anything, and scouts just need line of sight not range for the spotting of artillery

    1. I would think non-command vehicles would not have the equipment to efficiently scout... I guess. IDK, I was just throwing ideas out there!

  6. I really liked it. I love to think about the next gen DZC.

    For the FM I am really restrictive. I think that removing the availability roll might work but as you said, place the model on the table when available from the reserves or after an attack run and if entering through that point you do not roll for it. With the exception you also get from forward observers I think you have two ways removing the availability roll. If the FM gets to powerful it will be the most boring mechanic ever.

    Making buildings tougher to destroy I think works well with just forcing people to take the dropships always. I also think that all units need to roll a 4+ to enter turn one if they want to shoot. Exception being transports. If you do not want to shoot then you can enter turn 1.

    I really liked the idea of having each unit searching a building at a 4+ level. Say a building need 1 + (1 per 10DP it has). That means a small need 2 success. Medium 3 and large 4. For a squad of two units it means a 25% chance of finding the objective first search. For a medium building it average 3 turns (2 turns today) and for a large building 4 turns (average 3 turns today).

    Bur for a squad of three you keep the 50% chance of finding the objective in a small building. 2 turns for a medium building and 50% chance of finding it in three turns but a possibility of finding the objective in 2 turns (although some 6 or 7%). It really makes a good difference.

    For the missions I agree that the balance between the amount of mission points available is really tough. 5 Critical points gives some 25 points in a game. Focal points at max 15 if given to both players...

    Thanks for the podcast!

  7. Coming late to this, but a realy interesting discussion zone.

    My thoughts:

    Army lists: I'd to see more types. I like that standard lists should be entirely dropship mounted. I'd like an alternative 'deployed' list (or perhaps 'defender' list). Not every battle in the DZC universe is a 'first contact' between special forces. Some are grinding battles that go on and on. So there ought to be an option to pick a list which is 80% deployed on the board at the start of the game, with only a few dropships / fast movers in support.

    Victory Points: I haven't read the Dropfleet rules yet, so this might be what you were saying is already done there, but you _could_ have it that a 'VP rating' was added to the core stat line for working out Focal Points (and comparing kill points). So a Hunter tank could contribute a single 'presence point' when working out control of a focal point, vs. 2 points for a Stalker or 10 points for an oppressor. This would have the added advantage of making calculating these things simpler and faster - very useful in a tournament setting.

    CQB: Rather than have a table showing how many dice you roll for each unit, you could incorporate it into the infantry statline. So an Eviscerator statline would have a wound/dice 'stat' of 18/12/6. As you crossed out wounds you would see instantly how many dice you had left to roll in CQB.

    Searching for Objectives: I like Mike's suggestion a lot. It's very simple, and would remove that feeling of being penalised by your opponent's good luck (if they roll a first turn 6) or like you're wasting turns with your own bad luck (still failing to find anything after 4 turns). Obviously there would still be a role for good and bad luck, but I like the predictability and, more importantly, the feeling that you can see progress.

    I don't like the idea of objectives surviving the destruction of a building. Not much of value would survive such an occurence and it removes one of the reasons for attacking buildings - not for fluff reasons but for game balance reasons.

    I do however like the idea of using more terrain and different kinds - and having specific rules for placing objectives in other kinds of terrain and searching. It would be fine to have an objective placed in rubble at the start of the game representing something that's been hidden there rather than a computer that miraculously survived the collapse).

    My final 'one last point' would be that I'd like to see ALL of the unit stats looked at again from a fluff perspective. It would be a large amount of work, but I think the game would benefit. I'm mainly thinking of the Resistance here: whether or not they're balance, I just don't think the way they plays matches the fluff. It makes no sense that guys on bikes are much harder to hit than specialist military hover tanks. Or that trucks have more hit points than main battle tanks. There are units in other armies that would benefit from a rethink, but basically I'd like a new look at the whole model range to bring everything into line with the fluff - and then with each other.