Much like busses our podcasts are large, sweaty and un-apologetically uncomfortable. That, and they also come in two's. Yesyesyes, it is time to revel in the audio musings of the OB gang once more, and this time round we will be answering some of the questions you have asked in our brand new segment; Permission To Speak Freely!
Ed and Joe also chinwag about their recent(ish) visit to Firestorm Games in Cardiff, where they took part in a tourney, but more importantly engaged the Hawk Wargames team in what is now on writing of this intro known as the Super Wales Challenge Cup 2000!
We would like PTSF to become a bi-regular segment, so if you have any questions at all, from how to make custard to tips in stopping Hazard Suits doing their thang, either comment, email (obteamdzc@gmail.com) or tweet (@OBDZC) us!
00:00:00 Intros
00:03:10 WAYPA?! The Cardiff Edition
00:28:00 Permission to Speak Freely
All sounds effects used in the Orbital Bombardment Podcast are from http://www.freesfx.co.uk
Your discussion about blasts and buildings. Do blasts really hit buildings? I've generally played it that way (depending on opponents thoughts..), but the rulebook only states "vehicles and infantry under the template".
ReplyDelete/shrug
As far as I remember, if a blast clips a building - either from a placement or a scatter it will affect it as normal.
DeleteAww mate, you said my name wrong. (It's ok, everyone does) but I am surprised that you like the Neptune as it is. QOL= Quality of Life, and just figured Sirens and Immortals are in a pretty good spot, but could use small tweaks for certain things, given point costs (like DF for sirens, and something about falling masonry with immortals).
ReplyDeleteI just was considering the AA upgrade idea for neptunes, as the PHR faction currently really has no options for minor AA pickups, or incidental AA options. Pretty much all other factions have some more flexibility in AA choices, while PHR pretty much have to shell out a full 160 points for AA. (-ish, obviously list building can include walk on Phobos and the like, but they can be of dubious effectiveness)
I don't think PHR are in a bad spot, necessarily, just that list building can be a bit restrictive in a few specific areas, and that certain units could probably benefit from updating with the rules that came out since they were initially released.
Just some thoughts as I try to cram together lists at 1500 points and notice the number of gunships that are releasing in this wave; it may be time the PHR got a minor AA unit, like other factions have. (Janus is just not good enough to be playable, compared to things like minders/wolverines/Lifthawk upgrades/ferrum drones/shaltaribricks/etc) Again, I make it work, but certainly was just considering it as a relatively easy way for Hawk to open up new potential for list building with PHR. Something like neptunes dipping to 35 pts, then having a 15pt upgrade that adds AA to the stealth missile statline, making it like a Janus. Heck, maybe even raise acc to 4+, just that it would be an interesting option for PHR commanders with 20-30 pts left over, looking to add a little more flexibility to their AA options.
I mentioned the tweak to immortals because I had talked to Simon and he said Hawk had no intention of changing the falling masonry rule.
DeleteWe've brought up changing the strength of falling masonry with Hawk, but they can be rather hard headed sometimes. A tweak to E5 gives Immortals a little boost and keeps everything else in check, but there you go. Immortals are still very good, but they're in that weird bracket of not being as good as all the other options available.
DeleteIn regards to AA, the foundation and theme of a PHR army is built on having big, chunky, and sleak units. Adding upgrades in the same style as a Resistance army takes away some of that theme, as thet would begin to be a little less 'standardised' in a sense.
Besides, you have the best AA unit in the game! I'd give Joe's right testicle (I'm attached to mine) for Helios in a Scourge army!
Apologies about the name, I suggest either changing it or adding the phonetic pronunciation. I would veer towards changing it though. Oo change it to 'Terry Tiramasu'!
In regards to the Phobos, I think the reason people "still take them" (as stated in the Podcast) is that they kinda have to. You have to fill that standard slot with SOMETHING. And, of those three current choices, the AA option is most useful. Really, the main rule book units are just a way to unlock the support units, anymore. I also noticed "the best AA unit in the game," above, was not the Phobos. It really needs to cost less (or get a rules tweak to justify 63 points).
DeleteAn AA option on the Neptune would be great, too.
You so crazy, the Phobos is great! I know Ed tends to take 2 in his tournament lists, and not just because they unlock the standard choice for him. The Phobos is a fantastic backboard defender and will deter fast movers and gunships from getting too close. The Helios are only the best because of the phenomenal AT they wield, and also the splitting of shots.
DeleteI do agree that the rulebook units feel a little dated, but that was bound to happen over time. They are 2 and a half years old now after all.
I'm not saying they are bad... I just think that 63 points when compared to a unit like the Cyclone, seems a bit much. Considering the capability a Cyclone has, a Phobos is very expensive for a unit that only does one thing, albeit, it does it very well.
DeleteI generally agree that the Phobos is just a little too expensive for the stats, (In my opinion of course) as it trades lethality for range. (only 6 shots per unit, compared to 9 for the closest comparison unit)
DeleteAnyway, one possibility might be having some sort of AA/targeting drone/remote walker that could be attached to either a command squad or walker squad that would be deployed on landing and could provide support. It would be very thematically PHR, and could function similarly to vampires, being tacked onto an existing unit and providing a small boost to the efficiency of the unit without too much extra cost.
Hey, guys. Sorry I didn't ask a question, will work on that. Life has been crazy busy, and kinda sucky, so my creative juices are not flowing well these days. Good podcast, tho.
ReplyDeleteHere's a question for you: Have you tried our Battlefront scenario yet? Be sure you read all the posts in the topic on the forum to get the latest rules. Try it, you'll like it!
Your Original Superfan,
J.D.
8^D
SupersuperJDWelch, I don't think any of us have tried it yet. The next time I get 1500pts to the table I'll give it a whirl!
DeleteAwesome! Thanks! I look forward to hearing your feedback about it.
DeleteI think I need to make an apology to all listeners. All crockery, cutlery and rustling sounds are me dishing up the Kebabs. Probably should have paused recording whilst doing so.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I can't apologise for is Dan......... he is always that way ;)
I agree, your pod etiquette was shambolic.
DeleteAnd never apologise for me! I am exactly as the god of many tentacles designed me.
Poorly written question from my side. Well understood from your side. A good and interesting answer.
ReplyDeleteI think that most people have played target's of opportunities as first DZC mission and thought "wow this is nothing like 40k!" in a positive way. But the development is clearly into a more 40k-style missions with holding stuff at the end. Together with the more focus on killing stuff that "hold things at the end" missions tend to show I think it is interesting to see an even more development into holding points with critical locations.
I think there are more ways to use objectives in combination with bunkers and so on but you guys discussed that as well.
Good post - thank you.
/Egge
It was a good question. I kind of wish I had more time to think about it. Dan was the only one who saw the questions beforehand. So all our answers are off the top of our heads
DeleteI agree some more interesting missions using objectives would be good
Critical Locations are really interesting in that you don't just score on them at the end of the game. At the LVO one of the 2,500 point scenarios had CLs that you scored on every turn starting with Turn 2. That might be a bit extreme, but it was tempered by the 3" diameter scoring range somewhat. Yes, it became something of a kill mission, but this is a wargame, after all. It really encourages the use of dropships (mobility, mobility, mobility!), and who actually scored each turn coups swing quite a bit.
DeleteIt's why we created the Battlefront scenario (which came out months before Critical Locations from hawk made their debut) so that you score at the end of Turns 2, 4 and 6, but the "focal points" move 12" directly away from the player who controlled them after scoring, so it becomes a very fluid game that requires planning ahead -- If I let my opponent control that FP after Turn 2, it'll move towards me and my guys, but it'll cost me a VP... Hmmmm...
Anyway, not to belabor that point, but I don't see the game getting MORE like 40K, quite the opposite...
(Sorry, 3" a radius around a CL, not diameter... Sheesh!)
DeleteThe Battlefront will be very interesting but the critical locations are in my opinion a clear movement away from Target of opportunities way where it is better to move than to kill where focal points and critical points are much more focused on just slugging it out. It is going to be interesting to see. At the same time missions like "Take and extract" might be much better with a critical location in the middle instead of a focal point forcing people to take dropships to reach the middle in time. So I should absolutely not say I am certain how it will be. :-)
Delete/Egge
I had universally terrible experiences with CLs. I think they punish Scourge and air UCM horribly, and can lead to extremely lopsided results. I don't think any mission should reliably lead to the kind of point differentials I've seen Critical Locations put up.
DeleteAt the last tournament where I saw it, there were 2-3 20-0s on that mission, and that is something that absolutely shouldn't be happening. They should probably score on turns 3 and 6, and be contestable.
At least, that's just my opinion, but so far I've been extremely leery of them, similar to my distaste toward ground control and other grimdark style missions which neglect one of the most unique aspects of Dropzone; the total removal of objectives/intel should be avoided in my opinion. That said, refining the intel mission by limiting variance is also pretty important, and my friend and I have started playing where a 6 just scores the intel, with no additional effect. It leads to much closer and more tactical games.